Cosmology of the Electric Universe

[Native]

My conclusion is that EU is bunk and that gravity is a real force that acts in the universe.

Of course you do. Anyone who hasn´t studied ancient philosophy, included religious philosophy, have only particles and an occult force and it´s dark cosmology left to play with.

You claim that philosophical issues take priority over observational ones and I reject that philosophy. It is what kept us in the dark ages for centuries. It was people like Galileo, Kepler, and Newton that allowed us to have the advancements we have seen over the last 400 years.

You seem to forget/ignore/deny Newtons own dark age here - Religious views of Isaac Newton - Wikipedia
Contents

• 1Christian orthodoxy
• 2God as masterful creator
• 3Bible
  • 3.1Prophecy
  • 3.2End of the world vs. start of the millennial kingdom
  • 3.32016 vs. 2060
• 4Other beliefs
• 5Writings
• 6See also
• 7References
• 8Further reading
• 9External links

As you like your guru Newton so much, maybe it´s easier for you to get into philosophy by reading this content?

If you´ve studied ancient and religious philosophy seriously, you wouldn´t have met Newtons occult gravity anywhere and in many ancient philosophical and mythological/religoius texts, you would have read the (EM) LIGHT as the creative power in the Universe.

Philosophy has proven itself incapable of contributing meaningfully to the discussion.

Blame yourself for that But get started by reading about the Natural Philosopher, Isaac Newton above here.

Remember that your other matemathical guru, Abert Einstein, also discarded Newtons occult force as I do.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course you do. Anyone who hasn´t studied ancient philosophy, included religious philosophy, have only particles and an occult force and it´s dark cosmology left to play with.

You seem to forget/ignore/deny Newtons own dark age here - Religious views of Isaac Newton - Wikipedia
Contents

• 1Christian orthodoxy
• 2God as masterful creator
• 3Bible
  • 3.1Prophecy
  • 3.2End of the world vs. start of the millennial kingdom
  • 3.32016 vs. 2060
• 4Other beliefs
• 5Writings
• 6See also
• 7References
• 8Further reading
• 9External links

As you like your guru Newton so much, maybe it´s easier for you to get into philosophy by reading this content?

If you´ve studied ancient and religious philosophy seriously, you wouldn´t have met Newtons occult gravity anywhere and in many ancient philosophical and mythological/religoius texts, you would have read the (EM) LIGHT as the creative power in the Universe.

Blame yourself for that But get started by reading about the Natural Philosopher, Isaac Newton above here.

Remember that your other matemathical guru, Abert Einstein, also discarded Newtons occult force as I do.

Newton was a man of his time. he made some great advances in both math and physics. But he was not the last word for either of them. Others came and used his ideas to explain many phenomena that Newton never considered. And Newton's peculiar (even for his time) notions about the Bible are irrelevant for the advances he made in math and physics.

Then, as you pointed out, Einstein came along and modified Newton's ideas, correcting them and producing an even more accurate description of things. But Einstein is not the last word on the subject either.

Neither Newton nor Einstein are 'gurus'. They were men who gave important and useful insights into how the universe works. Both were right in many ways and wrong in many ways (Einstein's dismissal of quantum mechanics, for example). That doesn't deny their importance or the importance of their ideas.

The key *as always* is whether the ideas can make testable predictions that can be verified by actual observations. Both Newton and Einstein were able to do that. EU comes nowhere close. And whenever I have asked you for details that can be tested, you have avoided the issue completely. Whenever I have asked you to make a deduction based on your ideas, you have avoided doing so, instead pushing the necessary step off to others.

That inability to make testable predictions is *why* EU is dismissed by all working cosmologists. If it cannot do at least that, it is completely useless for cosmology.

 

[Polymath257]

Just get rid of Newton´s "two body apple-pie-gravity" assumption (and Einsteins strange curved spacetime too) and both a GUT and a TOE will soon after pop up.

Nice claim. Care to put some details to that statement?

If it is such an easy thing to do, why don't you do it? You could then claim your Nobel Prize and rub everyone else's noses in your success.

Here's my prediction: nobody is going to carry through with this because it won't work. Nobody who denies gravity has enough skill or intelligence to actually make a scientific theory out of it. And that is because they are simply wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course you do. Anyone who hasn´t studied ancient philosophy, included religious philosophy, have only particles and an occult force and it´s dark cosmology left to play with.

Why would that make any difference at all? if EU can make some testable predictions, it can be considered a theory. If it makes predictions that agree with observation, then it is at least a contender for science. if it can make a prediicton that agrees with observation that the standard theory predicts something that does NOT agree with observation, then EU will become the best description we have for that phenomenon.

