Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[Polymath257]

Sweet! There's a new BMW that I have had my eyes on.

You can always enjoy looking!

 

[Native]

For new ideas to be accepted they need to be better at explaining and making predictions than the old method.

Obviously.

You deny gravity, but gravity makes testable predictions. Does your model? How would you predict the orbits of the planets.

I suggest the cosmological scientists to take a philosophical approach before suggesting anything at all and I don´t give a daim for any calculations which dont fit into an overall picture.

"Gravity " can be explained totally away if taking the logical facts into considerations that our Solar System is an integrated part of the Milky Way rotation and formation. And that it is made via the dynamic EM forces.

Bet even this OBVIOUS and LOGICAL fact is totally out of any cosmological calculations and explanations. There is NO overall explanations and connections in the standing cosmological models of formation.

Gravity as such is just a cosmological ghost, which is why it of course cannot be explained and which is why cosmologists cannot come up with a logical consensus of cosmos.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Back to the subject at hand. The reason that the consensus exists is because the existing models "work". One can predict the orbits of satellites, have a device that tells you where you are, use them to guide ballistic missiles and countless other uses. It is why people used to trust Thomas Brothers Maps over a child's directions scribbled in crayon. One uses tools that that are reliable. When GPS got more trustworthy and useful than Thomas Maps the old system was replaced. For EU to be taken seriously it needs to demonstrate that it is more reliable and useful than the current model.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Obviously.

I suggest the cosmological scientists to take a philosophical approach before suggesting anything at all and I don´t give a daim for any calculations which dont fit into an overall picture.

"Gravity " can be explained totally away if taking the logical facts into considerations that our Solar System is an integrated part of the Milky Way rotation and formation. And that it is made via the dynamic EM forces.

Bet even this OBVIOUS and LOGICAL fact is totally out of any cosmological calculations and explanations. There is NO overall explanations and connections in the standing cosmological models of formation.

Gravity as such is just a cosmological ghost, which is why it of course cannot be explained and which is why cosmologists cannot come up with a logical consensus of cosmos.

Hand waving gets you nowhere. You might not care that your idea is totally worthless and therefore probably false, but realists do care.


If your model cannot make superior predictions then it is of no value as a model.

 

[Polymath257]

Obviously.

I suggest the cosmological scientists to take a philosophical approach before suggesting anything at all and I don´t give a daim for any calculations which dont fit into an overall picture.

"Gravity " can be explained totally away if taking the logical facts into considerations that our Solar System is an integrated part of the Milky Way rotation and formation. And that it is made via the dynamic EM forces.

Then show the detailed calculations of this effect. Show how it gives, for example, the Kepler laws (at least in approximation). Show how it predicts the specific motions of the planets down to the arc second over a period of a century.

Until you (or somebody) can do this, your 'theory' will be ignored, as it should be. As you said, the new theory should be better than the current one and *this* is what is required to be better than the current one at the level of the solar system.

Bet even this OBVIOUS and LOGICAL fact is totally out of any cosmological calculations and explanations. There is NO overall explanations and connections in the standing cosmological models of formation.

Gravity as such is just a cosmological ghost, which is why it of course cannot be explained and which is why cosmologists cannot come up with a logical consensus of cosmos.

Please provide specific and detailed calculations based on your model to support these claims.

 

[Native]

You deny gravity, but gravity makes testable predictions. Does your model? How would you predict the orbits of the planets.

Furthermore when speaking of "gravity" and "new data".

The Standard Model ascribe the assumed gravity force to be the dominant force of all, taking particles as gravity mass cause for motions, TOTALLY FORGETTING and DIRECTLY IGNORES the EM ENERGY of atoms and the natural EM motions of energy.

In this strange way, the cosmological scientists uses the weakest force of all to count for everything and all motions in cosmos. Cosmic motions which shows up more energy than the gravity model can explain.

Which is why the standard cosmologists "needs more particles in cosmos" - and then they invent all kinds of "dark this and that" where they just should have included the much stronger EM forces to govern it all in order to grasp the motions in cosmos.

 

[Polymath257]

Furthermore when speaking of "gravity" and "new data".

The Standard Model ascribe the assumed gravity force to be the dominant force of all, taking particles as gravity mass cause for motions, TOTALLY FORGETTING and DIRECTLY IGNORES the EM ENERGY of atoms and the natural EM motions of energy.

Well, originally Newton didn't have a theory about E&M. Once one was developed (by Maxwell), it was very clear that E&M could not explain things like planetary orbits.

 

[Native]

Hand waving gets you nowhere. You might not care that your idea is totally worthless and therefore probably false, but realists do care.

