Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[Subduction Zone]

Scientific "Correctness" vs. Scientific Progress

Here´s an excellent video of how the standing science works and how it´s not working as it is meant to.

- Before any debaters are shouting up about that it is posted by "the Cranks" in the ThunderboltsProject society, I just will mention that I´m not more a member of this society because of the strange ideas of EM working in the Solar System with "ligthning scarring of planets" and the even more strange ideas of once "another position of some planets assumingly hovering in a line over the Earth´northern celestial pole". A totally skewed idea based on misconceptions of the ancient cultural Myths of Creation.

But the very contents in the video is fine and it will be ever actual and relevant in a long time to come.

It´s even relevant to my profile signature below here . . .

One does not have to be a member of a society of cranks to be one.

 

[Polymath257]

Since the EU has no predictive power it is worse than useless. It is only wild hand waving by those that do not understand the scientific method. There is no refutation of it since in reality there is nothing to refute.

When the EU can give a mathematical description of why planets orbit the sun in approximate conic sections, with the deviations given by an inverse square force law for other planets, then I will start to take it seriously.

If you want to get rid of gravity, that is the *minimum* you have to be able to do.

Getting the precise procession of Mercury and Venus would be the next step up and is required if you really want to replace GR.

And, of course, the EU comes nowhere close to either of these. So, as you stated, there is literally nothing to refute.

 

[Polymath257]

Much of these examples and contents can be watched in this video which I´ve also posted in the other thread of "The Scientific Math of the Milky Way"

In this video Prof. Joel Primack, Theoretical Physicist from UC Santa Cruz, accept and states that "the EM forces descibes everything very nicely, but there is no room for gravity and dark matter in these EM theories" (timestamp 46:20)
.

He was talking about the *standard model of particle physics*. That includes the electroweak theory and the strong force. And it does NOT include gravity (one of its big *faults*) and does not have a dark matter candidate. He also went on to point out that the standard model is expected to be incomplete for a variety of reasons.

The whole of the rest of his talk is describing how our simulations *which include gravity and dark matter* perfectly match what we see in the distant universe.

This is very, very far from being anything supporting EU. In fact, it pretty conclusively shows our current views are spot-on.

 

[ecco]

In this video Prof. Joel Primack, Theoretical Physicist from UC Santa Cruz, accept and states that "the EM forces descibes everything very nicely, but there is no room for gravity and dark matter in these EM theories" (timestamp 46:20)

I'm still waiting for you to show that it's possible to make a simulation of the solar system without gravity - using just the mathematical formulas of EM.

Surely, among the thousands of supporters of and believers in EM, there is one person who could write such a relatively simple program. Again, I would settle for a simplified version that just uses the sun, earth and moon.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm still waiting for you to show that it's possible to make a simulation of the solar system without gravity - using just the mathematical formulas of EM.

Surely, among the thousands of supporters of and believers in EM, there is one person who could write such a relatively simple program. Again, I would settle for a simplified version that just uses the sun, earth and moon.

Yeah, it's funny. In order to get the orbits observed using E&M and no gravity, the charges on each planet have to be exactly the same. Otherwise, that term would not cancel out (as it does automatically for gravity). But then, that throws off the orbits of the moons, which would have to also be the same for the moons of each planet *and* precisely calibrated to the mass of the central planet. Not easy to do with Jupiter and Saturn. And then, there are the extra magnetic factors from having moving charges and the effects of each planet on the others.

I'd *love* to see that miracle being worked out.

/E: And *then* show how we can manage to aim probes using the Newtonian description of gravity and actually have them get to where we want them to. Yet another miracle, if there is no gravity.

 

[Native]

When the EU can give a mathematical description of why planets orbit the sun in approximate conic sections, with the deviations given by an inverse square force law for other planets, then I will start to take it seriously.

Isn´t it a little late you would begin to take any EU related issues seroiously?

But OK Read through the thread from the beginning and see what you already have missed and tell me what you´ve learned.

Getting the precise procession of Mercury and Venus would be the next step up and is required if you really want to replace GR.

I don´t care about such things at all as I have my personal approach both to Electricity and Plasma cosmology in cosmos.

As you should now by now, I have my focus on the formation of the Milky Way and how the Solar System is formed as it is an integrated part of the galactic rotation and formation.

Regarding this, you´ve shown no interest in this topic and I´ve seen NON replies and NO serious efforts from you which could be taken as a constuctive answer or suggestion in these matters.

In this sense you are mostly wasting my time.

