Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[ChristineM]

Excellent idea, ChristineM, thank you

As for the rest:

How do you know? You are just reffering to texts you have no clue of and just swallows without thinking for yourself.

And when the debaters ignore your annoying replies, you take this as your opponents have no answers.

Well now I´m free for your annoying comments.

Refering to peer reviewed texts written by experts in their field is really a far better option than making guessed based on discredited and hoax bullpoop

Actually if you care to review this thread you will note that it is you that the debaters are disagreeing with. Sure its annoying when intelligent people consider your nonsense to be nonsense but thats what happens.

 

[ecco]

I don't understand why you are not putting together a thesis and presenting this to the scientific community.

That´s easy to understand. The dogmatic Peer Review system aren´t fitted in order to accept alternative second thoughts at all.

We know your assertion cannot be true. If it were true:

• Heliocentricity would never have been accepted by the scientific community.
• Evolution would never have been accepted by the scientific community.
• The expanding universe would never have been accepted by the scientific community.
• Plate tectonics would never have been accepted by the scientific community.
• The scablands would never have been accepted by the scientific community.

Why would you make such an assertion?

 

[ecco]

I´m surprised indeed! So you´ve now overcome your intellectual lazyness and studied the EU on the expert level?

Of course not. Why would I waste my time trying to become an expert in something that has been thoroughly debunked by people who know far more than me on this subject?

I don't have to be an expert in dowsing, astrology, spoon bending or telepathy to know they are all childish nonsense.

I also don't have to be an expert in aeronautics to feel safe in the airplanes I ride in.

 

[Polymath257]

All your references to the "Mercury problem" STILL doesn´t explain the causes of the planetary motions at all.

Any standard book on General Relativity will go through the derivation of the perihelion shift from the equations of GR. You don't see the causal explanation because you haven't looked at the math.

In GR, the casual links go mass+energy-->curvature of space-->non-straight geodesics (including planetary orbits and the path of light past a massive body). The causal link between mass and energy is given by the basic equations of GR, G=8*pi*T. and the geodesics are given by the geodesic equation, which is common to all manifolds with connection.

 

[ecco]

You´ve come to know nothing of this kind at all. After a long time (40 years) studying Comparative Mythology, I stumbled over the mythological issues in the ThunderboltsProject and then I compared the topics of Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe with my mytological perceptions and do you know what?

It all fits very well together when you interpret the ancient myths of creation in the terms of PC and EU.
You know: The Fiery Light = electromagnetic nuclear forces in the Milky Way center. (Its really observed as strong gamma rays beaming out of the Milky Way center, you know)

But of course you just ignore these findings, being an expert on both Ancient Myths and now also the Electric Universe.

If I wanted to ignore them, I wouldn't have been posting. I took the time to follow your broad-based links and found no support for your assertions. I took the time to follow up on links both pro and con on EU.

The bottom line is that the findings of your Ancient Myths studies and the findings of the EU folks are, to put it nicely, not supported by science.

Conclusion: The Electric Universe is no ones cosmological model. It resembles the Universal forces of creation, just as the ancient Stories of Creation is no ones model, but a collective model for all humans.

Conclusion: They are nothing more than good examples of poor models that the vast majority of humans, scientists and lay people, rightly reject.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh it´s nice to be confirmed in ones preconceptions. I´ve always thought of you as a true and unreflected proponent of patronizing dogmatism


It´s NOT my fault that good old Einstein and others did´nt understood this issue, is it?
Light is just the energetic wave discharge of the atomic electrical charge in particles.

Here you have the correct definition and the logical explanation of the "duality of light" problem.

But of course, since I have no phd or other fancy howsky snowsky speculative educations, you of course don´t believe this natural logics at all do you?

No, that is NOT the reason I don't believe your speculations.

I don't believe your speculations because they make no sense. What does "Light is just the energetic wave discharge of the atomic electrical charge in particles." even mean? For example, the 'atomic electric charge of particles' seems to betray a deep lack of understanding of both atoms and subatomic particles. To say light is 'just the electric discharge' of such is nonsense, pure and simple. An easy way to see this? Light is BOTH electric and magnetic in its properties. It is an *electromagnetic* wave, not just an electric wave.

And we *do* understand in some detail how light is produced when electrons change state (not discharge) in atoms. We understand how charges moving in electric and magnetic fields act. And the explanations are all based on special relativity. The dual nature of photons (and every other quantum particle) is NOT related to 'electric wave discharges'.

 

[Native]

We know your assertion cannot be true. If it were true:

• Heliocentricity would never have been accepted by the scientific community.
• Evolution would never have been accepted by the scientific community.
• The expanding universe would never have been accepted by the scientific community.
• Plate tectonics would never have been accepted by the scientific community.
• The scablands would never have been accepted by the scientific community.

Why would you make such an assertion?

Because I know from own experiences and from lots of others who have tried to get articles through the Peer Review system.

Consensus reviewers simply can´t see the new ideas - very much like on this debate .

 

[Native]

Of course not. Why would I waste my time trying to become an expert in something that has been thoroughly debunked by people who know far more than me on this subject?

