Cosmology of the Electric Universe

[Native]

Subject: Planetary motions and EU predictions.

Native said: ↑
How can you believe on Newton´s gravity in planetary systems when it doesn´t work in galaxies in which the planetary systems are orbiting and where Newton were contradicted?

Because it makes correct predictions in the solar system. That is what is required.

Can EU do that?

Anyone who can read a table of the planetary motions, which have been noted since ancient times, can make predictions in the solar system. This has nothing to do with Newton´s occult gravity.

Quotes from Earthobservatory NASA
"While Copernicus rightly observed that the planets revolve around the Sun, it was Kepler who correctly defined their orbits. At the age of 27, Kepler became the assistant of a wealthy astronomer, Tycho Brahe, who asked him to define the orbit of Mars. Brahe had collected a lifetime of astronomical observations, which, on his death, passed into Kepler’s hands. (Brahe, who had his own Earth-centered model of the Universe, withheld the bulk of his observations from Kepler at least in part because he did not want Kepler to use them to prove Copernican theory correct.) Using these observations, Kepler found that the orbits of the planets followed three laws".

And:
"Like many philosophers of his era, Kepler had a mystical belief that the circle was the Universe’s perfect shape, and that as a manifestation of Divine order, the planets’ orbits must be circular. For many years, he struggled to make Brahe’s observations of the motions of Mars match up with a circular orbit.

Eventually, however, Kepler noticed that an imaginary line drawn from a planet to the Sun swept out an equal area of space in equal times, regardless of where the planet was in its orbit. If you draw a triangle out from the Sun to a planet’s position at one point in time and its position at a fixed time later—say, 5 hours, or 2 days—the area of that triangle is always the same, anywhere in the orbit. For all these triangles to have the same area, the planet must move more quickly when it is near the Sun, but more slowly when it is farthest from the Sun.

This discovery (which became Kepler’s second law of orbital motion) led to the realization of what became Kepler’s first law: that the planets move in an ellipse (a squashed circle) with the Sun at one focus point, offset from the center.

Kepler’s third law shows that there is a precise mathematical relationship between a planet’s distance from the Sun and the amount of time it takes revolve around the Sun.

It was this law that inspired Newton, who came up with three laws of his own to explain why the planets move as they do".

Me: Nobody can describe WHY planets moves just by setting their motions on matemathical equations. "WHY" needs explaining which dynamical force is at play, and Newton never did that because he admittedly had no idea of this.
------------------------
Newton’s Laws of Motion
"If Kepler’s laws define the motion of the planets, Newton’s laws define motion. Thinking on Kepler’s laws, Newton realized that all motion, whether it was the orbit of the Moon around the Earth or an apple falling from a tree, followed the same basic principles. “To the same natural effects,” he wrote, “we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes".

End of quotes.

Me: Newton never defined his force and he never explained any dynamical causes - and modern science STILL don´t and can´t.

Newton didn´t define planetary motions. He simply inserted his assumed occult agency apple g-force principle to all planets, according to distances, sizes and orbital velocities. His description and definition of motion has nothing to do with the concept of g-gravity. Newton in fact still and only described the planetary motions, just like Kepler.

Conclusion of the "Subject: Planetary motions and the EU":

Of course the proponents of the EU also can predict the planetary motions. They even don´t need Newton´s occult speculations as they just can take Kepler´s notions.

In the worst case scenario, Newton confused the weight of the Earth atmosphere for his occult agency two-body g-force. A "force" which now is superimposed by later theoretical matemathicians, astrophysicists and cosmologists and assumed to govern all over in the observable Universe.

My EU model even can describe the important WHY planets moves in our Solar System by the opening informations here at - #251Native, Tuesday at 11:28 AM. More of this can be elaborated on later.

 

[Native]

Subject: The Electromagnetic Sun.

Standard cosmology has it that "gravity once" formed the Sun and also that "gravity” can achieve nuclear fusion by contracting gas and dust in a cosmic cloud.

Of course, a random cosmic cloud of gas and dust cannot do work on itself and all gases naturally just fills out what ever space is available.

A local cosmic cloud of gas and dust logically needs an EXTERNAL FORCE to be activated, and on the Earth, Newton´s assumed occult gravity even cannot attract the Earth´s atmosphere to make any kind of motion, let alone nuclear fusion.

The most plausible attractive force is obviously the fundamental and general EM force which works with all kinds of charges, frequencies, and ranges by its attractive and repulsive polarities - and in all 4(5) elementary stages.

Regarding the Sun, Newton´s assumed occult agency also cannot make the electromagnetism on the Sun, not to speak of it´s 11-year cycle changes of magnetic polarity.

Simply because the assumed “gravity” is hypothetically silly weaker than the EM forces.

Listen to the eminent serious and critical analyst, Pierre-Marie Robitaille´s video here

In where he handles several standard cosmology perspectives and new thoughts of the electromagnetic Sun.

 

[Polymath257]

Subject: Planetary motions and EU predictions.

Native said: ↑
How can you believe on Newton´s gravity in planetary systems when it doesn´t work in galaxies in which the planetary systems are orbiting and where Newton were contradicted?

Anyone who can read a table of the planetary motions, which have been noted since ancient times, can make predictions in the solar system. This has nothing to do with Newton´s occult gravity.

That doesn't work. The *ancient* tables were very inaccurate. The computations from Newton's laws are very accurate.

For example, it was common for the position of planets in the ancient tables to be off by up to 30 degrees. Newton's laws bring the level of accuracy to less than a second of arc.

Quotes from Earthobservatory NASA

"While Copernicus rightly observed that the planets revolve around the Sun, it was Kepler who correctly defined their orbits. At the age of 27, Kepler became the assistant of a wealthy astronomer, Tycho Brahe, who asked him to define the orbit of Mars. Brahe had collected a lifetime of astronomical observations, which, on his death, passed into Kepler’s hands. (Brahe, who had his own Earth-centered model of the Universe, withheld the bulk of his observations from Kepler at least in part because he did not want Kepler to use them to prove Copernican theory correct.) Using these observations, Kepler found that the orbits of the planets followed three laws".

And:
"Like many philosophers of his era, Kepler had a mystical belief that the circle was the Universe’s perfect shape, and that as a manifestation of Divine order, the planets’ orbits must be circular. For many years, he struggled to make Brahe’s observations of the motions of Mars match up with a circular orbit.