 

[Native]

He was talking about the *standard model of particle physics*. That includes the electroweak theory and the strong force. And it does NOT include gravity (one of its big *faults*) and does not have a dark matter candidate. He also went on to point out that the standard model is expected to be incomplete for a variety of reasons.

The whole of the rest of his talk is describing how our simulations *which include gravity and dark matter* perfectly match what we see in the distant universe.

This is very, very far from being anything supporting EU. In fact, it pretty conclusively shows our current views are spot-on.

Of course you are cherry picking and twisting everything into your favorite pet tellings.

I could cite word for word what he says and states, bot I don´t bother. You can just listen once more and get the full meaning out of his lecture.

And of course you probably also willfully ignored his several answers of "WE DON´T KNOW". But maybe this is because you think you know everything yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isn´t it a little late you would begin to take any EU related issues seroiously?

But OK Read through the thread from the beginning and see what you already have missed and tell me what you´ve learned.

I don´t care about such things at all as I have my personal approach both to Electricity and Plasma cosmology in cosmos.

It is so easy to say that one does not care that one's model is worthless. but then why have such a belief in the first place? Is it only so that one can think that they have some unearned superiority? What is the motivation of some people to not only believe in nonsense, but attempt to defend the indefensible?

 

[Polymath257]

Of course you are cherry picking and twisting everything into your favorite pet tellings.

I could cite word for word what he says and states, bot I don´t bother. You can just listen once more and get the full meaning out of his lecture.

And of course you probably also willfully ignored his several answers of "WE DON´T KNOW". But maybe this is because you think you know everything yourself.

Cherry-picking?? Really? When he literally spends his whole lecture going over how our models for galaxy formation are producing results that predicted what we actually see? When he goes into detail on how dark matter affects the formation of galaxies?

And then, *in the question and answer period*, someone asks him what dark matter might be composed of and he says 'we don't know', which is true. And then points out that there are possible extension of the standard model of particle physics which have viable dark matter candidates and notes that this model of *particle physics* doesn't include gravity and you jump up and down with glee as if he had said something nobody knew! This has been the *central* issue of theoretical physics for the last 70+ years! How do we merge particle physics and gravity?

And you say *I* cherry picked?

No, we don't know everything. I most certainly do not. But what we *do* know is that the EU is false and absurd. That is easily seen by *anyone* who knows the basics of E&M and a bit about the orbits in the solar system.

 

[Polymath257]

Isn´t it a little late you would begin to take any EU related issues seroiously?

But OK Read through the thread from the beginning and see what you already have missed and tell me what you´ve learned.

I don´t care about such things at all as I have my personal approach both to Electricity and Plasma cosmology in cosmos.

As you should now by now, I have my focus on the formation of the Milky Way and how the Solar System is formed as it is an integrated part of the galactic rotation and formation.

Regarding this, you´ve shown no interest in this topic and I´ve seen NON replies and NO serious efforts from you which cuold be taken as a constuctive answer or suggestion in these matters.

In this sense you are mostly wasting my time.

If you want to claim that gravity is a myth, you have to *at least* deal with its success as an explanation of the motions in our solar system.

The motions for stars in our galaxy *do* conform to our understanding of gravity *if* we add in dark matter, which can be tested in a variety of other ways (and passes those tests). That includes the video you posted going into detail about how dark matter drives the formation and evolution of galaxies in ways verified by observation.

In contrast, you have a few vague ideas, unsupported by any predictions or observations, that you claim overturn everything that *is* based on predictions and observations.

Sorry, but real science simply doens't work that way.

 

[Native]

And then points out that there are possible extension of the standard model of particle physics which have viable dark matter candidates and notes that this model of *particle physics* doesn't include gravity and you jump up and down with glee as if he had said something nobody knew!

In timestamp 46:20 Joel Primack said regarding the forces of Weak and strong EM working in a cosmological model:

"The trouble with that is that they beautifully descibe all results in particle accelerators but there is no room in it for dark matter".

That is: There is a EM model which describes everything beautifully - but scientist gives up this model because they cannot get the hypnotized "dark matter ghost" out of their cemented and dogmatized heads.

Of course I jump with my arms lifted high in the Sky!

Just get rid of the stupid dark ghosts and use the working EM model without it and its connections to the Newtonian Apple-Pie fantasies which even Einstein rejected as a force at all.

I´m really stunned that cosmological scientists can act so thoughtless and disconnected and have no sense of logics and skills of independent thinking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In timestamp 46:20 Joel Primack said regarding the forces of Weak and strong EM working in a cosmological model:

"The trouble with that is that they beautifully descibe all results in particle accelerators but there is no room in it for dark matter".