Don't hold your breath. EU will never manage to become a scientific theory because it is too vague and full of woo. That is why it can be safely ignored.

Philosophy, especially ancient philosophy, is irrelevant to whether testable predictions can be made and verified.

 

[Native]

Newton was a man of his time. he made some great advances in both math and physics. But he was not the last word for either of them.

I posted Newton´s "bio" in order to get you to think twice over the very term of "Natural Philosophy", which you claim "is nothing worth for science". Still you have nothing against to use Newton´s ideas for good or bad.

The key *as always* is whether the ideas can make testable predictions that can be verified by actual observations. Both Newton and Einstein were able to do that.

This is pure denials regarding Newton who´s "Universal Law of Celestial Motions" was badly contradicted in the glactic realms. His predictions failed directly.

That inability to make testable predictions is *why* EU is dismissed by all working cosmologists. If it cannot do at least that, it is completely useless for cosmology.

Deal with your own mis-predicted issues before attacting other ideas which you per pathetic automatics rejects.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course you do. Anyone who hasn´t studied ancient philosophy, included religious philosophy, have only particles and an occult force and it´s dark cosmology left to play with.


If you´ve studied ancient and religious philosophy seriously, you wouldn´t have met Newtons occult gravity anywhere and in many ancient philosophical and mythological/religoius texts, you would have read the (EM) LIGHT as the creative power in the Universe.

That's more a religious position than a philosophical one. For example, Aristotle thought that the universe is eternal and Plato saw his 'forms' as being the creative power, not 'light'.

Gravity *did* appear, of course, but it was limited to things made of 'earth' (the element) and held that the 'natural motion' of earth was towards the center. In contrast, the 'natural motion' of things in the translunar realm was seen to be circular.

And, of course, that philosophical position was simply wrong. But that is what happens when you don't require ideas to be testable and then actually test them against observations.

Ancient philosophy was in many ways the start of our question to understand the universe. But it was the first step, not the final one. Plato and Aristotle were simply wrong about a great deal concerning physics, just as Galen was wrong about much of medicine. They should be acknowledged as the initiators. But initiators tend to be wrong about a lot.

 

[Polymath257]

I posted Newton´s "bio" in order to get you to think twice over the very term of "Natural Philosophy", which you claim "is nothing worth for science". Still you have nothing against to use Newton´s ideas for good or bad.

How much of Newton's philosophy was relevant to his science? Very little.

This is pure denials regarding Newton who´s "Universal Law of Celestial Motions" was badly contradicted in the glactic realms. His predictions failed directly.

It was wrong because dark matter was not initially included. Now it works quite well.

Deal with your own mis-predicted issues before attacting other ideas which you per pathetic automatics rejects.

They have been dealt with. You simply don't like the solutions.

 

[Native]

Here's my prediction: nobody is going to carry through with this because it won't work. Nobody who denies gravity has enough skill or intelligence to actually make a scientific theory out of it. And that is because they are simply wrong.

Anyone who simply skips Newtons and Einsteins "gravitational fantasies" can make both a GUT and the TOE by the fundamental EM forces.

#251Native, Today at 11:28 AM

I even would say they coud do the very same by reading the numerous cultural Stories of Creation and interpreting these in a modern scientific language.

You can just take the biblical "Let there be Light" and there you have your EU.

 

[Native]

How much of Newton's philosophy was relevant to his science? Very little.

So? Why was he so concerned to put his "GOD" creation on gravitational equations?

It was wrong because dark matter was not initially included. Now it works quite well.

Pure denial again and followed up by ad hoc assumptions.

They have been dealt with. You simply don't like the solutions.

You cannot deal with anything contradicted by adding more unexplained occult agencies. Of course I don´t like such "solutions" as I don´t work with superstitious and occult forces.

 

[Native]

Ancient philosophy was in many ways the start of our question to understand the universe. But it was the first step, not the final one. Plato and Aristotle were simply wrong about a great deal concerning physics, just as Galen was wrong about much of medicine. They should be acknowledged as the initiators. But initiators tend to be wrong about a lot.

" Bad Initiators" gets it all wrong if they´ve forgotten their ancient roots and the intuitive way of gathering knowledge. And that happened also to Newton.

It´s THAT simple.

 

[gnostic]

Nonsense. I already provided the actual needed informations to read for themselves.

No, you have only provided two things:

1. “philosophical pondering”
2. misinformation

First.