Eventually, however, Kepler noticed that an imaginary line drawn from a planet to the Sun swept out an equal area of space in equal times, regardless of where the planet was in its orbit. If you draw a triangle out from the Sun to a planet’s position at one point in time and its position at a fixed time later—say, 5 hours, or 2 days—the area of that triangle is always the same, anywhere in the orbit. For all these triangles to have the same area, the planet must move more quickly when it is near the Sun, but more slowly when it is farthest from the Sun.

This discovery (which became Kepler’s second law of orbital motion) led to the realization of what became Kepler’s first law: that the planets move in an ellipse (a squashed circle) with the Sun at one focus point, offset from the center.

Kepler’s third law shows that there is a precise mathematical relationship between a planet’s distance from the Sun and the amount of time it takes revolve around the Sun.

It was this law that inspired Newton, who came up with three laws of his own to explain why the planets move as they do".

Me: Nobody can describe WHY planets moves just by setting their motions on matemathical equations. "WHY" needs explaining which dynamical force is at play, and Newton never did that because he admittedly had no idea of this.
------------------------
Newton’s Laws of Motion
"If Kepler’s laws define the motion of the planets, Newton’s laws define motion. Thinking on Kepler’s laws, Newton realized that all motion, whether it was the orbit of the Moon around the Earth or an apple falling from a tree, followed the same basic principles. “To the same natural effects,” he wrote, “we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes".

End of quotes.

Me: Newton never defined his force and he never explained any dynamical causes - and modern science STILL don´t and can´t.

Yes, he did define this force. He defined it as proportional to the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This force is generated between any two masses and adds as a vector.

Newton didn´t define planetary motions. He simply inserted his assumed occult agency apple g-force principle to all planets, according to distances, sizes and orbital velocities. His description and definition of motion has nothing to do with the concept of g-gravity. Newton in fact still and only described the planetary motions, just like Kepler.

Here you are wrong. The major advancement that Newton made was realizing that the same force that keeps the planets in motion is the one that makes things fall. This allows for the motions in both cases to be predicted with a high level of accuracy.

Conclusion of the "Subject: Planetary motions and the EU":

Of course the proponents of the EU also can predict the planetary motions. They even don´t need Newton´s occult speculations as they just can take Kepler´s notions.

Kepler's laws are another approximation. They are much better than the ancient methods for determining planetary motion, but they are not perfect.

In particular, there are deviations from Kepler's laws. In essence, Kepler's laws are what would happen in there was only one gravitating mass in the solar system (the sun). The sun *is* the biggest mass, so its influence dominates, but there are other planets and those planets also produce a gravitational force.

Newton was able to include the gravity of the planets to improve upon Kepler's laws in accuracy. So we have

ancient tables <<<<< Kepler's laws <<< Newton's laws.

Kepler's laws are MUCH more accurate that ancient tables, but Newton's laws are much more accurate than Kepler's.

In the worst case scenario, Newton confused the weight of the Earth atmosphere for his occult agency two-body g-force. A "force" which now is superimposed by later theoretical matemathicians, astrophysicists and cosmologists and assumed to govern all over in the observable Universe.

My EU model even can describe the important WHY planets moves in our Solar System by the opening informations here at - #251Native, Tuesday at 11:28 AM. More of this can be elaborated on later.

What you have given is very general and has no details. Can EU predict the motion of the planets to within a minute of arc over the course of a century? Because Newton's laws can. Einstein's can take that down to within a second of arc over the course of a century.

Kepler's laws would take to to about 10 minutes of arc over the course of a few years and ancient tables typically were off by several degrees, but often much more than that.

 

[Polymath257]

Subject: The Electromagnetic Sun.

Standard cosmology has it that "gravity once" formed the Sun and also that "gravity” can achieve nuclear fusion by contracting gas and dust in a cosmic cloud.

Well, it does it in other stars as well. We see the process in nebula such as the Orion nebula today.

Of course, a random cosmic cloud of gas and dust cannot do work on itself and all gases naturally just fills out what ever space is available.

False as has been explained to you before.

A local cosmic cloud of gas and dust logically needs an EXTERNAL FORCE to be activated, and on the Earth, Newton´s assumed occult gravity even cannot attract the Earth´s atmosphere to make any kind of motion, let alone nuclear fusion.

False, as has been explained to you before. The Earth's gravity is attracting the atmosphere. That is why there is atmospheric pressure.

But, the Earth is MUCH smaller than the sun and the atmosphere is MUCH smaller than that. So the forces involved (which are proportional to the mass) are much smaller.

The most plausible attractive force is obviously the fundamental and general EM force which works with all kinds of charges, frequencies, and ranges by its attractive and repulsive polarities - and in all 4(5) elementary stages.

Wrong. Gravity is the obvious attractive force.

Regarding the Sun, Newton´s assumed occult agency also cannot make the electromagnetism on the Sun, not to speak of it´s 11-year cycle changes of magnetic polarity.

You are right. That *is* an E&M effect. Nobody denies that E&M is a force and that it affects the 11 year sunspot cycle of the sun

Simply because the assumed “gravity” is hypothetically silly weaker than the EM forces.

Again, as explained before, NOT on larger scales because gravity is proportional to the mass involved and E&M tends to cancel out because the positive charges cancel the negative ones. You have yet to deal with that fact.

Listen to the eminent serious and critical analyst, Pierre-Marie Robitaille´s video here

In where he handles several standard cosmology perspectives and new thoughts of the electromagnetic Sun.

Actually, he just went over a bit of spectroscopy. As far as I saw, he didn't address the 'electric sun' model at all.

 

[Native]

That doesn't work. The *ancient* tables were very inaccurate. The computations from Newton's laws are very accurate.

Do you say my historic reference is wrong?

For example, it was common for the position of planets in the ancient tables to be off by up to 30 degrees. Newton's laws bring the level of accuracy to less than a second of arc.

I also reffered to Kepler, didn´t I?

Yes, he did define this force. He defined it as proportional to the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This force is generated between any two masses and adds as a vector.

Please apply some logics here. You logically can´t define anything by not knowing the assumed force in question - which Newton know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of.