Preconcieved circular arguments without any logical arguments doesn´t fit a real realist

 

[Subduction Zone]

Furthermore when speaking of "gravity" and "new data".

The Standard Model ascribe the assumed gravity force to be the dominant force of all, taking particles as gravity mass cause for motions, TOTALLY FORGETTING and DIRECTLY IGNORES the EM ENERGY of atoms and the natural EM motions of energy.

In this strange way, the cosmological scientists uses the weakest force of all to count for everything and all motions in cosmos. Cosmic motions which shows up more energy than the gravity model can explain.

Which is why the standard cosmologists "needs more particles in cosmos" - and then they invent all kinds of "dark this and that" where they just should have included the much stronger EM forces to govern it all in order to grasp the motions in cosmos.

Nope. You first need to demonstrate that such forces exist.


And once again if your model cannot make superior predictions it is of little value.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Preconcieved circular arguments without any logical arguments doesn´t fit a real realist

Projection. Models are tested. That means they are not based on circular arguments.

 

[Native]

Well, originally Newton didn't have a theory about E&M. Once one was developed (by Maxwell), it was very clear that E&M could not explain things like planetary orbits.

Yes he had indeed. And no one could explain the planetary orbits because no one thought of the connection with the orbital motion in the Milky Way galaxy of which our Solar System is an integrated orbital and formational part.

Luckely for Newton, he didn´t discover these connected facts, so he just could hold onto his assumed gravity and the ideas of celestial motion around the Sun as the gravitational center.

And unfortunately unluckely for all those who after his time just believes in his unfinished perception of cosmos.

Of course the EM can explain this. You just have to begin with the Plasma Cosmology and the strong EM Fundamental force which is on the level of nuclear energy in galactic centers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes he had indeed. And no one could explain the planetary orbits because no one thought of the connection with the orbital motion in the Milky Way galaxy of which our Solar System is an integrated orbital and formational part.

Luckely for Newton, he didn´t discover these connected facts, so he just could hold onto his assumed gravity and the ideas of celestial motion around the Sun as the gravitational center.

And unfortunately unluckely for all those who after his time just believes in his unfinished perception of cosmos.

Where are the testable predictions by EU believers on orbits?

 

[Native]

Nope. You first need to demonstrate that such forces exist.

You can take off proving all kinds of "dark this or that" exists.

 

[Polymath257]

Where are the testable predictions by EU believers on orbits?

Try the orbit of Mars, for example....it has made a good test case for hundreds of years.

Oh, and what intensity of E&M field would be required locally to keep the planets in their orbits? Why do our probes not detect such a field (even though they are built to detect such)? The levels actually detected are quite far from being enough to explain planetary orbits.

But, I would encourage doing the calculations and seeing how the EU theory deals with the solar system *in detail*.

Oh, and if gravity doesn't exist, how is the Cavendish experiment explained?

 

[Polymath257]

You can take off proving all kinds of "dark this or that" exists.

Sure. Just deal with the solar system at first. See if you can explain *in detail* the motions of the planets using your theory.

If you can do that, then you will get a hearing in the science journals. But your theory has to be accurate to within a second of arc in the orbits over the course of a century.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can take off proving all kinds of "dark this or that" exists.

Those ideas are supported by evidence. By your own admission there is no evidence for the EU.

 

[Native]

Where are the testable predictions by EU believers on orbits?

I have not any factual knowledge of such official predictions. It´s just me being far ahead in these matters )

Where are your thoughts of my explanation:

"And no one could explain the planetary orbits because no one thought of the connection with the orbital motion in the Milky Way galaxy of which our Solar System is an integrated orbital and formational part".

 

[Polymath257]

I have not any factual knowledge of such official predictions. It´s just me being far ahead in these matters )

Where are your thoughts of my explanation:

"And no one could explain the planetary orbits because no one thought of the connection with the orbital motion in the Milky Way galaxy of which our Solar System is an integrated orbital and formational part".

My thoughts are that we seem to have a very good handle on the motion of the planets in our solar system.

If you want to propose another theory for such, you need to do some detailed calculations. Hand waving and philosophy won't cut it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have not any factual knowledge of such official predictions. It´s just me being far ahead in these matters )

Where are your thoughts of my explanation:

"And no one could explain the planetary orbits because no one thought of the connection with the orbital motion in the Milky Way galaxy of which our Solar System is an integrated orbital and formational part".

It is a throw away statement if you can't support it with a working model.

 

[Native]

By your own admission there is no evidence for the EU.

What? Get real please! I hate to discuss with ghosts