Cosmology of the Electric Universe

[Native]

Subject: Atmospheric Pressure and Newton´s "Inductive Reasoning".

The weight of the atmosphere is estimated to be about 5.75 quadrillion (5,750,000,000,000,000) tons. Air pressure is the "push" of the atmosphere on the Earth's surface. It is the force exerted by the atmosphere per unit area.

Me: Now THAT is something of a force on the Earth! And it even obeys the same laws as Newton´s assumed g-gravity.

Sir Isaac Newton PRS (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726/27[a]) was an English mathematician, physicist, astronomer, theologian, and author (described in his time as a "natural philosopher") who is widely recognised as one of the most influential scientists of all time and as a key figure in the scientific revolution. This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called inductive reasoning.

Subject: "Inductive reasoning":
"Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence, but not full assurance, of the truth of the conclusion. It is also described as a method where one's experiences and observations, including what are learned from others, are synthesized to come up with a general truth".

The only "truth" Newton found is what he "learned from others" regarding the celestial motion of planets. All the rest was/is what he induced from a superstitious and insufficient point of view:

His Earth g is nonsense and so was/is his two-body attraction fantasy.- Which also goes for the later G fantasy.

Later scientist have simply induced the terrestrial law of Atmospheric Pressure and Newton´s planetary "two-body nonsense" all over in the Universe.

No wonder they are confused and have to invent all kinds of "dark matter" in galaxies and "dark holes" i galactic centers. And no wonder they have "dark matter" to fill 75 % of the Universe.

 

[Native]

Subject: Subject: Cosmology of the Electric Universe. Part 2

I promished to post this second part of Michel Clarage´s perception of an Electric Universe. In here he discuss the electric connection and circuit between the Solar System and the Milky Way center and also the electic structure of the observable Universe, the big Wide Universal Web.

What do you think about this?

 

[Polymath257]

Subject: Subject: Cosmology of the Electric Universe. Part 2

I promished to post this second part of Michel Clarage´s perception of an Electric Universe. In here he discuss the electric connection and circuit between the Solar System and the Milky Way center and also the electic structure of the observable Universe, the big Wide Universal Web.

What do you think about this?

Pseudoscientific woo?

 

[Native]

Pseudoscientific woo?

Congratulations! You´ve just won a bag of black dirt you can add to the rest of your enormeous cosmological collection.

 

[Polymath257]

Congratulations! You´ve just won a bag of black dirt you can add to the rest of your enormeous cosmological collection.

You asked for my considered opinion. I wasted time watching it and found it, just like the first part, to be without real substance, but having a LOT of claims that are not supported. It's mystical woo.

It isn't any better than crystal power or other pseudoscientific bunk. it sounds nice to the uneducated ear, but once one really learns a bit, it is clearly silly.

 

[Native]

You asked for my considered opinion. I wasted time watching it and found it, just like the first part, to be without real substance, but having a LOT of claims that are not supported. It's mystical woo.

It isn't any better than crystal power or other pseudoscientific bunk. it sounds nice to the uneducated ear, but once one really learns a bit, it is clearly silly.

Of cource it is to you as you lack and deny, per your own definition, all philosophical skills which make you able to grasp larger and obvious connections at all.

So you are excused in all such accounts.

 

[Polymath257]

Of cource it is to you as you lack and deny per your own definition all philosophical skills which make you able to grasp larger and obvious connections at all.

So you are excused in all such accounts.

Nope. I am simply saying that the theory has to be definite enough to actually make a testable prediction that is different than the standard theory predicts.

I have already detailed several fundamental issues with EU. Even applying some basic logic, it is clearly NOT applicable even in the solar system, let alone the wild claims about the larger galaxy.

Science starts when you start working with details. Actually give measurements of the E&M fields and test to see if they can produce the effects observed. We know the basic equations of E&M, so that should not be a difficult job. yet EU proponents consistently fail to do even that first basic step.

 

[Native]

I have already detailed several fundamental issues with EU.

This must be a typing error of yours. It should have been derailed

Science starts when you start working with details.