In particular, there are deviations from Kepler's laws. In essence, Kepler's laws are what would happen in there was only one gravitating mass in the solar system (the sun). The sun *is* the biggest mass, so its influence dominates, but there are other planets and those planets also produce a gravitational force.

I don´t care the least of any fantasy "gravy-thinkings".

What you have given is very general and has no details. Can EU predict the motion of the planets to within a minute of arc over the course of a century? Because Newton's laws can. Einstein's can take that down to within a second of arc over the course of a century.

You still don´t get my overall points. I´m dealing with the very basics of the cosmological formation of the Milky Way and the Solar System in order to get rid of all superstitious forces and dark matters.

 

[Native]

Well, it does it in other stars as well. We see the process in nebula such as the Orion nebula today.

But where you se the by far strongest gamma- and x-rays, are in the galactic center - from where our Solar System was formed, thus lesser mirroring the galactic formation and radiation.

I said:
Of course, a random cosmic cloud of gas and dust cannot do work on itself and all gases naturally just fills out what ever space is available.

False as has been explained to you before.

False as you can observe by the opposite facts around the Earth and by lots of cosmic clouds of gas and dust which don´t collapse into its good self.

False, as has been explained to you before. The Earth's gravity is attracting the atmosphere. That is why there is atmospheric pressure.

I don´t deal with superstitious forces and masses.

But, the Earth is MUCH smaller than the sun and the atmosphere is MUCH smaller than that. So the forces involved (which are proportional to the mass) are much smaller.

And:

Wrong. Gravity is the obvious attractive force.

IMO the silly weak "gravity" only "exist" as a superstitious mindstuff but it seems this old dogma have a huge attrraction on standard matemathicians, astrophysicists and cosmologistst

Again, as explained before, NOT on larger scales because gravity is proportional to the mass involved and E&M tends to cancel out because the positive charges cancel the negative ones. You have yet to deal with that fact.

So you think there is no dynamic EM activity at all on the Sun too?

Deal with the fact that you inconsistently otherwise confirmed the quite opposite above.

Actually, he just went over a bit of spectroscopy. As far as I saw, he didn't address the 'electric sun' model at all.

He in fact mentioned the magnetism on the Sun in the very beginning. How difficult can it be for anyone scientific interested to connect the magnetic activity on the Sun to have something to do with electricity i.e. an electric Sun?

"Electric currents induces magnetic fields which induces electric currents which induces magnetic fields which induces electric currents wich induces magnetic fields" etc .etc . - and there you have the entire scientific picture of the electromagnetic surface activity on the Electric Sun.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you say my historic reference is wrong?

if it claims the ancient tables were as accurate as newton's laws, then yes.

I also reffered to Kepler, didn´t I?

Yes. But you neglected to note that Kepler's laws are an approximation. They were much better than the Ptolemaic system, but they were not nearly as good as Newton's laws because Kepler didn't take into account the influence from other planets. In essence, Kepler's laws are what you get when you only use the gravity of the sun.

Please apply some logics here. You logically can´t define anything by not knowing the assumed force in question - which Newton know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of.

On the contrary. he gave precisely what was required: a description of how the force acts. It is proportional to both masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance. THAT is ALL that is required.

I don´t care the least of any fantasy "gravy-thinkings".

You don't care about accuracy. From what you have said, you care more about philosophical posturing than accuracy in the model.

You still don´t get my overall points. I´m dealing with the very basics of the cosmological formation of the Milky Way and the Solar System in order to get rid of all superstitious forces and dark matters.

And you fail in that because you give no detailed calculations. You seem to think the 'ancient tables' had an accuracy even close to what we know today. Well, they didn't. You propose a cosmological formation without any evidence. In fact, it directly goes against the observational evidence.

 

[Native]

On the contrary. he gave precisely what was required: a description of how the force acts. It is proportional to both masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance. THAT is ALL that is required.

Your ignorance of facts and state of denial is amazing.

General Scholium - Wikipedia

Newton did not offer any reasons or causes for his law of gravity, and was therefore publicly criticised for introducing "occult agencies" into science. Newton objected to Descartes' and Leibniz's Scientific method of deriving conclusions by applying reason to a priori definitions rather than to empirical evidence, and famously stated "hypotheses non fingo", Latin for "I do not frame hypotheses":

"I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not frame hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.

By ignoring these words from Newton himself, you´re making yourself completely untrustworthy.

 

[Polymath257]

Your ignorance of facts and state of denial is amazing.

General Scholium - Wikipedia

Newton did not offer any reasons or causes for his law of gravity, and was therefore publicly criticised for introducing "occult agencies" into science. Newton objected to Descartes' and Leibniz's Scientific method of deriving conclusions by applying reason to a priori definitions rather than to empirical evidence, and famously stated "hypotheses non fingo", Latin for "I do not frame hypotheses":

Good for Newton.

"I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not frame hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.

By ignoring these words from Newton himself, you´re making yourself completely untrustworthy.

You are not understanding Newton's point. We focused on the phenomena (observations) as opposed to some deeper explanation. It is the deeper explanations' that are not supported by observations that Newton was rejecting.

That's why he was criticizing Descartes and Leibnitz. And he was correct to do so.

For example, a mechanical explanation is also not required in the description of electromagnetism. Maxwell, as well as others, attempted to find such an explanation for E&M. Eventually, it was realized that all that is required is to have the effects.

Ultimate causes and a requirement for mechanical explanations are a silly hold over from bad philosophy.

As your link goes on to say:

"The General Scholium then goes on to present Newton's own approach to scientific methodology. Contrary to the deductive approach of Descartes and Leibniz, Newton holds an inductive approach to scientific inquiry. Phenomena should first be observed, and then general rules should be searched for, and not vice versa. It is this approach, states Newton, that has led to the discovery of "the laws of motion and gravitation":

In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. Thus it was that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive force of bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation, were discovered. And to us it is enough, that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea."

 

[Native]

You are not understanding Newton's point. We focused on the phenomena (observations) as opposed to some deeper explanation. It is the deeper explanations' that are not supported by observations that Newton was rejecting.

"Newton did not offer any reasons or causes for his law of gravity . . .".

Which of these words is it you don´t you understand?

For example, a mechanical explanation is also not required in the description of electromagnetism.