That is: There is a EM model which describes everything beautifully - but scientist gives up this model because they cannot get the hypnotized "dark matter ghost" out of their cemented and dogmatized heads.

Of course I jump with my arms lifted high in the Sky!

Just get rid of the stupid dark ghosts and use the working EM model without it and its connections to the Newtonian Apple-Pie fantasies which even Einstein rejected as a force at all.

I´m really stunned that cosmological scientists can act so thoughtless and disconnected and have no sense of logics and skills of independent thinking.

This is simply not true. If the "EM model" explained everything beautifully then you could do everything that Newton and Einstein could do and more. You can't even do Galilean gravity, much less Newtonian mechanics with EM.


How does EM explain and predict planetary motion? That is a relatively simple one. Start there and make sure that it is not self contradictory, that means that it does not predict events that we do not observe and we can go on from there.

 

[Polymath257]

In timestamp 46:20 Joel Primack said regarding the forces of Weak and strong EM working in a cosmological model:

"The trouble with that is that they beautifully descibe all results in particle accelerators but there is no room in it for dark matter".

That is: There is a EM model which describes everything beautifully - but scientist gives up this model because they cannot get the hypnotized "dark matter ghost" out of their cemented and dogmatized heads.

It describes all the results *in particle physics*. But it does NOT describe all the results in astronomy. That is the whole point: that it needs to be extended to something like string theory.

Also, the standard model *isn't* just an E&M theory. It *includes E&M, but also includes the weak and the strong forces, which are NOT E&M.

Next, nobody is *giving up* the standard model of particle physics. It works *incredibly* well in its realm. But, there are a number of reasons to *extend* it, including issues of symmetry, questions about unification, problems with neutrinos having mass (which already goes beyond the standard model), and yes, dark matter.

Of course I jump with my arms lifted high in the Sky!

Just get rid of the stupid dark ghosts and use the working EM model without it and its connections to the Newtonian Apple-Pie fantasies which even Einstein rejected as a force at all.

I´m really stunned that cosmological scientists can act so thoughtless and disconnected and have no sense of logics and skills of independent thinking.

The model for particle physics doesn't include gravity. That has been one of the biggest problems in physics for the last 70 years: that particle physics and general relativity don't play nice.

And this *doesn't* work at all on the cosmic scale *unless* gravity is taken into account.

Your glee is misplaced and is founded on your misunderstanding of what was said in the video you, yourself gave.

 

[joelr]

In this video Prof. Joel Primack, Theoretical Physicist from UC Santa Cruz, accept and states that "the EM forces descibes everything very nicely, but there is no room for gravity and dark matter in these EM theories" (timestamp 46:20)

This is indeed very strange and even funny on the tragicomic level Highly academic and university educated scientists can´t get themselves to discard the over three hundred years ancient ghost of gravity and all it´s "dark this and that" even when having "a nice EM explanation which nicely describes everything".

Joel Primack does not support EU.
Joel Primack is saying at 46:20 that dark matter isn't found in the standard model. Every physicist knows this.
He isn't saying he things gravity is wrong?
Joel Primack is actually one of the pioneers of the cold dark matter theory. So it's completely hilarious that you are using this to back up any part of your position?

His postition is the SAME as all physicists. Gravity is real, we can't yet quantize it (add it to the standard model) and we don't yet know what dark matter is.

Good grief! No wonders modern cosmology has become so specualtive in all areas! Scientists refuse to make the obvious scientific methodical changes even when the correct solution is starring them right in their faces.

Once again post a link to the paper that contains proper theory

Yes, the specific Keplerian geometrics worked and works very nicely - until Newton came up with his non explained gravity of celestial motions.

Of course also the Newtonian calclations can be used as they just was embedded on the correct celestial and empirical observed motions made by Kepler. The key point here is that Newton got this non explained invention to count for his strange gravtation ideas, which have distorted all natural cosmological perceptions into nothing at all but pure speculations and ad hoc assumed guessworks.

No not the "Keplerian geometrics", general relativity makes many predictions that have all mapped out including, gravitational lensing, Mercury's orbit problem, gravitational lensing, time dillation, gravity waves, the expansion of the universe, black holes...
and to a degree of accuracy that is astounding. You would know this if the learned the tensor equations of GR and see how and what they predict. But you don't know that so you are able to buy into a vague mythology that makes sense to a layman.

Oh yes "we" have. "We" just ascribes the correct force (and binns the bad one) to the correct observations and this "fits very nicely according to the video contents posted above" same timestamp.

No, nobody has ever shown an alternate theory that makes the same predictions as Newtons gravity and then also goes on to make the same more fine-tuned predictions the GR make.
EU people have already said this - "we have no theory". So get one then go from there.

