Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[joelr]

Native said: ↑
@joelr,
NO it´s NOT a quote! It´s my own words and it´s meaning is just to be open for alternative explanations whitout any personal demeaning comments.

Standing cosmological models aren´t alternative but conventional. Alternative models are of course different from these.

SO: Being open to alternative explanations is to listen to everything which isn´t considered in the standing models.

There are no "personal demeaning comments" in my reply. I'm simply saying that by being so sure cosmologists and physicists are ALL WRONG and that the non-theory you believe is the truth is going against your quote in your sig.
Your sig calls for open mindedness which you are not showing. Being open minded would mean you would study science and be open to learning what constitutes an actual theory in physics and what proofs and validations these theories show.
Your mind is already made up regarding current science and it even appears your mind is made up concerning ancient mythology.
You just seem to have the complete truth all around. Wow, good for you. What's it like to know everything?

If you really have notised the context in my profile signature, you wouldn´t call any cosmological theories "crank" because NO STANDING THEORY AND MODEL are fully correct and in this sense, they all are "crank models" if you like this term. I don´t like this term because it is demeaning and an expression for "dogmatic besserwissen".

As long as you don´t read and ponders over the abstract explanations and suggestions, you´ll keep on calling these "handwaving".

I didn't call any cosmological theories "crank"? I called EU crank because EU isn't a theory. There is no EU theory. A non-mathematical model of astro-physics is not a theory. It's just a hypothesis at best.

I agree on the importance of math. But BEFORE you use math, you have to have an overall idea of what it is you are calculating. And as there is NO OVERALL COSMOLOGICAL CONSENSUS, all your temporary mathematical equations potentially are at the best unprecise - and at the worst directly misleading.

That is: You have to get the natural and cosmological ideas and attached explanations at the stage before you use math - and not vise versa.

Someday if you actually study the history pf physics you'll see that that isn't true at all. You can have ideas all day long but if you have no mathematical framework it's just a bunch of wu-wu.

Personal insults about "my level of knowledge" really don´t get you anywhere with me - except from wakening my discust of demeanings in general (Read my profile signature once more).

OK then if you prefer another approach: I now ask:

Hey, would it be possible to unify all the forces to solve dark matter? (NATIVE EDIT: And gravitational issues)

Again, not an insult. You do not have a background in physics. You can't work on unifying forces, how is that an insult?

It isn´t my fault that standing physicsist and cosmologists have divided THE formative force into 3 (4) fundamental forces. (Even in ancient Mythology it was a common perception that there was/is just ONE basic creative force which works in everything. Of course there was a logical reason that the prime "God" of creation in many ancient cultures have the attribute and symbol of an EM lightning bolt)

Uh, physicists didn't divide the forces, at low energies they do that all by themselves.
It's believed that they all unify at high energies like in the early universe.
So physics also believes in one unified force.
EM and the weak force can be unified into the electro-weak force by the way.

And it is certainly not MY FAULT if you dont take an EM UNIVERSE seriously!

well I took it serious enough to investigate it and find out that it isn't a theory and every claim has been debunked.

For a starters, take Maxwell´s Equations

Excerpt:
"The equations have two major variants. The microscopic Maxwell equations have universal applicability, but are unwieldy for common calculations. They relate the electric and magnetic fields to total charge and total current, including the complicated charges and currents in materials at the atomic scale. The "macroscopic" Maxwell equations define two new auxiliary fields that describe the large-scale behaviour of matter without having to consider atomic scale charges and quantum phenomena like spins. However, their use requires experimentally determined parameters for a phenomenological description of the electromagnetic response of materials".

Wait what? Maxwell's equations do not prove, justify or even hint at EU being correct at all. You can't just go "Maxwell's equations" when I ask for an EU mathematical model?
Yeah light is real. We believe in light.
That doesn't disprove gravity? It also doesn't prove any of the EU nonsense. It just means that EM is one of the fundamental forces. Yeah, so what?