You´re simply jumping fences and trying to explain away the flaws of Newtons non scientific occult "Gravity Assumption Model". (GAM)

Electromagnetism is a real discovery and all its mechanisms are explainable, even in space and much in contrast to Newton´s GAM.

Phenomena should first be observed, and then general rules should be searched for, and not vice versa. It is this approach, states Newton, that has led to the discovery of "the laws of motion and gravitation":

Well, he completely forgot to search for other general rules before he concluded his GAM. He just assumed his law from ONE FALLING APPLE phenomenon.

1) He forgot to investigate how his apple "crawled" up in his three in the first place.
2) He forgot to investigate how atmospheric gases succeds to avoid his GAM.
3) He forgot to investigate high- and low weather pressures.
4) He forgot to investigate and include the general atmospheric pressure and the weight of air.
5) He forgot to investigate the friction of planetary orbital motions.
6) He forgot to investigate how migrating bird brains instinctively gain "slingshot" energy by flying in formation.

How much does Earth’s atmosphere weigh?
How much does Earth’s atmosphere weigh?

Just over five quadrillion tons. Air is surprisingly heavy. A cubic meter of air at sea level weighs about 1.3kg and all the oceans only weigh 270 times as much as the atmosphere. We tend to underestimate the mass of air because we spend all our lives surrounded by it, and it presses down on us from all directions equally, (except from down under our feets).

Newton did in fact invented his GAM on behalf of atmospheric phenomenons and the law of atmospheric pressure to count for all motions on the Earth, in the Solar System and everywhere else with his "Universal Law of Celestial motion" - which logically was contradicted by the discovery of the galactic rotation curve.

A contradiction, which NEVER have been dealt with correctly by Newtons followers in his own time as well as by his followers in present time.

They/you are just swalloving it all raw - just because Newton succeded to put already known planetary motions onto equations. STILL without explaining the substance of his occult GAM.

Of course a law of the atmospheric pressure on Earth cannot fit into the Solar System or anywhere else in the observable Universe, but this is what´s happened with Newtons GAM.

One single Newtonian asummption has lead to more assumptions and multiple assumptions, all needing different patching phenomena of dark things in the Universe, in fact about 27 % of the entire Uiverse. (96 % including another dark thing/energy)

ONE occult agency back in Newtons days has spread its dark ghost into lots of other occult agencies, and most of Newtons proponents have to go into a conscious denial and ignore mode in fear of loosing their "scientific" GAM- faces.

Well, otherwise I take you as an excellent encyclopedia reference source for informations of convensus assumptions in modern cosmological scientific society - but that´s about it, IMO.

 

[Polymath257]

"Newton did not offer any reasons or causes for his law of gravity . . .".

Which of these words is it you don´t you understand?

And did you see the *reason* he didn't? He thought that doing so would be going beyond the phenomena and into unproductive philosophy.

You´re simply jumping fences and trying to explain away the flaws of Newtons non scientific occult "Gravity Assumption Model". (GAM)

Electromagnetism is a real discovery and all its mechanisms are explainable, even in space and much in contrast to Newton´s GAM.

Gravity is at least as well explained as E&M. There is no mechanism for E&M. There are fields. But there are fields for gravity as well. In E&M, those fields are generated by charges. In gravity, the fields are generated by masses.

Well, he completely forgot to search for other general rules before he concluded his GAM. He just assumed his law from ONE FALLING APPLE phenomenon.

No, his laws of motion and his force law for gravity *are* the general rules.

1) He forgot to investigate how his apple "crawled" up in his three in the first place.

Irrelevant to the issue at hand. he was doing phsics, not biology.

2) He forgot to investigate how atmospheric gases succeds to avoid his GAM.

It doesn't. Atmospheric pressure is produced because of gravity.

3) He forgot to investigate high- and low weather pressures.
4) He forgot to investigate and include the general atmospheric pressure and the weight of air.

No, he did not. They were simply irrelevant to what he was investigating.

5) He forgot to investigate the friction of planetary orbital motions.

Because there are none.

6) He forgot to investigate how migrating bird brains instinctively gain "slingshot" energy by flying in formation.

Because that is irrelevant to what he was looking at.

How much does Earth’s atmosphere weigh?

How much does Earth’s atmosphere weigh?

Just over five quadrillion tons. Air is surprisingly heavy. A cubic meter of air at sea level weighs about 1.3kg and all the oceans only weigh 270 times as much as the atmosphere. We tend to underestimate the mass of air because we spend all our lives surrounded by it, and it presses down on us from all directions equally, (except from down under our feets).

You keep repeating this, but don't seem to realize it's irrelevant to planetary motion.

Newton did in fact invented his GAM on behalf of atmospheric phenomenons and the law of atmospheric pressure to count for all motions on the Earth, in the Solar System and everywhere else with his "Universal Law of Celestial motion" - which logically was contradicted by the discovery of the galactic rotation curve.

????

A contradiction, which NEVER have been dealt with correctly by Newtons followers in his own time as well as by his followers in present time.

When Newton was doing his studies, it wasn't even known that there is a galaxy. The existence of the 'galaxy', as such, wasn't understood until almost a century later. That there are other galaxies wasn't known until almost two centuries after that.

They/you are just swalloving it all raw - just because Newton succeded to put already known planetary motions onto equations. STILL without explaining the substance of his occult GAM.

THEY WERE NOT ALREADY KNOWN!

Of course a law of the atmospheric pressure on Earth cannot fit into the Solar System or anywhere else in the observable Universe, but this is what´s happened with Newtons GAM.

The atmosphere extends about 100 kilometers above the Earth. There is no atmospheric pressure in the solar system.

One single Newtonian asummption has lead to more assumptions and multiple assumptions, all needing different patching phenomena of dark things in the Universe, in fact about 27 % of the entire Uiverse. (96 % including another dark thing/energy)

ONE occult agency back in Newtons days has spread its dark ghost into lots of other occult agencies, and most of Newtons proponents have to go into a conscious denial and ignore mode in fear of loosing their "scientific" GAM- faces.

Well, otherwise I take you as an excellent encyclopedia reference source for informations of convensus assumptions in modern cosmological scientific society - but that´s about it, IMO.

You still ignore that Newton's description was FAR more accurate and detailed than anything before. The motions of the solar system were NOT understood before Newton.