There you have your main error. You cant start off with this

before you have an overall view of your ideas, and that requires philosophical thinking, and then you are lost in advance.

 

[gnostic]

This is reason, I hate watching videos of some scientists trying to philosophize in “What I believe”.

Science (referring to Natural Sciences or Physical Sciences only) is about what can be explain through modeling (which includes explanation of the phenomena, prediction and mathematical based on that explanation) and then testing the model. There are no touchy-feely philosophy or belief.

The problems with Michael Clarage's videos, are that they are not about scientific investigation, with no testable evidence to details, but just a bunch of philosophical wishy-washy claims of Electric Universe of how "good" EU is, and how good it should make a person feel.

I really don’t care what Clarage feel.

Neither are "scientific" videos. I was actually having a sinking feeling that Clarage might burst out in a song, singing Kumbaya, My Lord.

 

[gnostic]

It is funny, @Native how you keep accusing others of believing in “occult” of consensus science, when the real occult are actually coming from Clarage’s videos, from Robitaille’s videos and from YOU.

You don’t even understand what occult or occultism mean.

Occult is some description of phenomena that CANNOT BE EXPLAINED and CANNOT BE TESTED OR VERIFIED.

Without the verifiable explanation, prediction and mathematical modeling, supported by the evidence and data, this EU cosmology is nothing more than wish-washy occult.

 

[Native]

This is reason, I hate watching videos of some scientists trying to philosophize in “What I believe”.

You are perfectly free NOT to read, watch and commenting anything.

Science (referring to Natural Sciences or Physical Sciences only) is about what can be explain through modeling (which includes explanation of the phenomena, prediction and mathematical based on that explanation) and then testing the model. There are no touchy-feely philosophy or belief.

If you don´t think philosophical ponderings have anything to do with gathering knowledge, you also have to discard all ancient philosophers and Newton who also was a Natural Philosopher - even though his cosmological ideas were bad..

The problems with Michael Clarage's videos, are that they are not about scientific investigation, with no testable evidence to details, but just a bunch of philosophical wishy-washy claims of Electric Universe of how "good" EU is, and how good it should make a person feel.

Maybe if you develloped your philosophical skills, it could give you some inspirations.

Neither are "scientific" videos. I was actually having a sinking feeling that Clarage might burst out in a song, singing Kumbaya, My Lord.

Well, the "religious department" has never been your stongest one, has it?

It is funny, @Native how you keep accusing others of believing in “occult” of consensus science, when the real occult are actually coming from Clarage’s videos, from Robitaille’s videos and from YOU.

The first time i read about the term, "occult agencies", was here:

Newton´s Methodology
“Newton did not offer any reasons or causes for his law of gravity, and was therefore publicly criticised for introducing "occult agencies" into science”.

You don’t even understand what occult or occultism mean.
Occult is some description of phenomena that CANNOT BE EXPLAINED and CANNOT BE TESTED OR VERIFIED.

You´re pretty much correct in this and your definition fits nicely to the linked sentense above.

Without the verifiable explanation, prediction and mathematical modeling, supported by the evidence and data, this EU cosmology is nothing more than wish-washy occult.

How Can you tell as you NEVER have done a serious independent investigation of the EU. You´re just parrotting what some ignorants are saying.

 

[Polymath257]

You are perfectly free NOT to read, watch and commenting anything.

If you don´t think philosophical ponderings have anything to do with gathering knowledge, you also have to discard all ancient philosophers and Newton who also was a Natural Philosopher - even though his cosmological ideas were bad..

Philosophical ponderings can be useful for coming up with the theories. But they are only a first step in the process. Since it is *known* that philosophical ponderings are often (even usually) wrong in their conclusions, the new theories have to be tested via observations. That means they have to be able to make testable predictions.

Philosophical ponderings that cannot make testable predictions are useless.

Newton was able to ponder and come up with testable ideas that actually agreed with observations. So was Einstein. Any idiot can do philosophical ponderings, but almost all such ponderings lead nowhere.

