Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[ecco]

You cannot explain anything of the celestial motions in our Solar System without including the motion and formation in the center of our Milky Way galaxy.

Actually, we can. None of the solar system models take the Milky Way into consideration. Yet they work for thousands of years in the past and future.

However, you have ignored the following post two times. So, I'm giving you a third opportunity to show that EU has validity.

Here...
Simulator online revolution orbits of the planets — Astronoo...is one of many apps that shows where the planets are, where they are going to be, and where they were in the past.

These programs use the formulas of gravity to calculate the motions and past and future positions.

Astronomers who take pictures of the night skies can easily verify the correctness of, at least, where planets were in the past.

A test of the correctness of EU would merely involve someone writing a program showing past and future planetary positions with all calculations based on EU instead of gravity.

Surely, among the many believers in the Thunderbolts Project, there must be a few people trained in writing computer programs.​

 

[Native]

Without going thru the history of how dark matter was discovered,
the best reason for adding it into the mix of physical phenomena
is that it results in the best (simplest testable) theory to fit the data.
No need to alter our understanding of gravity at all.
Do you know of a better explanation?

Well Einstein thought it was needed to alter the Newtonian gravity model and so do I indeed.
Yes, the better explanation comes when including the formation of the Solar System into the Milky Way formation and motion. Then all rotational and orbital motions in our Solar System is philosophically explained.

 

[Native]

Here's the question for you: if the overall motion of the galaxy has to be taken into account, how is it possible the calculations give the correct answers?

Wrong premisis. You cannot expect the answer to be "correct" according to any Newtonian or Einsteinian "answers or data".

 

[Revoltingest]

Well Einstein thought it was needed to alter the Newtonian gravity model and so do I indeed.

We agree that general relativity is useful.

Yes, the better explanation comes when including the formation of the Solar System into the Milky Way formation and motion. Then all rotational and orbital motions in our Solar System is philosophically explained.

What is the philosophical explanation your proffer as an
alternative to gravitational effects upon ordinary & dark matter?

 

[Polymath257]

Wrong premisis. You cannot expect the answer to be "correct" according to any Newtonian or Einsteinian "answers or data".

The calculations agree with observation. THAT is what makes them correct. And that is ALL that is required.

Can your theory do this? if not, there is nothing else to discuss.

 

[Polymath257]

Well Einstein thought it was needed to alter the Newtonian gravity model and so do I indeed.
Yes, the better explanation comes when including the formation of the Solar System into the Milky Way formation and motion. Then all rotational and orbital motions in our Solar System is philosophically explained.

Give details. Philosophy is irrelevant if it cannot produce detailed predictions that can be verified by observation.

 

[Native]

My apologies. I had forgotten that English is not your first language.

Apology accepted

Native said: ↑
...even when a myth speaks of factual celestial objects.

Here is a myth that speaks of a factual celestial object...

So, Maui cut off the sacred tresses of his wife, Hina, to make a rope that would not burn in the Sun. With his rope he caught the Sun as it was rising and beat it with the magic jawbone of his grandmother. The Sun was so weak after the beating that it could not run but only creep along its course. In this way, sunlight lasted longer, and it was possible to work more during the day.
Would you give credence to this myth just because it speaks of a factual celestial object?

Yes I would. It deals with the seasonal length of the day i. e. of the summer season.

Besides this: My former examples from the Egyptian mythology was/is more specific and clear than your example here.

Well, I decided to reply. I'm also wondering why you have been unable to respond to my comment regarding programming a solar system simulator using only EU equations.

I simply didn´t grasp the need to do such a thing, but maybe you can elaborate more on such a need.

 

[Native]

The calculations agree with observation. THAT is what makes them correct. And that is ALL that is required.

Can your theory do this? if not, there is nothing else to discuss.

And what if the calculations contradicts the observations or visa versa?

 

[Polymath257]

And what if the calculations contradicts the observations or visa versa?