 

[Native]

And did you see the *reason* he didn't? He thought that doing so would be going beyond the phenomena and into unproductive philosophy.

Rubbish No sane Natural Philosopher wouldn´t even think of jumping over the lowest of fences by forsaking his favorite approach. If Newton really had such serious concerns, he should have avoided his prime idea of inserting an occult agency in the first hand - as he was warned about in his own time.

Gravity is at least as well explained as E&M.

You confuse "explain" with asumptions which is not needed for the observable E&M.

There is no mechanism for E&M.

No, not in the "scientific particle approach", I know and it´s a huge blunder.

No, his laws of motion and his force law for gravity *are* the general rules.

No they are the general ASSUMPTIONS.

I said:
1) He forgot to investigate how his apple "crawled" up in his three in the first place.

Irrelevant to the issue at hand. he was doing phsics, not biology.

Is it irrelevant to investigate something which later on is falling down in ones theory?

2) He forgot to investigate how atmospheric gases succeds to avoid his GAM.

It doesn't. Atmospheric pressure is produced because of gravity.

Which "gravity? Explain the substance in this assumed force before you conclude anything.

3) He forgot to investigate high- and low weather pressures.
4) He forgot to investigate and include the general atmospheric pressure and the weight of air.

No, he did not. They were simply irrelevant to what he was investigating.

Of course they weren´t as he had his eyes only on an apple. But a genuine natural philosopher would take this relevant.

5) He forgot to investigate the friction of planetary orbital motions.

Because there are none.

.
Then I´ll recommend you to get such informations deleted on wikipedia.

6) He forgot to investigate how migrating bird brains instinctively gain "slingshot" energy by flying in formation.

Because that is irrelevant to what he was looking at.

Of course it was as he only was studying apples and not natural motions otherwhere.

????

Have you forgotten or surpressed the observed galactic rotation curve Newtonian anomaly?

When Newton was doing his studies, it wasn't even known that there is a galaxy. The existence of the 'galaxy', as such, wasn't understood until almost a century later. That there are other galaxies wasn't known until almost two centuries after that.

Only deniers of natural and tradtional philosophy can come up with such ignorant nonsense!

The term Milky Way is a translation of the Latin via lactea, from the Greek γαλακτικός κύκλος (galaktikos kýklos, "milky circle")

I guess Newton lived long after the first Greek philosophers? But of course it´s difficult to read when having gravitational apples in both eyes - which goes for both you and Newton.

I said:
They/you are just swalloving it all raw - just because Newton succeded to put already known planetary motions onto equations. STILL without explaining the substance of his occult GAM.

THEY WERE NOT ALREADY KNOWN!

Rubbish! The planerary motions WERE known by observable philosophers since ancient times. The only new "thing" was Newtons horrible gravity assumptions.

Me: Of course a law of the atmospheric pressure on Earth cannot fit into the Solar System or anywhere else in the observable Universe, but this is what´s happened with Newtons GAM.

The atmosphere extends about 100 kilometers above the Earth. There is no atmospheric pressure in the solar system.

Yes, isn´t that bad? Inserting Newtons confused "g-law" for the atmospheric pressure law all over in the universe. That was really stupid.

You still ignore that Newton's description was FAR more accurate and detailed than anything before. The motions of the solar system were NOT understood before Newton.

I´m not ignoring anything at all. I don´t even ignore - as you - that the motions were known since ancient time. As I´ve said 117 times before, I recognize Newtons calculations of planetary MOTIONS but certainly NOT Newtons narrow tunnel vision for celestial motions around a gravitational center - which evidently failed on the universal scale.

I STILL conclude this:
ONE occult agency back in Newtons days has spread its dark ghost into lots of other occult agencies, and most of Newtons proponents have to go into a conscious denial and ignore mode in fear of loosing their "scientific" GAM- faces.

 

[Polymath257]

Rubbish No sane Natural Philosopher wouldn´t even think of jumping over the lowest of fences by forsaking his favorite approach. If Newton really had such serious concerns, he should have avoided his prime idea of inserting an occult agency in the first hand - as he was warned about in his own time.

he was basing his theory on the observed motion of the planets.

You confuse "explain" with asumptions which is not needed for the observable E&M.

E&M is no more observable than gravity. BOTH are field theories.

No, not in the "scientific particle approach", I know and it´s a huge blunder.

No they are the general ASSUMPTIONS.

They are natural assumptions based on the observations. He specifically did NOT ask for any 'explanation' because such would go beyond the observations.

I said:
1) He forgot to investigate how his apple "crawled" up in his three in the first place.

Is it irrelevant to investigate something which later on is falling down in ones theory?

Yes. It is irrelevant.

2) He forgot to investigate how atmospheric gases succeds to avoid his GAM.

Which "gravity? Explain the substance in this assumed force before you conclude anything.

The gravity of the Earth acting on the gases in the atmosphere.

3) He forgot to investigate high- and low weather pressures.
4) He forgot to investigate and include the general atmospheric pressure and the weight of air.

Of course they weren´t as he had his eyes only on an apple. But a genuine natural philosopher would take this relevant.

No, he was interested in the commonalities of the motion of the apple (and other things on Earth) and the motion of planets in the solar system.

5) He forgot to investigate the friction of planetary orbital motions.
.
Then I´ll recommend you to get such informations deleted on wikipedia.

That you fail to understand the wikipedia articles isn't Newton's fault.

6) He forgot to investigate how migrating bird brains instinctively gain "slingshot" energy by flying in formation.

Of course it was as he only was studying apples and not natural motions otherwhere.

Why are you so focused on apples? Newton gave the apple as an *example* of how things fall. The same reasoning would apply to *any* falling object on Earth. The origin and composition of the apple are irrelevant to how it falls.

Have you forgotten or surpressed the observed galactic rotation curve Newtonian anomaly?

Only deniers of natural and tradtional philosophy can come up with such ignorant nonsense!

The term Milky Way is a translation of the Latin via lactea, from the Greek γαλακτικός κύκλος (galaktikos kýklos, "milky circle")

I guess Newton lived long after the first Greek philosophers? But of course it´s difficult to read when having gravitational apples in both eyes - which goes for both you and Newton.