Maybe if you develloped your philosophical skills, it could give you some inspirations.

Inspiration is useless if there is no testability. What Clarage gave in his videos (and I did watch them) are vague musings that are easily shown to be wrong. I pointed out a few of the issues involved.

But, for example, he claims a link between sprites in the upper atmosphere and the weather closer to the surface. This is a claim for which no evidence is actually given. He claims in his second video that the filamentous structure of the universe on a large scale is due to E&M effects. Again, a nice claim, but with no supporting evidence (what are the strengths of the fields? exactly how do they give the structures we see?). he also claims that the fields in the solar system are linked to those in the galaxy and those are linked to the larger structures. Again, nice claims, but no supporting evidence is given.

And, further, when the details are considered, such as the atmosphere of Venus or Mercury or Mars, the theory gives badly wrong answers. That alone is enough to discard it.

Well, the "religious department" has never been your stongest one, has it?

The first time i read about the term, "occult agencies", was here:

Newton´s Methodology
“Newton did not offer any reasons or causes for his law of gravity, and was therefore publicly criticised for introducing "occult agencies" into science”.

You´re pretty much correct in this and your definition fits nicely to the linked sentense above.

How Can you tell as you NEVER have done a serious independent investigation of the EU. You´re just parrotting what some ignorants are saying.

How do you know? Have you ever done a *serious* study of Newtonian mechanics? You know, a study that involves calculus and differential equations? Or are you just parroting what some ignorants are saying about it because you like E&M?

 

[Native]

Philosophical ponderings can be useful for coming up with the theories. But they are only a first step in the process. Since it is *known* that philosophical ponderings are often (even usually) wrong in their conclusions, the new theories have to be tested via observations. That means they have to be able to make testable predictions.

Agreed in this. Just think about the Natural Philosopher, Isaac Newton, and his occult "g" agency and his "G" wich was directly contradicted in the galactic realms, just to result in "dark matter".

Philosophical ponderings that cannot make testable predictions are useless.

Again correct with reference to my last sentence.

Inspiration is useless if there is no testability. What Clarage gave in his videos (and I did watch them) are vague musings that are easily shown to be wrong. I pointed out a few of the issues involved.

But, for example, he claims a link between sprites in the upper atmosphere and the weather closer to the surface. This is a claim for which no evidence is actually given. He claims in his second video that the filamentous structure of the universe on a large scale is due to E&M effects. Again, a nice claim, but with no supporting evidence (what are the strengths of the fields? exactly how do they give the structures we see?). he also claims that the fields in the solar system are linked to those in the galaxy and those are linked to the larger structures. Again, nice claims, but no supporting evidence is given.

And, further, when the details are considered, such as the atmosphere of Venus or Mercury or Mars, the theory gives badly wrong answers. That alone is enough to discard it.

I said earlier that:
"Maybe if you develloped your philosophical skills, it could give you some inspirations".

How do you know? Have you ever done a *serious* study of Newtonian mechanics? You know, a study that involves calculus and differential equations?

Why on Earth should I study Newton´s unexplained occult agencies and his historical known heritage of planetary motions?

Or are you just parroting what some ignorants are saying about it because you like E&M?

May I remind you of this Rule 9 sentense: "Content members create while debating and discussing must be done in the spirit of productivity".

Try to rise your spirit in order to be more productive regarding the EU OP here.

 

[Polymath257]

Try to rise your spirit in order to be more productive regarding the EU OP here.

Given that the EU has nothing productive to offer, why do you assume it is a 'rising of the spirit' as opposed to a falling?

Rule 9 doesn't mean a position is free from criticism or saying it is foolishness when it is.

The fact that EU doesn't make predictions that are verified by observation and, in fact, makes predictions that are shown to be wrong, means that it is not a scientific theory. Pointing that out isn't a violation of any of the rules.

 

[Native]

Given that the EU has nothing productive to offer . .

Well then, just leave the thread and keep on worshipping all the dark things in modern cosmology.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Subject: Atmospheric Pressure and Newton´s "Inductive Reasoning".