Then we search for why. Either there is something we neglected to include or we have to modify the overall theory. Both are possibilities.

Now, you want to modify the overall theory. That, as it stands, is fine. So, modify it and do some calculations and see if your theory predicts the observations better than the theory that says something was overlooked.

Now, back to the solar system. Can you provide *detailed* descriptions of the motions of the planets based on EU? i

 

[Native]

A test of the correctness of EU would merely involve someone writing a program showing past and future planetary positions with all calculations based on EU instead of gravity.

Surely, among the many believers in the Thunderbolts Project, there must be a few people trained in writing computer programs.

I have no ideas of this. I´m not a member of the ThunderboltsProject.

 

[Native]

Then we search for why. Either there is something we neglected to include or we have to modify the overall theory. Both are possibilities.

I already know three reasons for why the calculation wouldn´t fit the observations and visa versa.
The 3/4 part of the fundamental forces is neglected in the standing Newtonian theory.

 

[ratiocinator]

I already know three reasons for why the calculation wouldn´t fit the observations and visa versa.

But they do match the observations - and you are unable to provide alternative calculations that even do as well as what we have, let alone make any new predictions.

That's why, scientifically speaking, you literally have no argument.

 

[Polymath257]

I already know three reasons for why the calculation wouldn´t fit the observations and visa versa.
The 3/4 part of the fundamental forces is neglected in the standing Newtonian theory.

Then why *do* the calculations fit the observations within the solar system?

 

[ecco]

I'm also wondering why you have been unable to respond to my comment regarding programming a solar system simulator using only EU equations.

I simply didn´t grasp the need to do such a thing, bur
tmaybe you can elaborate more on such a need.

I, and others, do not believe your assertions regarding gravity and EM. You have been asked for proofs. As I wrote earlier...

Here...

Simulator online revolution orbits of the planets — Astronoo​

...is one of many apps that shows where the planets are, where they are going to be, and where they were in the past.

These programs use the formulas of gravity to calculate the motions and past and future positions.

Astronomers who take pictures of the night skies can easily verify the correctness of, at least, where planets were in the past.

A test of the correctness of EU would merely involve someone writing a program showing past and future planetary positions with all calculations based on EU instead of gravity.

Surely, among the many believers in the Thunderbolts Project, there must be a few people trained in writing computer programs.
​

I went to the Thunderbolts Project website to see if they had already done it. I didn't find anything. However, I noticed that the site had not been updated since 2017.

 

[ecco]

ecco:
A test of the correctness of EU would merely involve someone writing a program showing past and future planetary positions with all calculations based on EU instead of gravity.

Surely, among the many believers in the Thunderbolts Project, there must be a few people trained in writing computer programs.​

I have no ideas of this. I´m not a member of the ThunderboltsProject.

As I mentioned earlier, I went to the Thunderbolts Project to see if they had any links to such a program. Nothing. I googled several versions of "Thunderbolts Project solar system"; "Thunderbolts Project planetary motions". Nothing.

It would certainly be an easy, interesting proof of EU to have a program that shows planetary motions. I guess they and you are OK with just making assertions without even basic proofs.

 

[Native]

What is the philosophical explanation your proffer as an
alternative to gravitational effects upon ordinary & dark matter?

Thanks for this question

You of course know the standard explanation of the formation of the Solar System:

From - Formation and evolution of the Solar System - Wikipedia

"The formation and evolution of the Solar System began 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud.[1] Most of the collapsing mass collected in the center, forming the Sun, while the rest flattened into a protoplanetary disk out of which the planets, moons, asteroids, and other small Solar System bodies formed".
---------------
In fact, several ancient Stories of Creation have a very similar explanation, just with the difference that our ancestors had a specific location for this cosmic cloud.

The essence of mythical explanation begins with chaotic hot and cold rivers which floats together in a swirling center. When the rivers floats together in this whirling center, gaseous and dusty matters heats up and causes a central fire, which creates firm matters out of the gaseous rivers and eventually creates everything in the ancient known part of the Universe.