It wasn't understood until long after Newton that the Milky Way is a galaxy (the term used was 'island universe'). In particular, in Newton's time, the fact that the Milky Way was made of stars was known, but that there is a boundary to the distribution of those stars was not.

The Greek philosophers also did not know the Milky Way was a galaxy. They certainly had no idea about galactic rotation curves. And neither did Newton.

I said:
They/you are just swalloving it all raw - just because Newton succeded to put already known planetary motions onto equations. STILL without explaining the substance of his occult GAM.

Rubbish! The planerary motions WERE known by observable philosophers since ancient times. The only new "thing" was Newtons horrible gravity assumptions.

As you say, RUBBISH. The ancients only knew about very general motions, not the details. Their observations and models were very inaccurate. It wasn't until the development of the telescope that accurate position measurements were possible. And the theoretical models were poor until Kepler.

Me: Of course a law of the atmospheric pressure on Earth cannot fit into the Solar System or anywhere else in the observable Universe, but this is what´s happened with Newtons GAM.

Yes, isn´t that bad? Inserting Newtons confused "g-law" for the atmospheric pressure law all over in the universe. That was really stupid.

There is no atmospheric pressure all over the universe! It is a VACUUM. That means the 'pressure' is almost exactly zero.

I´m not ignoring anything at all. I don´t even ignore - as you - that the motions were known since ancient time. As I´ve said 117 times before, I recognize Newtons calculations of planetary MOTIONS but certainly NOT Newtons narrow tunnel vision for celestial motions around a gravitational center - which evidently failed on the universal scale.

You cannot separate the two. It is literally impossible to do those calculations without the force of gravity being described as an inverse square force.

And, once again, the ancients did NOT know the detailed motions. They only used naked eye observations and most of those were very inaccurate. he models used were not even in agreement with those observations (as was recognized by most scholars).

I STILL conclude this:
ONE occult agency back in Newtons days has spread its dark ghost into lots of other occult agencies, and most of Newtons proponents have to go into a conscious denial and ignore mode in fear of loosing their "scientific" GAM- faces.

Then you need to learn a bit more about the history of these ideas and the capabilities of people at different times. The ancients simply did NOT have the capability to model the detailed motion of the planets.

Ptolemy's system was the best from the ancient world. And it was still poor by modern standards.

 

[Native]

Then you need to learn a bit more about the history of these ideas and the capabilities of people at different times. The ancients simply did NOT have the capability to model the detailed motion of the planets.

Forget your patronizing attitude and be more aware of the obvious shortcomings of the gravitational unexplainable assumptions.

Our ancestors HAD the knowledge of the planetary motions right from their Stories of Creation which was connected to teh pre-conditions and factual formation of the Milky Way. But of course all this is wasted on a denier of philosophy.

He specifically did NOT ask for any 'explanation' because such would go beyond the observations.

You mean besides his initially assumption, his occult agency!? A scientist who don´t ask for any explanations? REALLY?

The gravity of the Earth acting on the gases in the atmosphere.

Get out of the frozen gramophone groove and think for yourself

Why are you so focused on apples?

Because your guru Newton was too.

You cannot separate the two. It is literally impossible to do those calculations without the force of gravity being described as an inverse square force.

Just forget this nonsense which is contradicted.

And, once again, the ancients did NOT know the detailed motions. They only used naked eye observations and most of those were very inaccurate.

Philosophical ignorance once again. - History of astronomy - Wikipedia - How do you think that for instants the Mayans were able to notise and report a full cycle of planet Venus? WITHOUT knowing anything of guru Newton and his occult agency?

There is no atmospheric pressure all over the universe! It is a VACUUM. That means the 'pressure' is almost exactly zero.

I did not say there is an atmospheric pressure all over the universe. I said Newtons confusion of the Earth atmospheric pressure is assumed to rule all over in the Universe.

I STILL conclude this:
ONE occult agency back in Newtons days has spread its dark ghost into lots of other occult agencies, and most of Newtons proponents have to go into a conscious denial and ignore mode in fear of loosing their "scientific" GAM- faces.

 

[Polymath257]

Forget your patronizing attitude and be more aware of the obvious shortcomings of the gravitational unexplainable assumptions.

Patronizing? I'm not the one saying that everyone else is wrong. Or that all modern cosmologists have neglected something as basic as E&M. Or that says that gravity doesn't exist.

Our ancestors HAD the knowledge of the planetary motions right from their Stories of Creation which was connected to teh pre-conditions and factual formation of the Milky Way. But of course all this is wasted on a denier of philosophy.

You mean besides his initially assumption, his occult agency!? A scientist who don´t ask for any explanations? REALLY?

They do not ask for explanations that go beyond observational support.

Get out of the frozen gramophone groove and think for yourself

Might I suggest that you learn some basics before you criticize what others say?

Because your guru Newton was too.

No. he used an apple as an illustrative example. It could equally well have been a cannon ball.

Just forget this nonsense which is contradicted.

Like EU? OK.

Philosophical ignorance once again. - History of astronomy - Wikipedia - How do you think that for instants the Mayans were able to notise and report a full cycle of planet Venus? WITHOUT knowing anything of guru Newton and his occult agency?

How accurate were their descriptions?

Answer: accurate enough to find the cycle (which only takes inaccurate observations), but not accurate enough to give detailed positions.

You are confusing two very different levels of accuracy. it's like the difference between saying two things are about 90 kilometers apart and saying they are 89.45923 kilometers apart. The Mayans and other ancient people were able to say that things were about 90 kilometers. Newtonian physics was able to say they were 89.459 milometers. And Einstein was able to say they are 89.45923 kilometers.

I did not say there is an atmospheric pressure all over the universe. I said Newtons confusion of the Earth atmospheric pressure is assumed to rule all over in the Universe.

Yes, gravity works throughout the universe.

I STILL conclude this:
ONE occult agency back in Newtons days has spread its dark ghost into lots of other occult agencies, and most of Newtons proponents have to go into a conscious denial and ignore mode in fear of loosing their "scientific" GAM- faces.

Sorry, but your conclusion simply doesn't fit the facts. It is the EU people and those who deny gravity that have their heads in the sand, being in conscious denial about reality.

 

[Native]

Patronizing? I'm not the one saying that everyone else is wrong. Or that all modern cosmologists have neglected something as basic as E&M. Or that says that gravity doesn't exist.