The weight of the atmosphere is estimated to be about 5.75 quadrillion (5,750,000,000,000,000) tons. Air pressure is the "push" of the atmosphere on the Earth's surface. It is the force exerted by the atmosphere per unit area.

Me: Now THAT is something of a force on the Earth! And it even obeys the same laws as Newton´s assumed g-gravity.

Sir Isaac Newton PRS (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726/27[a]) was an English mathematician, physicist, astronomer, theologian, and author (described in his time as a "natural philosopher") who is widely recognised as one of the most influential scientists of all time and as a key figure in the scientific revolution. This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called inductive reasoning.

Subject: "Inductive reasoning":
"Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence, but not full assurance, of the truth of the conclusion. It is also described as a method where one's experiences and observations, including what are learned from others, are synthesized to come up with a general truth".

The only "truth" Newton found is what he "learned from others" regarding the celestial motion of planets. All the rest was/is what he induced from a superstitious and insufficient point of view:

His Earth g is nonsense and so was/is his two-body attraction fantasy.- Which also goes for the later G fantasy.

Later scientist have simply induced the terrestrial law of Atmospheric Pressure and Newton´s planetary "two-body nonsense" all over in the Universe.

No wonder they are confused and have to invent all kinds of "dark matter" in galaxies and "dark holes" i galactic centers. And no wonder they have "dark matter" to fill 75 % of the Universe.

And yet, things fall in a vacuum.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What do you think about this?

About the same thing I think of every youtube video that flies in the face of established science and of which the content can't be seen in ANY scientific paper.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This must be a typing error of yours. It should have been derailed

Yes, we all know that whenever anyone points out the obvious problems with the pseudoscientific whoo you like to tout, you'll handwave it away by claiming it is "derailing".

There you have your main error. You cant start off with this

before you have an overall view of your ideas, and that requires philosophical thinking, and then you are lost in advance.

You can try and add all the philosophical mumbo jumbo that you want.

Meanwhile, you're still nowhere close to even having only the beginning of a proper hypothesis, because that requires a clear model that makes testable predictions, including acknowledgement regarding potential falsification.

In all your threads and posts and rants about EU, not once did you provide this.

 

[Polymath257]

Well then, just leave the thread and keep on worshipping all the dark things in modern cosmology.

Why? I am showing how the EU system fails, which is a valid criticism. I am also pointing out that your references are cranks and are ignorant of basic facts. Again, a fully justified bit of debate.

I am not 'worshiping' anything. I am simply pointing out that the standard descriptions are *far* better in many ways that the silliness of EU. I am pointing out the legitimate weaknesses of EU and the contradictions inherent in it. I am pointing out how it fails to be scientific in its foundations and is little more that woo.

This is a debate about EU. Pointing out that its advocates are unqualified hacks is legitimate criticism. Pointing out its flaws is legitimate criticism. Pointing out there are better explanations is also legitimate criticism.

Shutting down debate in a debate forum because you don't like the way the debate is going isn't going to be supported by the rules.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are perfectly free NOT to read, watch and commenting anything.

If you don´t think philosophical ponderings have anything to do with gathering knowledge, you also have to discard all ancient philosophers and Newton who also was a Natural Philosopher - even though his cosmological ideas were bad..

Maybe if you develloped your philosophical skills, it could give you some inspirations.

Well, the "religious department" has never been your stongest one, has it?

The first time i read about the term, "occult agencies", was here:

Newton´s Methodology
“Newton did not offer any reasons or causes for his law of gravity, and was therefore publicly criticised for introducing "occult agencies" into science”.

You´re pretty much correct in this and your definition fits nicely to the linked sentense above.

How Can you tell as you NEVER have done a serious independent investigation of the EU. You´re just parrotting what some ignorants are saying.

Philosophy is all fine and dandy. But at some point, to cross into the scientific, the "abstract philosophy" must give way for testable models of reality.

Got any?


"philosophy" alone will never lead you to conclusions like relativity or quantum mechanics, for example.