Well, maybe not an expert, but you have at the least to be familiar with the overall ideas.
If not, you end up with just the negative personal comments - as you´ve done here and otherwhere on the debates.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Conclusion: The Electric Universe is no ones cosmological model. It resembles the Universal forces of creation, just as the ancient Stories of Creation is no ones model, but a collective model for all humans.

Conclusion: They are nothing more than good examples of poor models that the vast majority of humans, scientists and lay people, rightly reject.

Of course one cannot take a debater serious when he refuse to study anything of the matters.

 

[Native]

No, that is NOT the reason I don't believe your speculations.

I don't believe your speculations because they make no sense. What does "Light is just the energetic wave discharge of the atomic electrical charge in particles." even mean? For example, the 'atomic electric charge of particles' seems to betray a deep lack of understanding of both atoms and subatomic particles.

---------------

To say light is 'just the electric discharge' of such is nonsense, pure and simple. An easy way to see this? Light is BOTH electric and magnetic in its properties. It is an *electromagnetic* wave, not just an electric wave.

You don´t have to explain this obviuos fact to me. There is nothing strange in my explanation of "light". It´s similar to what happen in a thundercloud where atoms/molecules get charged and released a ligthing EM discharge.

Hopefully you don´t reject this fact also?

The dual nature of photons (and every other quantum particle) is NOT related to 'electric wave discharges'.

There is NO "dual nature" when it comes to explain light. I just did this with the thundercloud example. (And don´t begin to speak of duality of "particles and anti-particles" which is speculative nonsense)

 

[Native]

The dual nature of photons (and every other quantum particle) is NOT related to 'electric wave discharges'.

Here you are falling into the selfmade pit of "metallic particles" without counting on the E- qualities of the atoms.

There is no such thing as "a photon particle". It´s for instants NOT particles which flows in wires, but EM waves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here you are falling into the selfmade pit of "metallic particles" without counting on the E- qualities of the atoms.

There is no such thing as "a photon particle". It´s for instants NOT particles which flows in wires, but EM waves.

Do you realize that the particle nature of light has been confirmed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course one cannot take a debater serious when he refuse to study anything of the matters.

So you do understand why no one takes you seriously.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
That´s easy to understand. The dogmatic Peer Review system aren´t fitted in order to accept alternative second thoughts at all.

We know your assertion cannot be true. If it were true:

• Heliocentricity would never have been accepted by the scientific community.
• Evolution would never have been accepted by the scientific community.
• The expanding universe would never have been accepted by the scientific community.
• Plate tectonics would never have been accepted by the scientific community.
• The scablands would never have been accepted by the scientific community.

Why would you make such an assertion?

Most of these examples arrived long before the modern Peer Review system was made.

Just think of it: If a person really came up with a very new cosmological idea, he then would be judged by Consensus Censors who would have NO CLUES of the alternative ideas and its cosmological implications.

In this way Consensus Censors acts like stupid persons who hinders new ideas - and this happens all the time in the dogmatic system of the self-conserving system.

This system is really nothing worth al all and it makes us all more and more stupid.

 

[Native]

Do you realize that the particle nature of light has been confirmed?

Feel welcome to elaborate on your claims.

 

[Polymath257]

Because I know from own experiences and from lots of others who have tried to get articles through the Peer Review system.

Consensus reviewers simply can´t see the new ideas - very much like on this debate .

There are many aspects involved in peer review. Are the ideas good and well supported? Is the writing up to the standard of the journal? What data is provided and how is it analyzed?

From what you have posted here, I see why none of your submissions were accepted.

People often *think* they have good ideas, but often they are poorly thought out and poorly written. That leads to rejection.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Of course one cannot take a debater serious when he refuse to study anything of the matters.

So you do understand why no one takes you seriously.

What a kind of response is that? And from a Moderator???

It isn´t the debaters personally matters which are the subject or topic here, is it?

But OK, if you like: So you do understand why I don´t take your mythological comments seriously?

 

[Native]

People often *think* they have good ideas, but often they are poorly thought out and poorly written. That leads to rejection.

The first reason to rejection is the cemented preconceptions which is impossible to deal with unless debaters (or censors in the Peer Review) open up their minds for alternative approachces and thoughts.

 

[Polymath257]

---------------

You don´t have to explain this obviuos fact to me. There is nothing strange in my explanation of "light". It´s similar to what happen in a thundercloud where atoms/molecules get charged and released a ligthing EM discharge.

Hopefully you don´t reject this fact also?

There is NO "dual nature" when it comes to explain light. I just did this with the thundercloud example. (And don´t begin to speak of duality of "particles and anti-particles" which is speculative nonsense)

Well, we understand why your ideas were rejected by peer reviewed journals (if any were ever submitted).

 

[ratiocinator]

...speculative nonsense...

Your credibility is totally undermined every time you say this about established theories, with considerable supporting evidence (none of which you seem able to explain).

You may think that an established theory is wrong, or that there is a better one, but calling it "speculative nonsense" when it has plenty of supporting evidence is not a credible or rational position to take.