 

[joelr]

Resuming . . .

Isn´t our Solar Sysem a part of the Universe? Why would there be 2 kinds of gravitational laws at all? This is inconsistent and therefore false.

See, you don't understand the things you insist are wrong. You are convinced gravity is fake but you don't understand basic gravitational science?
Again, this is the opposite of your sig words?

For weak gravitational fields Einstein and Newton's theories are basically identical.
In strong gravity, like near a black hole, general relativity makes more fine-tuned predictions.

Scientists should learn logics and natural philosophy before making such speculations.

Huh. All scientists? Wow that's super open-minded. And not demeaning at all.

Yes they do - except they of course cannot make scientific tests of anything in outher space. The only "test" they can make, is whether their calculations fits to their cosmological theory and regarding "dark matter", this was/is just a "galactic assumption and invention", which later on have lead to "Dark Ghost at all Cosmology" all over the places.

Of course if counting on the invention of "dark matter", standard cosmologists can find lots of observations, which fits to their perceptions of a cosmological theory, to which several cosmologists frequently says: "We don´t know".

You´re twisting my statement and conclusion. My point was just that standard cosmologists in fact have NO evidences at all for "dark matter", just assumptions which fits to their cosmological theory.

Of course standard cosmologists can find "piles of evidences for dark matter" when they insert this unseen dark thing everywhere in order to fit the calculations of their gravitational perceptions, but inserting metaphysical matter isn´t evidences at all.

So? No scientist thinks the dark matter/dark energy is anything but a big mystery? This still doesn't make EU any more accurate? It doesn't mean gravity is wrong and there isn't any "metaphysical" matter in the idea.
No more metaphysical than a neutrino which is extremely weak in interacting.

Everything you say is some sort of vague over-generalization of actual science. Why don't you look through some papers on dark matter and forces and see what's going on. People are investigating all sorts of possibilities, there isn't just one thing, scientists and students are looking into all possibilities. Look for yourself.



The FIRST paper I found is already suggesting using gravity waves to challenge GR and putting it to the test:

Future gravitational-wave observations will enable unprecedented and unique science inextreme gravity and fundamental physics,that form the core topics of the Thematic Area 7 of Astro-2020 decadal survey.

The nature of gravity.
Can we prove Einstein wrong? What building-block principles
and symmetries in nature invoked in the description of gravity can be challenged?

The nature of dark matter.
Is dark matter composed of particles, dark objects or modifi-
cations of gravitational interactions?

The nature of compact objects.
Are black holes and neutron stars the only astrophysical
extreme compact objects in the Universe? What is the equation of state of densest matter?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.09221.pdf



Investigating the dark matter signal in the cosmic ray antiproton... - investigate the implications on the dark matter (DM) signal from the AMS-02 cosmic antiproton flux.

Fifth forces and discrete symmetry breaking - ultra-light dark matter models exhibit fifth-force phenomenology,

https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.09221-extreme gravity and fundamental physics

Direct millicharged dark matter cannot explain EDGES -
Direct millicharged dark matter cannot explain EDGES


Or go here:
Search | arXiv e-print repository

and search on a subject and see the vast amount of research going on. Take something EU predicts and see if research has been done on it.

 

[Native]

The great irony is that he found pretty much what he was looking for when he studied the Great Pyramid! He was seeking the gravitational constant and he found a corollary to his own third law of motion without recognizing it.

Links and facts, please.

Newton was likely the second greatest mind in history right behind Imhotep. He was one of a handful of people after the collapse of the Tower of Babel to seek the formatting of reality itself. He was one of even fewer to try to expunge superstition from his methods.

I would say inventing an unseen force of attraction is pretty much superstitious, indeed. And his invention later on have lead to lots of other gravitational cosmological "dark ghosts" which isn´t explained at all.

