Cosmology of the Electric Universe

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Do your own analysis homevork

I am not a mind reader.

You´re also not a philosopher, otherwise you would have recognized the cosmological implications in my points of views.

You like to claim the same calculations would be done in your system, but *why* would the same ones be done?

The relevant similar equations and calculations in question are already done:
Atmospheric Pressure and Earth Gravity - so do your own philosophical homework.

You claim pressure for moving the planets in their orbits. What is producing that pressure? We *know* that the vacuum of space is very, very good. So where does the pressure come from? How would we measure it?

I hope you know how to measure the Atmospheric Pressure

The pressure on the Earth´s atmosphere derives from the orbital velocity of 107200 km/h around the Sun.

People *do* make their own conclusions. And, based on what EU has said, the conclusion is that EU is nonsense.

"People" makes the conclusions from what they´ve been thaught on Universities and new thoughts and discoveries only derives from alternate and independent philosophical ponderings and thinking.

And as an EU isn´t taught on Universities, "people" reject this automatically if they just follow the authorities blindly an forget to think independently and critically for themselves.

Native said: ↑
I´ve explained all of my opinions several times and just meet pure rejections and no serious attempts to follow my explanations.

No, actually, you haven't. You have made vague claims and asserted the standard model is silly. But you have given no details about any of your claims.

Of course my points are "vague to you" as you apparently have forgotten to turn on your philosophical ponderings of pattern recognitions.

I`ve mentioned the subjects of Earth´s Gravity and Atmospheric Pressure and it shouldn´t be that different for anyone to compare the two and decide which of these are the most natural and scientifical explainable.

Newton´s Earth´s "two body gravity" cannot be explained by anyone as a dynamic force, but only by an assumption - followed up by lots of add hoc assumptions and epicycles all over in the observable Universe.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Big Bang?
Dark matter?
Dark energy?
Newtons occult force?
Galaxies which moves in overlight speed?

You are evading, trying to change the subjects.

This topic is yours...and it is about the Electric Universe cosmology and how you believe that EM effects “everything” and causes “everything”.

Then fine, show a testable equation or equations of how EM caused the tides to rise and ebb, and the waves of water.

Since you don’t believe it is caused by the gravity of the moon and the orbital motion, then surely you must have mathematical solution from some EM equations that cause sea tides and waves.

Too hard? No answers?

Ok, then try the planetary motions in our Solar System: rotational of planets (eg earth, Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Neptune, etc), the orbits of these planets.

Do you have set of testable EM equations that would explain planetary rotations or orbiting motions?

Oh, wait! You don’t believe it is the gravity of the sun...what you believe is that the EM fields and forces of the Milky Way galactic centre that cause all motions in our Solar System.

Ok, then could you show us testable equations of the Milky Way being the cause of planetary motion in our Solar System?

Native, I already know that vehemently disagree with Newtonian and Einstein’s theories on gravity, that every equations and every evidence of gravitational forces.

You offered Electric Universe as alternative solutions to everything, from Earth to the universe, then surely Electric Universe must have alternative TESTABLE equations that support EM is the cause of everything.

Clearly you are the expert in Electric Universe, so where are these alternative? Where are the testable EM equations that show EM are the cause of Earthly natural phenomena or the galactic natural phenomena?

Gnostic,
I´m pretty tired of your parrotting and disconnected replies, so I´ll just ignore your posts unless you have some interesting and independent thoughts of your own.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Prove yourself wrong and do your own homework. I´ve told you how several times now.

Yes, you have been trying to shift the burden of proof for several times now. Every time, actually.

All I´ve tried is to make some debaters to think independently for themselves. Read my latest response to Polymath257 and feel welcome to join in. (#121)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All I´ve tried is to make some debaters to think independently for themselves. Read my latest response to Polymath257 and feel welcome to join in. (#121)

As @Polymath257 has already told you, we do "think independently for ourselves". It's how we have concluded that your EU claims are bs. Because you make all these claims and never support them, not even after excessive requests to do so.

When someone refuses so much to put their money where their mouth is, we can only conclude they don't have the money.

I'm about done asking now.
Feel free to demonstrate your claims at any time. Moving forward, just consider you are invited 24/7 to show us the evidence.

Until such time, I'll just assume you don't have the evidence, based on the observation that you seem incapable of sharing it.

 

[Native]

As @Polymath257 has already told you, we do "think independently for ourselves".

Correction: Consensus group thinking is nothing to have if new thoughts of astrophysics and cosmology shall develop.

Until such time, I'll just assume you don't have the evidence, based on the observation that you seem incapable of sharing it.

