Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[Native]

You say invented.
I say discovered.
"Invention" should be applied to things mankind creates, eg,
hammers, computers, phones, monster trucks, religions.

I´ll STIIL say "invented" because scientitists just inserted this unseen thing in galaxies so what they really dicovered was that their theory of celestial motions was wrong.

And this metaphysical invention is now used in all cosmologoical places where the scientists dont understand what is going on.

 

[Revoltingest]

I´ll STIIL say "invented" because scientitists just inserted this unseen thing in galaxies so what they really dicovered was that their theory of celestial motions was wrong.

And this metaphysical invention is now used in all cosmologoical places where the scientists dont understand what is going on.

By that reasoning, one could that these things were "invented" too...
General relativity
Quantum mechanics
DNA
Darwinian evolution
They were all invented to fix other theories which were wrong....or worse, not even wrong.
So this application of the word "invented" would be so broad
as to apply to everything we know or created. That's not useful.

Instead, I'd limit "invention" to things we created, eg.....
Dentures
Bicycles
Airplanes
Kilts

"Discovery" applies to explanations which describe phenomena in our natural world, eg...
The laws of thermodynamics
Germ theory
Gravity

 

[joelr]

I agree in this, but the actual question was the cosmological and natural particle/light one.

In the ordinary and natural realms It ISN´T the particles themselves which is lightning, but a discharge of energy FROM the particles which creates wave light. There is NO duality as such, it´s a cooperation.

In the double slit experiment we see individual quanta of light act as waves. When measured they act only as particles, the wave behavior is gone. So what you are saying is impossible.

It is generally the "gravitational particle science" of a particle = mass = energy = light which is getting the better of the "particle scientists".

Gravity has not been quantized. But no EU model has put forth a mathematical framework to explain gravity either.
But general relativity has been tested extremely well. You did not respond to the calculations/methods used to triangulate GPS units? If you don't have a alternative model that also accounts for the triangulation and provides error correction and ends up with 3 GPS producing the correct time/location for any location then you have no alternative.

IOf course traditional astrophysicists "debunks" most EU models. they are mostly lost in the Newtonian particle gravity ideas and they are afraid of loosing fase and jobs - and they haven´t the gut in order to think for themselves and go against the doctrines.

No, he does that in his spare time and because he's trained enough in the math to demonstrate that the EU theories are crank.
Has nothing to do with his job, it's a personal blog. He just wants people to be educated and not fall into modern crank mythologies.
Don't make debunking misinformed people into a problem with one's "gut". That's confirmation bias on a delusional level.
He IS thinking for himself. He's looking at EU theories and applying his skillset to see if they hold up.

Of course they don't hold up so now you have to shift focus onto his gut, his motives, job security, anything to distract yourself from the fact that he simply might be right.
That's how you know who is doing bad science and who is delusional. The ones who get upset and make up fake reasons why the other person is debunking their dogma.
Instead of saying, "ok great a trained astrophysicist is going to work on these ideas and then we can check the results and go from there".

Nope, it's ad-hom, confirmation bias and all sorts of hand waving and name calling and he's stuck in a box and a government shill.........boring.......

what's funny is if any EU had a shred of truth a smart scientists would work out the details and make predictions and have them tested and win a Nobel Prize and write a book and become famous and make some bank.
Your "in a box" thing isn't even real. Every scientist would love to re-write the text books with their thesis PhD just like Einstein did. It's how you become a rock star in science. Conspiracy people don't get that at all. Young students all want to shake up the world with their groundbreaking work.
It's like a young actor getting the lead in a Spielburg film.

 

[Native]

Gravity has not been quantized. But no EU model has put forth a mathematical framework to explain gravity either.

Why on Earth would the EU proponents do this? They outright rejects the gravity guessworks of the Solar System formation.

Your biased comment here just shows that you haven´t studied the EU at all.

Read this - The Electric Universe Theory – ►Fact file ►Reference ►Resource ►Articles ►Information

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I agree that it was tragic indeed! Because it ended up with lots of speculative matemathical calculations instead of with direct intuitive knowledge of cosmos.

He sort of left his natural philosophy and became the first matemagician. Very sad indeed.

The existence of a planet was accurately predicted based on this "speculative" mathematical calculations.

 

[Native]

The existence of a planet was accurately predicted based on this "speculative" mathematical calculations.

What planet are you talking about here?

The planetary motions were known long before Newton was born. He just put matemathical calculations on the motions WITHOUT explaning what caused these motions at all.

 

[ratiocinator]

The planetary motions were known long before Newton was born. He just put matemathical calculations on the motions WITHOUT explaning what caused these motions at all.

This is simply untrue.

Kepler had a mathematical description without an explanation, Newton provided an explanation. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The planetary motions were known long before Newton was born. He just put matemathical calculations on the motions WITHOUT explaning what caused these motions at all.

The orbital paths and what causes that orbits are two different theories. He did, infact, describe both.

What planet are you talking about here?

Neptune. Built upon Newton, mathematical speculation detected an abnormality in Uranus' orbit, mathematical speculation predicted what it must be causing it, and mathematical speculation found it.

 

[Native]

This is simply untrue.
Kepler had a mathematical description without an explanation, Newton provided an explanation. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

I´m not specifically speaking of neither Newton nor Kepler here. I´m speaking of ancient cultures which knew of the celestial motions and rhythms of the closest planets.

And Newton did NOT explain WHY the planets moves. He just guessed why with his "apple-pie" laws which is contradicted in the overall cosmic realms.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I´m not specifically speaking of neither Newton nor Kepler here. I´m speaking of ancient cultures which knew of the celestial motions and rhythms of the closest planets.