 

[Native]

5442Everything you say is some sort of vague over-generalization of actual science. Why don't you look through some papers on dark matter and forces and see what's going on. People are investigating all sorts of possibilities, there isn't just one thing, scientists and students are looking into all possibilities. Look for yourself.

Why on Earth would I like to investigate something wich is inserted all over the cosmological places because scientistst don´t have the skills in order to grasp a natural EM circuit of formation?

The FIRST paper I found is already suggesting using gravity waves to challenge GR and putting it to the test:

"Gravity Waves"? I otherwise thougt that gravity only works one way between two or more bodies.

Can we prove Einstein wrong?

Just take his strange idea of "curved space-time".

The nature of dark matter.
Is dark matter composed of particles, dark objects or modifi-
cations of gravitational interactions?

"Dark matter" is composed as a mind-set by scientitsts who forgot to use the real fundamental forces and qualities on their observations.

Investigating the dark matter signal in the cosmic ray antiproton... - investigate the implications on the dark matter (DM) signal from the AMS-02 cosmic antiproton flux.

"Cosmic rays" has nothing at all to do with "gravity" They are just repulsive electromagnetic discharges and that´s it.

Fifth forces and discrete symmetry breaking

"A fifth force??? These scientist have gone that astray in their cosmological confusions that they have to invent more fundamental forces because they don´t use the EM forces which already are at hand.

 

[Native]

We now know just about everything and we certainly know ancient people were superstitious and ignorant savages who stumbled on the ability to create agriculture and cities. It all makes perfect sense to us that writing was invented in 3200 BC but recorded history didn't start until 1200 years later. We all know the Bible is merely wrong when it says there was once a common language and now we all speak confused language.

I think you should be more carefull using the term "we know" both on what ancient and modern people "knows".

Have you studied the cultural Stories of Creation and Comparative Mythology and Religion? Are you an expert in these matters?

No, nobody sees any evidence until it agrees with what they already believe.

Nobody can discern what is right or wrong before they get beyond what they believe on "both sides of a coin".

 

[ecco]

There is no distinction between what we call "science" and what you call "mysticism". There are better ways to say this and you'd see some of them in my previous posts. Newtonian Physics is a means to describe reality but it only provides a spectrum of reality and we must fill in (extrapolation and interpolation) around these points of light. What you choose to call "mysticism' is in actuality reality itself expressed in the confusion of modern language. Most everything that doesn't arise from experiment still derives from ancient science but we can't see it because we can't think like the ancients. We can't see it because ancient vocabulary was mostly unaffected when the pidgin form of the language became the official language(s) at the "tower of babel".

Newton was remarkably correct about many many things and I'm sure it was because of his finely honed intuition. He knew on some levels that ancient people had science and it was far more advanced than anything he could ever dream of. Even today we have not caught up in many fields and especially in aspects of life sciences and biology.

"8) With great capacity it ascends from earth to heaven. Again it descends to earth, and takes back the power of the above and the below."

We have no idea of this man's genius. He was wrong about so few things in an era of darkness and superstition.

Now the darkness is returning because we would rather believe in our own omniscience than to know the truth. We now have "soup of the day science" geared to making the rich richer and the rest into slaves.

If you are quoting from the Emerald Tablet, our understandings of reality are so far apart that there can be no meaningful discussion.

 

[cladking]

I think you should be more carefull using the term "we know" both on what ancient and modern people "knows".

Have you studied the cultural Stories of Creation and Comparative Mythology and Religion? Are you an expert in these matters?

Nobody can discern what is right or wrong before they get beyond what they believe on "both sides of a coin".

We know nothing. To be more precise we know such an "infinitesimal" fraction of 1% of everything there is to know that it's perfectly legitimate to just round it down to nothing at all.

In order to understand ancient science you must first understand Ancient Language as first step. Newton translated a line from the so called Emerald Tablets that refers to a corollary of his third law of motion (potential energy in an object equals the energy required to lift it). He did not know he had translated this line despite the fact that it was in seeking to solve the gravitational constant that he sought it in the first place. His translation was good but ancient people didn't think like Newton.