In term of the physical cosmology, galactic science (eg Milky Way) and science of the Solar System:

1. Misinformation of what EM forces aren’t.
2. And misinformation of what gravitation forces aren’t.

They come from the pseudoscience of Electric Universe cosmology, because of your reliance on videos of two men - Clarage and Robitaille - both who made videos with errors.

Second.

You keep ignoring the importance of Scientific Method that are used in Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences.

Science isn’t about just “philosophical pondering” or “philosophical musing”, but about modeling phenomena -

1. with falsifiable explanations, (hence the explanatory model),
2. falsifiable prediction (hence the predictive modeling),
3. and falsifiable mathematical modeling (eg equations, constants/metrics, laws, etc)

- and these 3 modeling provide the basis of formulation of hypothesis, the first main part in the Scientific Method.

The second main part of Scientific Method, is then testing these 3 falsifiable models (explanatory, predictive & mathematical models) through observational evidence, experimentations, and measurable data that will -

(A) either REFUTE the falsifiable models
(B) or VERIFY the falsifiable models.​

This part of refuting/verifying can only from statistically analyzing the data of the evidence or test results of the experiments, play important part in testing in Scientific Method, because with these observations, you reach conclusion if the models are science or not.

EU’s “philosophical pondering” isn’t falsifiable because it ignored the evidence in favor of “what feels good”.

You heard Clarage in the first video, the Electric Universe is about what feels good, not about testing a predictive falsifiable model.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Nonsense. I already provided the actual needed informations to read for themselves.

No, you have only provided two things:
“philosophical pondering”
misinformation

It would be nice if you refers to the correct linked context when arguing. #245Native, Yesterday at 9:16 AM

This subject was about the general influences of former philosophers. You are confusing this subject for other arguments and informations from me.

First.

In term of the physical cosmology, galactic science (eg Milky Way) and science of the Solar System:
Misinformation of what EM forces aren’t.
And misinformation of what gravitation forces aren’t.

Rephrase your double negotions, so it can give some meaning.

They come from the pseudoscience of Electric Universe cosmology, because of your reliance on videos of two men - Clarage and Robitaille - both who made videos with errors.

You seem to have forgotten that my initial cosmological inspirations are very personal and goes back to the ancient Stories Of Creation. You remember: The Central (EU) Light in the Milky Way?

Of course I now take all other informations which can confirm my initial conviction. That cannot possible be a scientific crime, can it?

Second.

You keep ignoring the importance of Scientific Method that are used in Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences.

Science isn’t about just “philosophical pondering” or “philosophical musing”, but about modeling phenomena -

1. with falsifiable explanations, (hence the explanatory model),
2. falsifiable prediction (hence the predictive modeling),
3. and falsifiable mathematical modeling (eg equations, constants/metrics, laws, etc)

- and these 3 modeling provide the basis of formulation of hypothesis, the first main part in the Scientific Method.

The second main part of Scientific Method, is then testing these 3 falsifiable models (explanatory, predictive & mathematical models) through observational evidence, experimentations, and measurable data that will -

(A) either REFUTE the falsifiable models
(B) or VERIFY the falsifiable models.
This part of refuting/verifying can only from statistically analyzing the data of the evidence or test results of the experiments, play important part in testing in Scientific Method, because with these observations, you reach conclusion if the models are science or not.

For the 117.th time, you´re once again parroting "The Scientific Method" withtout having a single independent thought or critical pondering whether the standing science follows these rules themselves or not.

Newton just invented his gravity without explaing his "force".
Newton was contradicted on the galactic scale. No Scientific Method revisions were made.
Newtons primary occult agency just resulted in another occult agency, a "dark matter".
Newtons # 1 gravity occultism and the subsequent # 2 dark matter occultism now intellectually and theorethically fills 27 % in the observable Universe.

Don´t even call this guessworks and ad hoc assumptions as "science" or "following the Scientific Method".

EU’s “philosophical pondering” isn’t falsifiable because it ignored the evidence in favor of “what feels good”.

You heard Clarage in the first video, the Electric Universe is about what feels good, not about testing a predictive falsifiable model.

It´s really funny that YOU come up with the subject of "feeling"

I´ve never read any post of you, in where you take up any specific relevant subject from the RF threads and discuss it´s subjective and objective substance.

You just keep on pasting your parrotting´s according to what you feel for - or according to what your favorite other opposing debaters feels for.

EDIT: Don´t get me wrong. "Feelings" between people and everything else in nature is OK, but emotional feelings should be kept out of both religious and scientific discussions.