For the moment I´ve forgotten that link and I don´t bother looking for it, but just use the posted video here - where a honest Theorethical Physicist (First name also Joel ) frequently admits and states this:

"We don´t know"

An admittion and statement which all conventional and consensus debaters in cosmology here should bear in mind.

It's what every scientist says about dark matter. We don't know what it is.
It's actually the OPPOSITE of what EU people are doing. They say they DO know and that gravity is wrong and EU is right.
Even with no mathematical theory, you and all EU proponents are doing the very thing you're speaking out against which is refusing to say "I don't know".
Right now no one knows what dark matter is. But gravity is beyond well tested so for now it's the best theory.
Denying it based on zero alternate theory is doing the very thing you're saying not to do?!?

All conspiracy people have these same bias. They militantly want everyone else to say "we don't know" but when it comes to their theory then they are 100% right?

What's worse is there isn't even a theory, it's just hypothesis and conjecture. No mathematical framework which is how ALL physics is done?

 

[joelr]

Scientific "Correctness" vs. Scientific Progress

Here´s an excellent video of how the standing science works and how it´s not working as it is meant to.

- Before any debaters are shouting up about that it is posted by "the Cranks" in the ThunderboltsProject society, I just will mention that I´m not more a member of this society because of the strange ideas of EM working in the Solar System with "ligthning scarring of planets" and the even more strange ideas of once "another position of some planets assumingly hovering in a line over the Earth´northern celestial pole". A totally skewed idea based on misconceptions of the ancient cultural Myths of Creation.

But the very contents in the video is fine and it will be ever actual and relevant in a long time to come.

It´s even relevant to my profile signature below here . . .

It's one big strawman. They are trying to get to believe something that isn't true.
Every post-grad physicist, cosmologist or any related field has one main goal. It's the same with musicians - you want to be a rock star. Einstein was the biggest rock star after Newton.
You want a new theory that will shake up the world and give you fame so you can just do your craft for the rest of your life and because finding/creating new laws is the ultimate high.

Everyone wants their PhD thesis to be the next big thing. Everyone tries. New theories come out by the thousands every year. All will make predictions and a few will stand the test of time and the predictions will come true and the equations will be correct.

Your EU garbage isn't even among those 1000s of papers each year that grant students PhDs.
It's a mythology for layman. That video is an indoctrination to set you up to be in the mindset that science is unchangeable and rigid and the Thunderbolts have the solution.

It's exactly like religion - "hey bad news is you're all sinners but luckily we have magic that can fix that, just join us and believe and do what we say".

 

[Native]

It describes all the results *in particle physics*. But it does NOT describe all the results in astronomy. That is the whole point: that it needs to be extended to something like string theory.

# 1
No there is no need for any string theory. Of course "it don´t describe all the results in astronomy" as long as the astrophysicists hold onto the concept of gravity and as long as they even don´t TRY to think about the EM forces and Plasma Cosmology as the governing forces.
Change the cosmological concepts.

Also, the standard model *isn't* just an E&M theory. It *includes E&M, but also includes the weak and the strong forces, which are NOT E&M.

# 2
You got a point there, but this is just a question of forgetting the division of what is a Fundamental Force. All atoms have their EM strengths and EM qualities and all atoms can be affected by EM in the plasmatic stages.
The question of "strong and weak force" is just a question of EM charges.

Next, nobody is *giving up* the standard model of particle physics. It works *incredibly* well in its realm. But, there are a number of reasons to *extend* it, including issues of symmetry, questions about unification, problems with neutrinos having mass (which already goes beyond the standard model), and yes, dark matter.

# 3
No one has to give up anything but some theoretical concepts and make the neccesary conceptual extension of looking at particles as having EM qualities and equalize the mass concept with EM energy. This of course also goes with the neutrino question.
The dark matter question is solved by unifying the 3 other fundamental forces.

The model for particle physics doesn't include gravity. That has been one of the biggest problems in physics for the last 70 years: that particle physics and general relativity don't play nice.

And this *doesn't* work at all on the cosmic scale *unless* gravity is taken into account.

# 4
The model for Particle Physics don´t need the gravity concept at all. It just need to handle particles as having EM forces and qualities.

Electric helical currents creates perpendicular magnetic fields, which makes a spherical circuit of flow and this works in all kinds of micro- and microcosmic formation.

Your glee is misplaced and is founded on your misunderstanding of what was said in the video you, yourself gave.

# 5
Give me a brake will you? In a discussion of what is cosmologically understood or not, I definately don´t need your personal comments of what I understand or not.