Humans use a confused language to communicate since the tower of babel. We also think in this language. It is somewhat less confusing as thought but it maintains its weaknesses even for thought and more importantly it is the programming of the brain. It determines through beliefs the output of our brains. It is an analog language that has produced an analog science. Ancient language was digital because it was determined by the wiring of the brain. It is the programming of all of the rest of life.

Ancient people were well aware their scientists (prophets) couldn't always predict outcomes and that they "knew" only to the degree the predictions were accurate. We stumble blindly into the future and rarely notice we can not predict and our actions are destructive or counterproductive.

 

[cladking]

If you are quoting from the Emerald Tablet, our understandings of reality are so far apart that there can be no meaningful discussion.

You know that the Emerald Tablets concern alchemy and that alchemy is scientific mumbo jumbo.

I know the Emerald Tablets were the means by which the ancient world was built and that alchemy was actually an attempt to understand ancient chemistry.

One of us believes something that isn't true because these beliefs are wholly incompatible.

 

[ecco]

You know that the Emerald Tablets concern alchemy and that alchemy is scientific mumbo jumbo.

I had never heard of the Emerald Tablets until I followed your posts.

If alchemy is not mumbo jumbo, perhaps you can explain why no one has ever transmuted lead to gold.

I know the Emerald Tablets were the means by which the ancient world was built

How wonderful for you.

and that alchemy was actually an attempt to understand ancient chemistry.

Yes, a hopeful scenario that you presume sought to understand non-existent ancient chemistry.

One of us believes something that isn't true because these beliefs are wholly incompatible.

It's actually a bit more than "one of us". On your side are a few woosters who like to pretend that things like alchemy are real and that 30,000 years ago man had mastered it.
On my side are the results of thousands of experiments that failed to turn lead into gold. Also on my side is the fact that no one has discovered anything to suggest that stone age man was anything other than stone age man.

But if you want to believe myths, that's OK.

 

[cladking]

On my side are the results of thousands of experiments that failed to turn lead into gold.

Lol!

Perhaps you can devise an experiment that shows you can or can't turn lead into gold but nobody else in the world has.

"Alchemy" is a confusion of ancient chemistry. Most alchemists think they are searching for the ability to turn lead into gold but they're actually searching for something else; specifically the "philosopher's stone". They don't even know what this stone does or how it does it (didn't I mention they are confused?) but it is actually mentioned right there in the Emerald Tablets. It is "gross" and is deposited by that which is above.

What we don't comprehend is that the meaning of Ancient Language is hidden in plain sight; the meaning is usually the literal meaning of what they actually said. All the ancient sun addled writings are either in this form or were confused when they were "interpreted" (think I Corinthians 14) into modern languages.

"Chemmis" or al Chemmis was a city near the Great Pyramid which was the center of ancient chemistry and gave its name to "alchemy". Curiously enough "gold" actually is related to the philosophers stone but it has nothing whatsoever to do with transmutation of elements. Everything is a confusion of Ancient Language and ancient science which sprang from it. Much of what we all take for granted as obviously real simply isn't or is true from only specific perspectives.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol!

Perhaps you can devise an experiment that shows you can or can't turn lead into gold but nobody else in the world has.

"Alchemy" is a confusion of ancient chemistry. Most alchemists think they are searching for the ability to turn lead into gold but they're actually searching for something else; specifically the "philosopher's stone". They don't even know what this stone does or how it does it (didn't I mention they are confused?) but it is actually mentioned right there in the Emerald Tablets. It is "gross" and is deposited by that which is above.

What we don't comprehend is that the meaning of Ancient Language is hidden in plain sight; the meaning is usually the literal meaning of what they actually said. All the ancient sun addled writings are either in this form or were confused when they were "interpreted" (think I Corinthians 14) into modern languages.