You are free to assume what you like - just like Newton was free to assume his superstitious "two body gravity".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Correction: Consensus group thinking is nothing to have if new thoughts of astrophysics and cosmology shall develop.

This isn't about consensus anything.
My position on whatever the consensus is concerning gravity, big bang, whatever, is completely irrelevant concerning evaluating your claims of EU.

You again seem to be making that same mistake as I pointed out in those other posts.

You sound like those creationists who apparently can only argue "for" creationism by complaining about evolution.

You are free to assume what you like - just like Newton was free to assume his superstitious "two body gravity".

See? You're doing it again.

You can't seem to make a single post on the topic of EU, without bashing what you perceive as "the competition".

Do you have anything other then complaining about theories / hypothesis that aren't the one you are trying to push?

It doesn't sound like you do.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
Do your own analysis homevork

You´re also not a philosopher, otherwise you would have recognized the cosmological implications in my points of views.

The relevant similar equations and calculations in question are already done:
Atmospheric Pressure and Earth Gravity - so do your own philosophical homework.

The equations provided are based on 'gravity physics'. You need to show how/why they apply with EU.

I hope you know how to measure the Atmospheric Pressure

Yes, I do. But by my understanding, that doesn't affect how things fall.

The pressure on the Earth´s atmosphere derives from the orbital velocity of 107200 km/h around the Sun.

Just curious: which direction do you think the Earth is moving in that picture? Which direction is the sun? And why do you think it has any relevance at all to atmospheric pressure?

"People" makes the conclusions from what they´ve been thaught on Universities and new thoughts and discoveries only derives from alternate and independent philosophical ponderings and thinking.

And as an EU isn´t taught on Universities, "people" reject this automatically if they just follow the authorities blindly an forget to think independently and critically for themselves.

The rejection is NOT automatic. But, given the complete lack of details and actual calculations to verify the EU theory, there is nothing to do but reject it *until* details are provided.

Native said: ↑
I´ve explained all of my opinions several times and just meet pure rejections and no serious attempts to follow my explanations.

Of course my points are "vague to you" as you apparently have forgotten to turn on your philosophical ponderings of pattern recognitions.

I`ve mentioned the subjects of Earth´s Gravity and Atmospheric Pressure and it shouldn´t be that different for anyone to compare the two and decide which of these are the most natural and scientifical explainable.

Yes, you mention them. But you give no justification of them in your system. Those equations are based on a system you reject. So you need to show why *in your system* those are still the appropriate equations to use.

Newton´s Earth´s "two body gravity" cannot be explained by anyone as a dynamic force, but only by an assumption - followed up by lots of add hoc assumptions and epicycles all over in the observable Universe.

Except that the minor differences between Newton's theory and observation were explained by Einstein, whose work you also reject.

EU doesn't even get to the playing field because it proves absolutely no details: only vague philosophical ramblings.

 

[Native]

This isn't about consensus anything.
My position on whatever the consensus is concerning gravity, big bang, whatever, is completely irrelevant concerning evaluating your claims of EU.

As long as you have your automatic rejections against an EU, it´s all about gravitational consensus.

 

[gnostic]

Native said: ↑
Big Bang?
Dark matter?
Dark energy?
Newtons occult force?
Galaxies which moves in overlight speed?

Gnostic,
I´m pretty tired of your parrotting and disconnected replies, so I´ll just ignore your posts unless you have some interesting and independent thoughts of your own.

You are convinced that EU is the correct solution - and alternative to the theories of gravity, not only of gravity of the Earth, but everything in the Solar System, everything in the Milky Way and in the Big Bang theory.

You think everything about gravity, evidence and equations should be replaced with the laws of Electromagnetic fields and forces.

If that is the case, then I am asking you to provide EM equations of those natural phenomena that you think should replace the Newtonian or Einstein’s equations.

You want Electric Universe to be taken as a valid scientific theory, then prove it. Show us some of these EM equations that solve problems that gravity and other forces cannot solve.​

Can you do that or not?

Or are you going to keep evading and making lame excuses about me not having independent thoughts?

 

[gnostic]

As long as you have your automatic rejections against an EU, it´s all about gravitational consensus.

You are still making excuses. You are being evasive.

 

[Native]

The equations provided are based on 'gravity physics'. You need to show how/why they apply with EU.

One thing at the time before making the connections. Focus on the two mentioned subjects first.

Just curious: which direction do you think the Earth is moving in that picture? Which direction is the sun? And why do you think it has any relevance at all to atmospheric pressure?

It s irrelevant to the main question of the obvious observable pressure.

Yes, you mention them. But you give no justification of them in your system. Those equations are based on a system you reject. So you need to show why *in your system* those are still the appropriate equations to use.