BTW: The way of excluding emotional feelings i religious and scientific discussion´s, are to devellop your critical and logical senses.

 

[Native]

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

It´s really funny that YOU came up with the subject of "feeling". You almost became religious in your feelings

 

[Polymath257]

Subject: Ancient and historic philosophy

Some mathematical interested persons have it that “philosophy”cannot be used in scientific methods".

Not what was said. I (and others) have said that philosophy has shown it cannot contribute to the modern development of science. It was a good first step in ancient times, but has proved itself useless recently (the last 400 years or so).

Luckily, there were many real philosophers before Isaac Newton fiddled with his “two-body occult agency” to which he didn´t ascribe any specific forces - and no one still cant.

But at least he got it right with what he learned of planetary motions from earlier philosophical scientists.

As he so humble said: “We stand on the shoulders of former giants”

And how does the Wikipedia page on philosophy prove your point?

Ans: not at all.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
Nonsense. I already provided the actual needed informations to read for themselves.

It would be nice if you refers to the correct linked context when arguing. #245Native, Yesterday at 9:16 AM

This subject was about the general influences of former philosophers. You are confusing this subject for other arguments and informations from me.

Philosophers have been useful *after the fact* in getting people familiar and comfortable with what science has discovered. But it is useless in making those discoveries.

Rephrase your double negotions, so it can give some meaning.

You seem to have forgotten that my initial cosmological inspirations are very personal and goes back to the ancient Stories Of Creation. You remember: The Central (EU) Light in the Milky Way?

Why is that relevant? If we are discussing whetherEU is true or not, the origin of the ideas is irrelevant. What is important is whether they are able to make testable predictions.

Of course I now take all other informations which can confirm my initial conviction. That cannot possible be a scientific crime, can it?

It's called confirmation bias. And yes, it is a scientific crime. It is ignoring all the evidence that shows your viewpoint is wrong.

For the 117.th time, you´re once again parroting "The Scientific Method" withtout having a single independent thought or critical pondering whether the standing science follows these rules themselves or not.

Science *does* follow those rules. But you seem to not understand that science will make small adjustments to working theories before making grand overhauls of their ideas.

Newton just invented his gravity without explaing his "force".

Why do you think an 'explanation' is required? His theory works very well in the solar system. It works very well when dealing with planets around other stars. It needs minor modifications if the velocities are high or the gravitational field is very strong. That is what Einstein provided.

Newton was contradicted on the galactic scale. No Scientific Method revisions were made.

YES THEY WERE.

There are two ways to modify a scientific position. One is to propose the law still works, but that something was left out. The other is to modify the law. BOTH were tried for the galactic rotations. The first is the one that won because it fits the observations.

Newtons primary occult agency just resulted in another occult agency, a "dark matter".
Newtons # 1 gravity occultism and the subsequent # 2 dark matter occultism now intellectually and theorethically fills 27 % in the observable Universe.

Yes. So? That theory is supported by multiple threads of observation and has been contradicted by none. So it is the best current explanation of what we actually see.

THAT is how science works. NOT by adhering to some philosophical
position that has long been disproved.

 

[Polymath257]

You just keep on pasting your parrotting´s according to what you feel for - or according to what your favorite other opposing debaters feels for.

EDIT: Don´t get me wrong. "Feelings" between people and everything else in nature is OK, but emotional feelings should be kept out of both religious and scientific discussions.

BTW: The way of excluding emotional feelings i religious and scientific discussion´s, are to devellop your critical and logical senses.

No, that is what the video you linked to did. Did you even watch the video?

It emphasized several times how the speaker liked one way of viewing things over another. But, as you say, it isn't which version you are emotionally comfortable with. it is a matter of what the evidence actually supports.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Subject: Ancient and historic philosophy
Some mathematical interested persons have it that “philosophy”cannot be used in scientific methods".

Not what was said. I (and others) have said that philosophy has shown it cannot contribute to the modern development of science. It was a good first step in ancient times, but has proved itself useless recently (the last 400 years or so).

Apparently you don´t understand that "philosophy" is in generally all about finding patterns which are logically connected and naturally explainable.

In this sense, modern astrophysics and cosmology have lost all natural skills of pattern recognition everywhere and need all the philosophical help it can get.

 

[gnostic]

EDIT: Don´t get me wrong. "Feelings" between people and everything else in nature is OK, but emotional feelings should be kept out of both religious and scientific discussions.

And yet that’s all Clarage talked about at the start of the 1st video you posted at the OP.