You´re assuming that I don´t read and investigate the consensus theories and ideas, which of course is a stupid thing to do if being able to criticise and discuss the topics.

The fact is, that I´m doing the critical work, which you and other debaters fails to do because you´re just swallowing it all raw without investigate the overall logics and conclude the contradictions.

They do not ask for explanations that go beyond observational support.

No they just insert an occult assumption without backing this up with more pattern recognitions.

Might I suggest that you learn some basics before you criticize what others say?

Might I suggest you quit your patronizing attitude, once again? Might I also suggest you to be more independent and critical over the numerous consensus assumptions you´re dealing with?

Yes, gravity works throughout the universe.

Oh, so maybe it was the atmospheric pressure gravity which pulled the Big Bang forward in existance?

Sorry, but your conclusion simply doesn't fit the facts. It is the EU people and those who deny gravity that have their heads in the sand, being in conscious denial about reality.

I think it´s something of a novelty for someone who belive in occult and superstitional agencies to say alternate thinking persons to have their heads in the sand.

I STILL conclude this:
ONE occult agency back in Newtons days has spread its dark ghost into lots of other occult agencies, and most of Newtons proponents have to go into a conscious denial and ignore mode in fear of loosing their "scientific" GAM- faces.

As it seems that you never do any critical reseach of the standing consensus theories, I´ll be very pleased to help you with that:

Here are some more critical informations you can ignore and deny - - Cosmology Has Some Big Problems

 

[Polymath257]

You´re assuming that I don´t read and investigate the consensus theories and ideas, which of course is a stupid thing to do if being able to criticise and discuss the topics.

Frankly, you can't be reading about the consensus theories because you don't have the mathematical background to do so. At best you are reading some popular account that is of limited veracity. Unless you can read Goldstein's book on Classical Mechanics, you really have no idea what is going on with Newton's ideas.

Unless, that is, you are reading Newton's Principia. Which I very much doubt.

The fact is, that I´m doing the critical work, which you and other debaters fails to do because you´re just swallowing it all raw without investigate the overall logics and conclude the contradictions.

Yes, people investigate the 'overall logic'. That is why these descriptions are produced in the first place. Newton looked at the evidence and came up with a theory that explained what was going on. he specifically did NOT try to find a mechanism because that was not supported by the evidence. It was a philosophical request that was ultimately not a reasonable one.

No they just insert an occult assumption without backing this up with more pattern recognitions.

Might I suggest you quit your patronizing attitude, once again? Might I also suggest you to be more independent and critical over the numerous consensus assumptions you´re dealing with?

Sorry, but you are clearly lacking some basic information about these things. If you think there is a such a thing as 'orbital pressure' that has a significant effect on planetary motion, you are clearly misinformed.

Oh, so maybe it was the atmospheric pressure gravity which pulled the Big Bang forward in existance?

No. Atmospheric pressure has nothing to do with it. Do you even know what atmospheric pressure is? Do you realize it doesn't exist in a vacuum? Do you realize that space is mostly a very high vacuum?

I think it´s something of a novelty for someone who belive in occult and superstitional agencies to say alternate thinking persons to have their heads in the sand.

I STILL conclude this:
ONE occult agency back in Newtons days has spread its dark ghost into lots of other occult agencies, and most of Newtons proponents have to go into a conscious denial and ignore mode in fear of loosing their "scientific" GAM- faces.

As it seems that you never do any critical reseach of the standing consensus theories, I´ll be very pleased to help you with that:

Here are some more critical informations you can ignore and deny - - Cosmology Has Some Big Problems

I see. You give a popular account that is mostly unsubstantiated opinion as opposed to a paper in a peer reviewed journal.

Talk about denial.

 

[Native]

QUOTE="Polymath257, post: 7091216, member: 61896"]Frankly, you can't be reading about the consensus theories because you don't have the mathematical background to do so. At best you are reading some popular account that is of limited veracity. Unless you can read Goldstein's book on Classical Mechanics, you really have no idea what is going on with Newton's ideas.

Unless, that is, you are reading Newton's Principia. Which I very much doubt.[/QUOTE]
Apparently you´re SO self conceited to think everything in the Universe cannot be understood without your magical number acrobatics and equations.

Try and use your number acrobatics on the assumed Big Bang - or what happen inside the assumed "black hole" - or why Newtons occult assumption was contradicted in the galactic realms.

Even our ancient ancestors understood the creation significanly better than modern cosmology with all its assumptions, superstitious occult agencies and dark ghost and dark energies all over in the Universe.

Newton looked at the evidence and came up with a theory that explained what was going on. he specifically did NOT try to find a mechanism because that was not supported by the evidence.

Is your mind at all aware of what your hands are typing here? You´re really saying:

"There were no evidence to support his mechanism".

Well, I´ve known that for some decades now.

Sorry, but you are clearly lacking some basic information about these things. If you think there is a such a thing as 'orbital pressure' that has a significant effect on planetary motion, you are clearly misinformed.

NO, it´s just you poor guys who isn´t informed on the Universities because they only teach particle physics, Newtons occult agencies and empty space.

No. Atmospheric pressure has nothing to do with it. Do you even know what atmospheric pressure is? Do you realize it doesn't exist in a vacuum? Do you realize that space is mostly a very high vacuum?

More of your patronizing attitude and more of your boring parroting. Apparently, you forget everything we´ve discussed from post to post.

Or maybe you´ve just ignored or denied it all in advance so you forgot what we´ve discussed, hence your boring repetitions.

I see. You give a popular account that is mostly unsubstantiated opinion as opposed to a paper in a peer reviewed journal.
Talk about denial.

It doesn´t matter which kind of critical articles i present for you, as you per automatics rejects these.

I bet I could post a critical peer reviewed article and you´ll reject that too - or simply explain away the written criticism as you use to do.

HAVE YOU EVER HAD JUST ONE INDEPENDENT CRITICAL THOUGHT OF ANYTHING IN THE CONSENSUS THEORIES AT ALL?

 

[Polymath257]

QUOTE="Polymath257, post: 7091216, member: 61896"]Frankly, you can't be reading about the consensus theories because you don't have the mathematical background to do so. At best you are reading some popular account that is of limited veracity. Unless you can read Goldstein's book on Classical Mechanics, you really have no idea what is going on with Newton's ideas.