We don´t have two systems" as I only count on the explainable one of Atmospheric Pressure and reject the superstitious "two body gravity" - as also Einstein did.

Except that the minor differences between Newton's theory and observation were explained by Einstein, whose work you also reject.

You´re conflating Newton´s supersitious "two body assumption" with his "Universal laws of celestial motion" which wasn´t universal at all as it was contradicted on the galactic scales and led to more superstitious "dark matter" inventions.

Hold your focus on Newton´s occult earthly "two body" assumptions, please.

 

[Native]

You want Electric Universe to be taken as a valid scientific theory, then prove it. Show us some of these EM equations that solve problems that gravity and other forces cannot solve.

Wrong premesis: You assert "gravity" to exist despite no consensus scientists can explain it.

 

[gnostic]

Wrong premesis: You assert "gravity" to exist despite no consensus scientists can explain it.

You are still evading.

Can you provide a set of electromagnetic equations from Electric Universe that solve the natural phenomena?

eg equations that explain galactic motion of the Milky Way, equations to planetary orbits in our Solar System, equation(s) to falling objects, etc.

 

[Polymath257]

As long as you have your automatic rejections against an EU, it´s all about gravitational consensus.

OK, we dismiss the 'gravitational consensus'.

NOW, from the principles of EU, explain in detail why things fall.

NOT by some hand waving towards atmospheric pressure, but *details* of how that pressure is produced, and how it makes things fall in the way that they do.

From the principles of EU, describe in detail what would happen in a vacuum chamber on Earth: would things fall in it or not? Why or why not?

Then, explain *from the principles of EU* the specific motions of the planets, explaining in detail the relative positions of the planets in a year *from EU principles*.

Then explain *in detail* and *from EU principles* why the probes we send to Mars actually manage to make it there, even though the calculations to send them are based on the 'gravity theory' that you reject. In other words, from EU principles, explain why the probes move as they do.

So, sure, we can reject gravity physics. But you have a LOT of work to do explaining HOW your EU theory deals with the things currently explained by gravity.

 

[Native]

You are still evading.

NO, I´m directing you to the relevant and basic questions and logics which should make you think independently for yourself.

Explain the assumed "force of gravity" before you use the term in your comparisons.

 

[Polymath257]

NO, I´m directing you to the relevant and basic questions and logics which should make you think independently for yourself.

Explain the assumed "force of gravity" before you use the term in your comparisons.

Why? If it makes accurate predictions, why should there be a mechanical explanation as you seem to want?

And, if EU cannot make accurate predictions, why should it be accepted?

In science the *standard* for any theory is whether it agrees in detail with actual observations. Show us how EU accomplishes that. We can eliminate any mention of gravity from this point on. But you need to show how EU explains the observed motions.

 

[Native]

NOW, from the principles of EU, explain in detail why things fall.

You´re out of fucus once again. I´ve never claimed how the EU model "makes things fall on the Earth".
I said earlier that:

One thing at the time before making the connections. Focus on the two mentioned subjects first. (The Atmospheric Pressure and Newtons assumed Earth Gravity)

 

[gnostic]

NO, I´m directing you to the relevant and basic questions and logics which should make you think independently for yourself.

Explain the assumed "force of gravity" before you use the term in your comparisons.

This thread is about Electric Universe, not about gravity.

Why won’t you answer my questions about Electric Universe.

Does the Electric Universe have a set of EM equations that modelled the galactic motions or planetary motions (eg Earth’s orbit around the sun), etc?

If there are equations in EU, then why won’t you present them?

If there aren’t, then why all of these evasive excuses? Are you so prideful that you cannot admit there are no testable equations in EU?

 

[Native]

This thread is about Electric Universe, not about gravity.

Firstly: So why did you bring "the consensus gravity question" yourself on the stage at the first place?

Secondly: It´s MY OP and you either have to follow where the thread leads to or leave it.

 

[gnostic]

Firstly: So why did you bring "the consensus gravity question" yourself on the stage at the first place?

Secondly: It´s MY OP and you either have to follow the thread or leave it.

You are like a politician, who evade and won’t give straight answers.

So I am not allow to ask questions in this thread?

Because you had already refused to answer questions.

Then why bother to post this thread in Debate forums when you cannot accept other people’s views other than your own.

Aren’t you better off, starting this thread in the Discussion sections?

Why call this thread Cosmology of the Electric Universe, when you won’t answer questions to explain what Electric Universe, by providing some examples of testable EM equations?

Are there EM equations of cosmology in the EU model or not?

Can you show a mathematical model of EU (eg equations) that explain galactic motions?