All I need is your serious ponderings over my replies and some suggestions of how we can get further on in the quests for a common consensus - and nothing else!

Having mentioned this, I´m pleased with your summaries of the actual cosmological consensus ideas as these strengthen up my own focus on the topics, thanks.

 

[Native]

@joelr,

Joel Primack does not support EU.
Joel Primack is saying at 46:20 that dark matter isn't found in the standard model. Every physicist knows this.
He isn't saying he things gravity is wrong?
Joel Primack is actually one of the pioneers of the cold dark matter theory. So it's completely hilarious that you are using this to back up any part of your position?
His postition is the SAME as all physicists. Gravity is real, we can't yet quantize it (add it to the standard model) and we don't yet know what dark matter is.

JoelR
Except from your "So it's completely hilarious that you are using this to back up any part of your position?", I agree in this.

I don´t need your downletting personal comments on my attempts to find a common understanding of cosmology! In my attempts to find "tale and head" in the cosmological realms, I of course take any hints which points either ways in order to confirm or reject any claims and consensus ideas, including my own concepts.

Excuse me for not commenting on the rest of your reply. Instead I´ll forward you to my answer to Polymath257 above here:

Please read my comment here -
#456

From the contents there, we can take a new approach to our conversations.

 

[Native]

@joelr,

It's one big strawman. They are trying to get to believe something that isn't true.

How can a lecture of discerning scientific methods be a strawman?

 

[Polymath257]

# 1
No there is no need for any string theory. Of course "it don´t describe all the results in astronomy" as long as the astrophysicists hold onto the concept of gravity and as long as they even don´t TRY to think about the EM forces and Plasma Cosmology as the governing forces.
Change the cosmological concepts.

EU was tried and failed miserably. There isn't even a detailed treatment of the solar system, of our galaxy, or *anything* else.

# 2

You got a point there, but this is just a question of forgetting the division of what is a Fundamental Force. All atoms have their EM strengths and EM qualities and all atoms can be affected by EM in the plasmatic stages.
The question of "strong and weak force" is just a question of EM charges.

Um, no it isn't. E&M is one part of the standard model, but quite far from being all of it. In fact, it is the simplest and first part of it.

# 3
No one has to give up anything but some theoretical concepts and make the neccesary conceptual extension of looking at particles as having EM qualities and equalize the mass concept with EM energy. This of course also goes with the neutrino question.
The dark matter question is solved by unifying the 3 other fundamental forces.

No, it isn't. That is what the standard model of particle physics does and it *doesn't* solve the issue of dark matter.

# 4
The model for Particle Physics don´t need the gravity concept at all. It just need to handle particles as having EM forces and qualities.

Yes, actually, it does need to include gravity. Sorry, but gravity is an actual force in the universe.

Electric helical currents creates perpendicular magnetic fields, which makes a spherical circuit of flow and this works in all kinds of micro- and microcosmic formation.

Gobbledigook.

# 5
Give me a brake will you? In a discussion of what is cosmologically understood or not, I definately don´t need your personal comments of what I understand or not.

You have gotten way too many breaks. Sorry, but it is simply a fact that you misunderstood what was said in that video. It is also a simple fact that you misunderstand a good deal of other physics.

All I need is your serious ponderings over my replies and some suggestions of how we can get further on in the quests for a common consensus - and nothing else!

Having mentioned this, I´m pleased with your summaries of the actual cosmological consensus ideas as these strengthen up my own focus on the topics, thanks.

If you want to have a serious discussion, then present some serious thoughts. Show a model that actually describes the motions in the galaxy, say, or the motions in the solar system, to, say, 4 decimal points of accuracy.

At that point you have a serious theory. Not a proven one, mind you, but a serious one. But this is not going to happen. The EU folks simply don't have the ability to turn their crap into science.

 

[Native]

@Polymath257,

Gobbledigook.

You have gotten way too many breaks. Sorry, but it is simply a fact that you misunderstood what was said in that video. It is also a simple fact that you misunderstand a good deal of other physics.

If you want to have a serious discussion, then present some serious thoughts. Show a model that actually describes the motions in the galaxy, say, or the motions in the solar system, to, say, 4 decimal points of accuracy.

At that point you have a serious theory. Not a proven one, mind you, but a serious one. But this is not going to happen. The EU folks simply don't have the ability to turn their crap into science.

Are these sentenses really all what you can come up with as your comments on my points?

As a Moderator in this Forum, you of all should know that your downletting and personal comments here doesn´t belong in a serious debate.

Try once more to read and give it a serious pondering of what I´m saying in the #456

Read my profile signature before you reply again.