And Newton did NOT explain WHY the planets moves. He just guessed why with his "apple-pie" laws which is contradicted in the overall cosmic realms.

And whereas Newton provided us with natural explanations, these ancient cultures often attributed the moves of the celestial bodies to the gods, spirits, and other supernatural means. And it's not particularly remarkable they could accurately track them because their very survival depended on knowing the seasons (and hence rain seasons, game migration, harvest/plant seasons, and so on).

 

[Native]

And whereas Newton provided us with natural explanations,

But he DIDN´T at all. He just put calculations on the motions and he provided NO causal explanations on WHY they moved.

And his "universal laws of celestial motion" were even contradictied in the Milky Way realms.

. . . these ancient cultures often attributed the moves of the celestial bodies to the gods, spirits, and other supernatural means.

What our ancestors meant about the "divine" planetary motions and rhythms, doesn´t matter at all. The planets dont care about this.

And it´s the same with the matemathical calculations of the planets as long as these calculations don´t explain WHY the planets moves as they do. The planets don´t care which kind of gravitational system they are connected to by humans.

Especially as this Newtonian gravity system is contradicted on the larger cosmological Milky Way scale of wich the Solar System is an integrated part of the Milky Way formation and orbital orbital motion.

And it's not particularly remarkable they could accurately track them because their very survival depended on knowing the seasons (and hence rain seasons, game migration, harvest/plant seasons, and so on).

Agreed in this And they did this over many generations as well, thus getting empirical knowledge of the motions in the Sky.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

He just put calculations on the motions

Are you referring to the laws of planetary motion?

But he DIDN´T at all. He just put calculations on the motions and he provided NO causal explanations on WHY they moved.

Kepler put out what but not why. Newton gave us the math to describe their orbital paths as well as gravity to explain why. Newton's "speculative math" did what Kepler could not (the whole falling apple scene).

 

[Native]

Kepler put out what but not why. Newton gave us the math to describe their orbital paths as well as gravity to explain why.

We are out in a philosophical discussion here. Calculations descibes HOW the planets moves but not WHY the move.

You have to get into the dynamic and causal matters in order to describe WHY - and as the entire Solar System is an integrated part of the galactic motion, you have to include this scientific fact too.

And If you do, you are coming up against the contradiction of the Newtonian laws of celestial motions in the Solar System wich are quite different in the galactic surroundings.

And you cannot have two different laws of celestial motions in the same overall galactic system, can you?

This is my very point: The causal explanation have to include BOTH the galactic formation as well as the formation of our Solar System in order to explain WHY planets moves as they do.

And this has NOTHING to do with the Newtonian idea of "gravity".

 

[ratiocinator]

But he DIDN´T at all. He just put calculations on the motions and he provided NO causal explanations on WHY they moved.

No matter how many times you repeat this, it will remain untrue. Newton did provide an explanation: a force that acted between any objects with mass. You may not like it, you may think it's wrong (strictly speaking, it is wrong, as Einstein showed), but was, and is, an explanation for the motions of the planets.

 

[Native]

No matter how many times you repeat this, it will remain untrue. Newton did provide an explanation: a force that acted between any objects with mass. You may not like it, you may think it's wrong (strictly speaking, it is wrong, as Einstein showed), but was, and is, an explanation for the motions of the planets.

You admit that Einstein proved Newton wrong. and STILL you take Newtons contradictred "law" as facts?

Where have you deposited your logical thinking?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We are out in a philosophical discussion here. Calculations descibes HOW the planets moves but not WHY the move.

You have to get into the dynamic and causal matters in order to describe WHY - and as the entire Solar System is an integrated part of the galactic motion, you have to include this scientific fact too.

And If you do, you are coming up against the contradiction of the Newtonian laws of celestial motions in the Solar System wich are quite different in the galactic surroundings.

And you cannot have two different laws of celestial motions in the same overall galactic system, can you?

This is my very point: The causal explanation have to include BOTH the galactic formation as well as the formation of our Solar System in order to explain WHY planets moves as they do.

And this has NOTHING to do with the Newtonian idea of "gravity".

I'm done. You refuse to quit confusing Newton and Kepler, refuse to be corrected, and refuse to acknowledge that what you are demanding be provided to you has been provided.

 

[Native]

I'm done. You refuse to quit confusing Newton and Kepler, refuse to be corrected, and refuse to acknowledge that what you are demanding be provided to you has been provided.

Don´t take an alternative approach and explanation to things as refusals in general

 

[ecco]

Why on Earth would the EU proponents do this? They outright rejects the gravity guessworks of the Solar System formation.


Read this - The Electric Universe Theory – ►Fact file ►Reference ►Resource ►Articles ►Information

Let's take the guesswork out all together. Just develop a computer model of the movement of the planets based on EU instead of gravity.

Here is one based on the formulas of gravity: jsOrrery - Solar System Simulator

This would be such a simple proof. No one has done it. Ya gotta wonder why.

Betcha it's because you can't write computer programs with BS. Betcha it's because you can't use BS to model anything.

 

[ecco]

The planetary motions were known long before Newton was born. He just put matemathical calculations on the motions WITHOUT explaning what caused these motions at all.

No one was able to explain retrograde.

 

[ratiocinator]

You admit that Einstein proved Newton wrong. and STILL you take Newtons contradictred "law" as facts?

No.

I was making a point about what you said. Newton's theory of gravity was a good theory because it approximated very well to the world (it still does, and is more than adequate for many purposes). It also included an explanation. General relativity (and its revised explanation) is a better theory (it is more widely applicable).