Unless, that is, you are reading Newton's Principia. Which I very much doubt.

Apparently you´re SO self conceited to think everything in the Universe cannot be understood without your magical number acrobatics and equations.[/QUOTE]

I said nothing of the sort. But it is the case for physics and cosmology.

Try and use your number acrobatics on the assumed Big Bang - or what happen inside the assumed "black hole" - or why Newtons occult assumption was contradicted in the galactic realms.

Being used quite successfully, thank you.

Even our ancient ancestors understood the creation significanly better than modern cosmology with all its assumptions, superstitious occult agencies and dark ghost and dark energies all over in the Universe.

Rubbish!

Is your mind at all aware of what your hands are typing here? You´re really saying:

"There were no evidence to support his mechanism".

NO, that is NOT what I am saying. What I am saying, and what Newton was saying, is that the search for a mechanism is both unproductive and pointless.

Well, I´ve known that for some decades now.

And yet, the description works with a high degree of accuracy.

NO, it´s just you poor guys who isn´t informed on the Universities because they only teach particle physics, Newtons occult agencies and empty space.

They teach the best descriptions we have: most accurate, most testable, and those that have passed the largest variety of tests.

EU has nothing compared to that.

More of your patronizing attitude and more of your boring parroting. Apparently, you forget everything we´ve discussed from post to post.

Or maybe you´ve just ignored or denied it all in advance so you forgot what we´ve discussed, hence your boring repetitions.

I have not forgotten. It seems you would like me to because you have yet to deal with the problems I have pointed out in your descriptions.

It doesn´t matter which kind of critical articles i present for you, as you per automatics rejects these.

I only automatically reject those ideas that are directly contradicted by observations.

I bet I could post a critical peer reviewed article and you´ll reject that too - or simply explain away the written criticism as you use to do.

HAVE YOU EVER HAD JUST ONE INDEPENDENT CRITICAL THOUGHT OF ANYTHING IN THE CONSENSUS THEORIES AT ALL?

More than you, I would bet. At least I understand what I am criticizing when I do.

 

[Native]

I said:
Try and use your number acrobatics on the assumed Big Bang - or what happen inside the assumed "black hole" - or why Newtons occult assumption was contradicted in the galactic realms.

Being used quite successfully, thank you.

And your conclusions are?
I said:
Even our ancient ancestors understood the creation significantly better than modern cosmology with all its assumptions, superstitious occult agencies and dark ghost and dark energies all over in the Universe.

Rubbish!

How can you tell? Are you an expert on Comparative Mythology? I doubt that very much. As a rejecter of natural philosophy in general, you have no clues at all.

1) They had/have the Universe to be eternal.
2) They had/have the LIGHT to be the creation force.
3) They had/have 2 main forces of formation, attraction, and expulsion.
4) They had/have everything in the Universe to be formed/created, dissolved and re-formatted in a cyclical and eternal process.
5) They had/have all motions and formations to be cyclical.
6) They had/have a telling of the preconditions of gases and dust and the factual formation of the Milky Way from chaos to order.
7) They had/have the Solar System to be included in the Milky Way formation.
8) They had/have the Solar System once to be formed in the galactic center from where it moved out in the galactic arms.

Just from the paragraph 8) part: it moved out in the galactic arms, you can deduce the correctness of this telling by comparing this paragraph to the observed galactic rotation, where the scientists concluded the stars to fly away from the galaxies because of the rotational pattern.

The ancient cultural mythical knowledge of basic cosmology is far superior to the modern speculations and all their matemathical number gymnatics.

I said:
Is your mind at all aware of what your hands are typing here? You´re really saying:
"There were no evidence to support his mechanism".

NO, that is NOT what I am saying. What I am saying, and what Newton was saying, is that the search for a mechanism is both unproductive and pointless.

What´s the logical difference from my conclusion?

Just think of it: Here we have a scientist claiming he find it unproductive and pointless to look for the causal mechanism of his gravitational hypothesis!?

All he then have left is his speculative assumption and nothing more! He furthermore then assumed his "two-body gravity" to work in the Solar System too as an universal law, but this universal assumption was directly contradicted in the galactic realms, and then the scientists assumed yet another ting, the "dark matter".

This is what some modern scientists STILL accept as a "Scientific Method!? Accepting a historic assumption of a force which mechanism cannot be found or explained - and most standard scientist or proponent STILL find it "unproductive and pointless" to look for the causal mechanism!?

Is that science at all?

And at the same time, these "scientist" and proponents, very annoyed by meeting an opposition, just pecks on those persons who critically are trying to find head and tail in Newtons unsubstanciated assumptions.

I said:
NO, it´s just you poor guys who isn´t informed on the Universities because they only teach particle physics, Newtons occult agencies and empty space.

They teach the best descriptions we have: most accurate, most testable, and those that have passed the largest variety of tests.

Ok so, but the dogmatically, collectively and hypnotized teachers completely forgot to teach students of the critical, logical and independent thinking methods.

EU has nothing compared to that.

Once you´ve left your gravitational particle and Newtons unsubstanciated assumptions behind you and begin to study real E&M science, you can begin to judge the overall EU.

I claimed:
It doesn´t matter which kind of critical articles i present for you, as you per automatics rejects these.

I only automatically reject those ideas that are directly contradicted by observations

As for instants Newtons galactic contradictions, maybe? Then put your words to the logical facts.

I said:
I bet I could post a critical peer reviewed article and you´ll reject that too - or simply explain away the written criticism - or new alternate observations - as you use to do.

Here´s some tests for that:
Effect of Electromagnetic Interaction on Galactic Center Flare Components
Magnetic Fields in the Milky Way and in Galaxies (revised version...
Intergalactic electromagnetic cascades in the magnetized Universe...
Outflow Bubbles from Compact Binary Mergers Embedded in Active...
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.03744.pdf
Rapid Variability of Sgr A* across the Electromagnetic Spectrum

So, what are there to be ignored or denied in these peer reveiwed articles?

I asked:
HAVE YOU EVER HAD JUST ONE INDEPENDENT CRITICAL THOUGHT OF ANYTHING IN THE CONSENSUS THEORIES AT ALL?

More than you, I would bet..

You criticising the convensus science? You almost could have fooled me there as it doesn´t show up in your replies.