He talk about what he LIKED about EU, but never provided explanation as to (A) WHAT EU IS and (B) HOW DOES EU WORK with testable predictions.

A model that is “testable” doesn’t qualify as scientific theory. In fact, not being “testable” also mean that EU don’t even qualify as being a working hypothesis, because it is even “falsifiable”.

And that embarrassing, for someone in Michael Clarage’s position.

When no advocates can provide a model with falsifiable explanations and predictions, then it isn’t science.

You can call Electric Universe a philosophy, if you want, but you cannot call it science.

Heck, Electric Universe isn’t better than Young Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design, since EU is much more akin to cult religion.

 

[gnostic]

Native said: ↑
Subject: Ancient and historic philosophy
Some mathematical interested persons have it that “philosophy”cannot be used in scientific methods".

Apparently you don´t understand that "philosophy" is in generally all about finding patterns which are logically connected and naturally explainable.

In this sense, modern astrophysics and cosmology have lost all natural skills of pattern recognition everywhere and need all the philosophical help it can get.

That’s a whole lot of bs, Native.

There are many philosophies, past and present, not all of them related to sciences. Most of the ancient philosophies have nothing to do with with logic.

The ancient ones are mostly schools of thoughts, but thoughts and reasonings can be wrong, can be outdated, can be misleading.

I have the hugest respects for Natural Philosophy of those ancient Greek philosophers, but when compared to Natural Sciences, it has been surpassed, because of the limitations of their abilities to test what they tried to investigate.

In science, you can’t dwell on past achievements, because more accurate observations will provide better insights of the natural and physical world. That’s what you would scientific progress.

Electric Universe required its advocates to go backward in their thinking, by ignoring the evidence that are already there. That’s what I would call being narrow-minded or close-minded.

 

[Native]

Philosophers have been useful *after the fact* in getting people familiar and comfortable with what science has discovered. But it is useless in making those discoveries.

Be a little consistent will you? By your own "logics", you´ve just excluded the Natural Philosopher Isaac Newton too.

I said:
You seem to have forgotten that my initial cosmological inspirations are very personal and goes back to the ancient Stories Of Creation. You remember: The Central (EU) Light in the Milky Way?

Why is that relevant? If we are discussing whether EU is true or not, the origin of the ideas is irrelevant.

Get a little relevant consistency here to, will you? Why is it relevant to find the ancient causal idea for the asssumed and increasing velocity expansion of a Big Bang?

I said:
Of course I now take all other informations which can confirm my initial conviction. That cannot possible be a scientific crime, can it?

It's called confirmation bias. And yes, it is a scientific crime.

Get a little consistent, will you? If this would be the case, I´m just following the standard method in modern astrophysics and cosmology: Assumptions and hindsight bias addings of other assumptions and epicycles.

I said:
For the 117.th time, you´re once again parroting "The Scientific Method" withtout having a single independent thought or critical pondering whether the standing science follows these rules themselves or not.

Science *does* follow those rules.

I know and this is what I´ve pointed out for decades. NO independent thinking and lots of autoritative beliefs in dogmas - hence no progress too.

I said:
Newton just invented his gravity without explaining his "force".

Why do you think an 'explanation' is required?

Because the explanation of "gravity" NEVER were there in the first place.

His theory works very well in the solar system. It works very well when dealing with planets around other stars. It needs minor modifications if the velocities are high or the gravitational field is very strong. That is what Einstein provided.

Why are you in need to come up with this issue, which we have handled in agreement several times before?

I said:
Newton was contradicted on the galactic scale. No Scientific Method revisions were made.

YES THEY WERE.

There are two ways to modify a scientific position. One is to propose the law still works, but that something was left out. The other is to modify the law. BOTH were tried for the galactic rotations. The first is the one that won because it fits the observations.

The undeniable FACTS are:
Newton´s "gravity" is unknown, hence occult.
Newton´s "Universal Law" based on his occult agency was contradicted.
Sceintists just added yet another occult agency of "dark matter".
They didn´t consider that other fundamental forces and their connected qualities and explanations could be at play.
They were all collectively hypnotized by an unexplained "force".

There is just ONE way of modifying a theory: The correct one according to the Scientific Method. Discard the contradicted theory.

Yes. So? That theory is supported by multiple threads of observation and has been contradicted by none. So it is the best current explanation of what we actually see.

Hindsigth biases all together.

THAT is how science works. NOT by adhering to some philosophical position that has long been disproved.

Get a little consistent, will you? Or just drop Newtons falied philosophy once and for all.