So: All rotational and orbital motions derives from this central whirling motion.

In the Egyptian Culture from about 3.200 BC, they had a Story of Creation, named "The Ogdoad" where this central Light of Creation is specifically connected with the Egyptian Goddess Hathor, who represents the Milky Way.

That is: Our ancestors connected their Stories of Creation to the Milky Way and it´s central Light of Creation from where everything was created in the MIlky Way.

As our Solar System is a part of this central and initial formation in the Milky Way, this was also created in the Milky Way center and was expelled out in the galactic surroundings as a large molted and shining sphere when reaching its "critical weight". On its expanding way out from the galactic center, planets were dispersed out of this sunny sphere and later on, moons were dispersed out of their mother planets.

Preliminary summary:
The entire formational process has initially an attractive motion which turns to an repelling motion, i.e. we are talking of a circuit of formation.

- When scientists discovered the galactic rotation curve, they were concerned that this rotation would sling the stars out of the galaxy, which was why they "invented dark matter". In fact, this was a genuine discovery of an outgoing motion which confirms the expanding motion from the galactic center, just as explained in the ancient Stories of Creation.

Just by looking at the structure of our barred Milky Way we must conclude the formative motion to be of an outgoing motion. There is NO WAY the Milky Way arms can take an abrupt 90 degree turn into the barred structure and into the galactic center. It´s logically the other way around, just like a two arm rotation garden sprinkler.

So I offer and prefer this philosophical explanation as an alternative explanation of both the formation of our Milky Way and our Solar System as an assembled explanation.

All rotational and orbital motions in our Solar System are determined from the swirling galactic center and this initial expanding motion STILL affects the increasing distances bewteen the Sun and Earth and bewteen the Earth and the Moon. This increasing motion has nothing to do with the assumed "frame dragging" between the celestial objects.

Regarding "gravity" as a feeling of weight: Weight is created by atoms and molecules etc. which electromagnetically binds gases and particles together. And the "Earth gravitational force" is just the weight of the gaseous layers in the atmosphere.

My conclusion:
The formation in cosmos takes place in a circuit of motion and this circuital motion can only be achieved by the electromagnetic force. And i take this EM force as just 1 force which works everywhere in all elementary stages just with different charges and opposite polarities.

In fact I claim this EM explanation really to be the Theory of Everything.

 

[Native]

Hi Folks,

I think it is fair to say that we hitherto are sort of shouting to each another from our deeply digged trenches.

What about taking another and common approach to things in order to develop a fruitful consensus?

I know I´m having my difficulties making and living up to your righteous claims of making calculations.

On the other hand, I feel that some debaters have some troubles understanding my philosophical explanations of "what´s going on out there".

What about we took each other stands for a moment in order to help all of us to a common understanding, helping all of us with our personal difficulties and shortcomings?

I certainly will be very gratefull and pleased if we could do this

What do you think of this alternative approach?

 

[Revoltingest]

Thanks for this question

You of course know the standard explanation of the formation of the Solar System:

From - Formation and evolution of the Solar System - Wikipedia

"The formation and evolution of the Solar System began 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud.[1] Most of the collapsing mass collected in the center, forming the Sun, while the rest flattened into a protoplanetary disk out of which the planets, moons, asteroids, and other small Solar System bodies formed".
---------------
In fact, several ancient Stories of Creation have a very similar explanation, just with the difference that our ancestors had a specific location for this cosmic cloud.

The essence of mythical explanation begins with chaotic hot and cold rivers which floats together in a swirling center. When the rivers floats together in this whirling center, gaseous and dusty matters heats up and causes a central fire, which creates firm matters out of the gaseous rivers and eventually creates everything in the ancient known part of the Universe.

So: All rotational and orbital motions derives from this central whirling motion.

