Cosmology of the Electric Universe

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

No.

My rejection of EU is based on there being not there to accept. Regardless of whatever consensus about anything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

How about you stop focusing on theories that you perceive as the "competition" and instead shift focus to your own hypothesis and try to actually meet your own burden of proof.

When explaining how EU is supposed to work and be applied to observations, the "competing" ideas shouldn't even come up...


Unless, off course, this is like the creationist case where the "evidence" FOR creationism consists of nothing but trying to poke holes in the perceived competing theory of evolution.

Which, off course, is just a smoke screen to try and cover up the fact that there's no actual evidence FOR the proposition at all.

 

[Native]

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

I would if you had your focus on the present discussion of Atmospheric Pressure contra Newtons occult "two body gravity assumptions" which essence nobody can explain.

 

[Native]

My rejection of EU is based on there being not there to accept. Regardless of whatever consensus about anything.

That´s just what I said about this issue = Automatically rejections.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Explain the assumed "force of gravity"

Serious question:

Do you believe that the mere failing to explain the force of gravity, makes your EU claim more credible / advances the case of EU?

 

[Native]

Do you believe that the mere failing to explain the force of gravity, makes your EU claim more credible / advances the case of EU?

It does on the "longer run" as "a law of pressure", but we´re not yet there in the present discussion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That´s just what I said about this issue = Automatically rejections.

Yes, I automatically reject every claim for which there is insufficient evidence, if that is what you mean.

Why, do you think I should automatically accept every claim, regardless of evidence, instead?
Surely you don't....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It does on the "longer run" as "a law of pressure", but we´re not yet there in the present discussion.

So that is a "yes" to my question?

If science doesn't know how to explain gravity, then that is seen by you as positive evidence FOR Electric Universe?


Do you realize how this makes your case for EU in this matter no more or less then a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance?

Is this all you got or do you also actually have some positive evidence FOR your claim instead of arguments from ignorance?

 

[Native]

Yes, I automatically reject every claim for which there is insufficient evidence, if that is what you mean.

Logicaly you then also should reject something which cannot be explained as for instants "the essence of gravity".

 

[gnostic]

I would if you had your focus on the present discussion of Atmospheric Pressure contra Newtons occult "two body gravity assumptions" which essence nobody can explain.

I am not asking for equations relating to gravity, Native.

I am asking EU equations relating to EU cosmology.

If EM forces the cause of galactic motions of stars, then show these the so-called alternative EM equations.

If EM forces are the cause of Earth orbiting around the Sun, then show EM equations for Earth’s planetary motion.

Can you do that or not?

Are there EM mathematical solutions in the Electric Universe cosmology or not?

You are being very evasive, refusing to answer questions, only strengthen my views that EU is not a working scientific theory.

 

[Native]

So that is a "yes" to my question?

What word or sentense part is it you don´t understand here:

It does on the "longer run" as "a law of pressure", but we´re not yet there in the present discussion.

 

[Native]

[QUOTE="gnostic, post: 7056884, member: 4958" !][/QUOTE]

Native said: ↑
I would if you had your focus on the present discussion of Atmospheric Pressure contra Newtons occult "two body gravity assumptions" which essence nobody can explain.

Hold your focus or leave the thread.

 

[Polymath257]

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:

OK, then explain how 'atmospheric pressure' makes things fall on Earth.

In detail.

So, given an object and a value for the atmospheric pressure (and whatever other information you want), predict how fast something will fall *using nothing dependent on gravity*.

For example, if the pressure changes, how does that affect how fast things fall? If there is a low pressure front in the region, do things fall differently? or not? By how much?

If I build a vacuum chamber, so there is no 'atmospheric pressure' inside of it, how does that affect how things fall?

Don't do vague hand waving. Give detailed answers, providing specific examples if required.

 

[Polymath257]

I would if you had your focus on the present discussion of Atmospheric Pressure contra Newtons occult "two body gravity assumptions" which essence nobody can explain.

OK, let's focus on Atmospheric Pressure.

You claim that pressure makes things fall. Am I correct in saying this?

So, if the Atmospheric pressure changes, things should fall at a different rate. Is that a correct deduction from your position?

For example, If I drop a ball (say, a solid plastic ball 3cm in diameter) when the barometric pressure is 760mmHg, how does that compare to how that same ball will fall if there is only 755mmHg? Or if the pressure increases to 765mmHg?

If I make a hyperbaric tank with a pressure of 2000mmHg, how would that affect how things fall inside that tank? How about if it was 5000mmHg?

Suppose, instead, that I create a vacuum tank that only has 200mmHg. How do things fall inside of that tank? How about if the pressure is 50mmHg? 1mmHg?

Give details along with some explanations. Give us *something* instead of vague pointing to seemingly irrelevant articles.

 

[Polymath257]

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

OK, let's do it this way. How much pressure do you think is shown in this picture? Choose your units (pascals, mmHg, N/m^2 ).

How does that pressure produce the observed pressure at the ground (760mmHg, 101,000 pascal, etc)?

Is the pressure higher or lower in the shock wave of the picture than it is lower in the atmosphere, say at the surface?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Logicaly you then also should reject something which cannot be explained as for instants "the essence of gravity".

You make no sense.

If something can't currently be explained, then by definition that means that there is no proposed explanation to reject OR accept.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What word or sentense part is it you don´t understand here:

Why is it so hard for you to just answer "yes" or "no" to a yes/no question?

So is it a yes or a no?

Do you or do you not think that the notion that some rivaling idea can't be adequately explained means that that counts as evidence for your idea? Do you think it supports your EU idea by pointing out problems in rivalling ideas?

Yes or no.

It's a simple question. No qualifiers are needed.

 

[gnostic]

Hold your focus or leave the thread.

Is this thread not about Electric Universe cosmology?

If it is about Electric Universe, then why won’t you answer my questions with all dodging and making excuses?

Are there set of EM equations in the EU model that explain the phenomena you have claimed about the Solar System or the Milky Way?

If EM forces caused the planetary motions around the Sun, then show the accompanying EM equations that support the EU model that matched with observations?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is this thread not about Electric Universe cosmology?

If it is about Electric Universe, then why won’t you answer my questions with all dodging and making excuses?

Are there set of EM equations in the EU model that explain the phenomena you have claimed about the Solar System or the Milky Way?

If EM forces caused the planetary motions around the Sun, then show the accompanying EM equations that support the EU model that matched with observations?

You're not playing fair man!

You are asking for evidence in support of the claims!
You are not supposed to do that!

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
I would if you had your focus on the present discussion of Atmospheric Pressure contra Newtons occult "two body gravity assumptions" which essence nobody can explain.

I am not asking for equations relating to gravity, Native.

Neither am I. I´m asking you to concentrate on the standing subject in this thread as quoted above and if you can´t contribute to this, just avoid any disturbing replies or leave the thread.