"Chemmis" or al Chemmis was a city near the Great Pyramid which was the center of ancient chemistry and gave its name to "alchemy". Curiously enough "gold" actually is related to the philosophers stone but it has nothing whatsoever to do with transmutation of elements. Everything is a confusion of Ancient Language and ancient science which sprang from it. Much of what we all take for granted as obviously real simply isn't or is true from only specific perspectives.

You have it one hundred percent backwards. If you claim that it is possible to turn lead into gold the burden of proof is upon you. Shifting the burden of proof is a common tactic of people that know that the facts do not support them.

You would be much wiser if you spent your time studying the physics that tells us why one cannot turn lead into gold. Here is a hint, chemistry involves reactions involving the electronic shells around an element. It has nothing to do with the nucleus itself. Physics explains events in the nucleus, among many other things. You are not only in the wrong branch of science, you have no understanding of either branch that you need to understand.

All you have is woo woo.

 

[cladking]

One could say the irony of Newton translating this work and seeing neither the reality of alchemy nor the laws which underlie modern physics is sublime.

I have to believe that if Newton were alive today he could rediscover all this in mere weeks and start at least two new types of sciences.

 

[cladking]

You have it one hundred percent backwards. If you claim that it is possible to turn lead into gold the burden of proof is upon you. Shifting the burden of proof is a common tactic of people that know that the facts do not support them.

You would be much wiser if you spent your time studying the physics that tells us why one cannot turn lead into gold. Here is a hint, chemistry involves reactions involving the electronic shells around an element. It has nothing to do with the nucleus itself. Physics explains events in the nucleus, among many other things. You are not only in the wrong branch of science, you have no understanding of either branch that you need to understand.

All you have is woo woo.

Maybe your time would be better spent reading what I say and considering the possibility we don't know everything. Indeed, I said earlier we DON'T KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL and I stand by this. I call our species Homo Omniscience not because we know everything but because we think we do. One man knows Jesus is his savior and the next knows that gravity holds him to the earth. They are both wrong or at best, possibly correct from some perspective.

I said alchemy is a confused attempt to recreate ancient chemistry. Ancient chemistry had nothing at all to do with turning lead into gold. Turning lead into gold is what most alchemists think they are doing. In reality ancient chemistry (among other things) was studying the "philosopher's stone". This is a confusion as well but it's the real basis of alchemy.

Everything today is confusion and you are reading things into my words that were never meant.

Further there is absolutely no theoretical reason that we can't turn lead into gold eventually. We already know that elements undergo transmutation under specific conditions. Indeed, just last year I suddenly came to realize looking for missing 54 year old cobalt 60 was a fool's errand. This fool spent half a day looking anyway.

I will predict that when we are capable of using lead to manufacture gold that one, gold won't be worth much and two, we'll use chemistry rather than alchemy to perform it.

It's also funny you think we can explain events in the nucleus.

 

[cladking]

We already know that elements undergo transmutation under specific conditions. Indeed, just last year I suddenly came to realize looking for missing 54 year old cobalt 60 was a fool's errand. This fool spent half a day looking anyway.

I was trying to teach a little physics to a bright 4 year old. I had just had the cobalt 60 out a couple years earlier trying to calibrate the geiger counter (another fool's errand). This was a very strong and dangerous source but just a little spot glued onto a ping pong ball. It was plenty hot enough. But I didn't realize it was nearing the end of its 10th half life so when I got it out last year it was ice cold. I thought the glue had broken down and it was missing (again). I went over everything with the geiger counter trying to find it before looking up the half life. The kid picked up the physics reasonably well and I'm out of strong radiation sources.

Reality is far more complex than people can imagine. Every event has essentially zero percent probability of occurring and we can't predict them because of this and our highly limited understanding of how reality unfolds. We generally can't even agree on why specific events happened after the fact unless they happen during experiments.