In the Egyptian Culture from about 3.200 BC, they had a Story of Creation, named "The Ogdoad" where this central Light of Creation is specifically connected with the Egyptian Goddess Hathor, who represents the Milky Way.

That is: Our ancestors connected their Stories of Creation to the Milky Way and it´s central Light of Creation from where everything was created in the MIlky Way.

As our Solar System is a part of this central and initial formation in the Milky Way, this was also created in the Milky Way center and was expelled out in the galactic surroundings as a large molted and shining sphere when reaching its "critical weight". On its expanding way out from the galactic center, planets were dispersed out of this sunny sphere and later on, moons were dispersed out of their mother planets.

Preliminary summary:
The entire formational process has initially an attractive motion which turns to an repelling motion, i.e. we are talking of a circuit of formation.

- When scientists discovered the galactic rotation curve, they were concerned that this rotation would sling the stars out of the galaxy, which was why they "invented dark matter". In fact, this was a genuine discovery of an outgoing motion which confirms the expanding motion from the galactic center, just as explained in the ancient Stories of Creation.

Just by looking at the structure of our barred Milky Way we must conclude the formative motion to be of an outgoing motion. There is NO WAY the Milky Way arms can take an abrupt 90 degree turn into the barred structure and into the galactic center. It´s logically the other way around, just like a two arm rotation garden sprinkler.

So I offer and prefer this philosophical explanation as an alternative explanation of both the formation of our Milky Way and our Solar System as an assembled explanation.

All rotational and orbital motions in our Solar System are determined from the swirling galactic center and this initial expanding motion STILL affects the increasing distances bewteen the Sun and Earth and bewteen the Earth and the Moon. This increasing motion has nothing to do with the assumed "frame dragging" between the celestial objects.

Regarding "gravity" as a feeling of weight: Weight is created by atoms and molecules etc. which electromagnetically binds gases and particles together. And the "Earth gravitational force" is just the weight of the gaseous layers in the atmosphere.

My conclusion:
The formation in cosmos takes place in a circuit of motion and this circuital motion can only be achieved by the electromagnetic force. And i take this EM force as just 1 force which works everywhere in all elementary stages just with different charges and opposite polarities.

In fact I claim this EM explanation really to be the Theory of Everything.

What testable predictions would this theory make?
I question that it can at all because it's not quantitative or rigorous.
It looks like a loose understanding than a scientific theory.
Specifically, it doesn't account for galaxies' rotation rates at different radii.

 

[ecco]

I went to the Thunderbolts Project website to see if they had already done it. I didn't find anything. However, I noticed that the site had not been updated since 2017.

Well, I can´t help you in this matter as I was excluded from this forum for being too critical over the mythical misconception in the Forum.

Your reply makes absolutely no sense.

I referred to the Thunderbolts Project website.
You responded referring being excluded from a forum.

 

[Native]

What testable predictions would this theory make?
I question that it can at all because it's not quantitative or rigorous.
It looks like a loose understanding than a scientific theory.
Specifically, it doesn't account for galaxies' rotation rates at different radii.

Of course it can, but you have to focus on the philosophical explanation in first hand and its embedded arguments before you can see possible testable conditions.

Tqke for instants my claims of an outgoing formative motion from the Milky Way galaxy. This is confirmed by the galactic rotation curve, and as such it predicts quite another overall motion in the galaxy than both the Newtonian and Einsteinian ideas of "gravity" and "gravitational curvation of space time".

And when claiming all rotational and orbital motions in our Solar System to derive directly from the central rotation in the galactic center, this of course predicts quite another celestial law of motion around a center.

It also predicts the formation of the Solar System itself to be formed via EM forces in the Milky Way center without any gravitational force at hand.

I admit that calculatioins are needed in order to find the scientific evidences as required today - but IMO the explanations and arguments are OK :

It just takes some time to ponder over new ideas and I´m fully aware of this obstacle.