But everyone thinks he knows everything or knows who to call for the answer.

 

[Polymath257]

It's also funny you think we can explain events in the nucleus.

We can actually explain quite a lot about what happens in nuclei. I can suggest a few books if you are really interested.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe your time would be better spent reading what I say and considering the possibility we don't know everything. Indeed, I said earlier we DON'T KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL and I stand by this. I call our species Homo Omniscience not because we know everything but because we think we do. One man knows Jesus is his savior and the next knows that gravity holds him to the earth. They are both wrong or at best, possibly correct from some perspective.

I said alchemy is a confused attempt to recreate ancient chemistry. Ancient chemistry had nothing at all to do with turning lead into gold. Turning lead into gold is what most alchemists think they are doing. In reality ancient chemistry (among other things) was studying the "philosopher's stone". This is a confusion as well but it's the real basis of alchemy.

Everything today is confusion and you are reading things into my words that were never meant.

Further there is absolutely no theoretical reason that we can't turn lead into gold eventually. We already know that elements undergo transmutation under specific conditions. Indeed, just last year I suddenly came to realize looking for missing 54 year old cobalt 60 was a fool's errand. This fool spent half a day looking anyway.

I will predict that when we are capable of using lead to manufacture gold that one, gold won't be worth much and two, we'll use chemistry rather than alchemy to perform it.

It's also funny you think we can explain events in the nucleus.

Now it appears that you are making the error of assuming that because you do not know something that no one knows. Physicists can do experiments that affect only the nucleus and make testable hypotheses regarding what goes on there. And even first year chemistry at a university is enough to know at at least some of the limits of chemistry.

Once again chemistry occurs with reactions with electrons that circle the nucleus. They do not.affect the nucleus. Do you need some articles on this?

 

[Polymath257]

Now it appears that you are making the error of assuming that because you do not know something that no one knows. Physicists can do experiments that affect only the nucleus and make testable hypotheses regarding what goes on there. And even first year chemistry at a university is enough to know at at least some of the limits of chemistry.

Once again chemistry occurs with reactions with electrons that circle the nucleus. They do not.affect the nucleus. Do you need some articles on this?

There *are* rare cases where chemistry can affect nuclear reactions. For example, electron capture rates (changing protons to neutrons) can be affected by the density of electrons at the nucleus and thereby by the amount of bonding of the overall atom to others.

Even in this (rare) case, though, the amount of the effect is very small.

 

[cladking]

Now it appears that you are making the error of assuming that because you do not know something that no one knows.

Good one!

Can you tell me where any of the electrons are and how fast it's moving?

Can you tell me if every electron is exactly identical?

Can you tell me if they are affected by a butterfly in China or how long it will take until they are?

How fast does an electron have to go to weigh one pound?

Feel free to substitute any sub-atomic particle if electrons are too hard for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There *are* rare cases where chemistry can affect nuclear reactions. For example, electron capture rates (changing protons to neutrons) can be affected by the density of electrons at the nucleus and thereby by the amount of bonding of the overall atom to others.

Even in this (rare) case, though, the amount of the effect is very small.

I was thinking about that. I know that at least one element, if stripped bare of all electrons, has a much higher positron decay. Creationists sometimes try to justify denying radiometric dating on that extreme case. I can't quite find it yet.

 

[Polymath257]

Good one!

Can you tell me where any of the electrons are and how fast it's moving?

Not a reasonable request given the Uncertainty Principle. But I can give the probability distributions if you give me the orbital involved.

Can you tell me if every electron is exactly identical?

Identical except for position, it seems.

Can you tell me if they are affected by a butterfly in China or how long it will take until they are?

What do you mean by 'affected'?

How fast does an electron have to go to weigh one pound?

Way closer to the speed of light than anything we have seen.

Feel free to substitute any sub-atomic particle if electrons are too hard for you.

Why would these be hard?