Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[ecco]

Because it is the most logical one Of course it ALSO has to do with religious and mythological beliefs as in the cultural Stories of Creation as for instants in the biblical "Let there be light" = Electromagnetic Force.

You see? Even "God Himself" were/are an active follower of the Electric Universe

And that is what it's all about. Religion disguised as pseudoscience.

 

[Polymath257]

"Antimatter" is just an opposite EM polarity in atoms. There is no such thing as "a matter of antimatter". This is pure speculative nonsense produced by the "gravitationans".

Well yes antimatter is matter with a reverse charge. Unfortunately for you, once again, you are wrong about a science fact. Antimatter can and is created in a lab.
The term "antimatter" is just a word. You seem to be reading too deeply into the term "anti". It's just a placeholder word for matter with a reverse charge.
There is a negative electron in regular atoms and in particle chambers we sometimes see a positive electron, a positron. Not a big deal. But like many things in physics, the math shows us what to look for.

First of all, antimatter is NOT just matter with a reversed charge. There are a number of other properties of subatomic particles that are also affected (spin, 'color', parity, etc).

Yes, we do see it in the labs (and in cosmic rays) on a regular basis. it is NOT purely theoretical. In fact, if you have ever heard of a PET scan, then you know positrons exist: they are the basis of such scans and are a type of antimatter.

particle accelerators regularly produce anti-protons. In fact, the most energetic accelerators tend to collide regular protons and anti-protons to get their results.

Furthermore, we have been able to produce actual atoms of anti-hydrogen. This is not an easy process, but it has been done.

So, yes, antimatter is real. It has not only been detected, but it is regularly worked with and is well described by our equations dealing with subatomic particles.

 

[Native]

First of all, antimatter is NOT just matter with a reversed charge. There are a number of other properties of subatomic particles that are also affected (spin, 'color', parity, etc).

The term "antimatter" is STILL just a question of EM all over the places, right from the use of EM in order to accelerate atoms and hold these in position in the accelerator, to the measurement of collisions. The entire CERN wouldn´t function without the EM, whjch governs everything in the Universe, including the CERN apparatus.

"Antimatter" leads you to believe that some metaphysic is going on and in fact, the subatomic particles are not "antimatter" but rather just "complementary parts of an atom". Just because a subatomic part has changed polarity by being affected by the acceleration and the collision in an accelerator, it still is just a part of the "mother atom". This schouldn´t be that difficult to explain for the scientists without using a metaphysical language.

Besides this: The socalled "Higgs Boson", which assumingly "gives weight to everyting" in the "Higgs Field" is a huge cosmological misconception. What really gives weight to everything is the attractive part of the EM qualities working in and on atoms, and the very idea of "an Higgs Field" really speaks of an EM Universal force which works and rules everywhere.

One day the Nobel Prize committee - and lots of scientists - will get some very red ears for giving a price for the Higgs speculations.

 

[Native]

Subject: "Gravitational Bubbles".

Have you read this article - https://phys.org/news/2019-01-dark-alternative-theory.html ?

The new scientific Newtonian buzzword is: "Newtonian Gravitational Space Bubbles", another speculative invention in order to get the "damn thing" to work universally as required by the conventional theories and it´s calculations.

 

[Polymath257]

The term "antimatter" is STILL just a question of EM all over the places, right from the use of EM in order to accelerate atoms and hold these in position in the accelerator, to the measurement of collisions. The entire CERN wouldn´t function without the EM, whjch governs everything in the Universe, including the CERN apparatus.'t

The fact that E&M is used to do the acceleration doesn't mean E&M is the only thing going on.

"Antimatter" leads you to believe that some metaphysic is going on

Huh? Why would it do that? Nothing 'metaphysical' is going on at all.

and in fact, the subatomic particles are not "antimatter" but rather just "complementary parts of an atom". Just because a subatomic part has changed polarity

No particle changed polarity. It is a new particle with the opposite charge.

by being affected by the acceleration and the collision in an accelerator, it still is just a part of the "mother atom". This schouldn´t be that difficult to explain for the scientists without using a metaphysical language.

What 'mother atom'??? What in the world do you mean by that??

Besides this: The socalled "Higgs Boson", which assumingly "gives weight to everyting" in the "Higgs Field" is a huge cosmological misconception. What really gives weight to everything is the attractive part of the EM qualities working in and on atoms, and the very idea of "an Higgs Field" really speaks of an EM Universal force which works and rules everywhere.

One day the Nobel Prize committee - and lots of scientists - will get some very red ears for giving a price for the Higgs speculations.

Sorry, but the Higg's particle has been detected and has the properties predicted. Your protestations notwithstanding.

 

[joelr]

So now it is "super close minded" to look outside the squared box of the Standard Cosmology doctrines and it´s problems?

No it's super close minded to think that just because some conspiracy website tells you what cosmologists are doing wrong you actually think it's 100% true. And that if cosmologists would just do this one thing everything would all work out.

It's also super close minded to think that cosmologists don't already work with all the forces and see if they could explain dark matter. Even after I went through the trouble to demonstrate students are putting out papers and exploring all sorts of avenues in cosmology.
For example that "5th force" mentioned in that paper you commented on would actually be WAY out of the box. But did you even pick up on the fact that it was complete outside thinking? No. Not at all. It didn't fit your specific narrative so it automatically was lumped into the "same-old cosmology" box??

That was just ONE single paper, already way outside the box. Exactly what you say cosmologists are NOT doing? But because it wasn't a paper on EU it was "close minded".
All this nonsense is as close-minded as it gets.

For your information, I have my own approach to the EM and EU but of course I´m using all informations which is available.

Cool, post a link to your equations and papers.

I just think you have fallen into the common pithole of scientists who are unable to think of old problems in a new way. Or maybe the real problem is that you are unable to think for your self.

Oh boo hoo a derogatory remark, now should I respond like a big baby as well?
I've already shown you that scientists are always approaching problems in all sorts of new ways and that the narrative that they are not is a lie to get people interested in EU.
It's a common initiation tactic that you have fallen for.

What are your own thoughts of an Electric Universe?

Every prediction or claim made (there are not many) has been debunked or shown to be false. I've linked to a blog that has demonstrated this several posts ago.
But again, it isn't a theory. Look through some of the papers I linked to. Notice the abundance of equations and theorems and principles cited. A proper EU thoery would start with a paper like this.
Nothing like that exists. So it's just an idea and the fact that it's gained ground means there is some other significance. It's related to some mythology, or it feels like being part of a conspiracy theory or something.
The indoctrination video tells you science is rigid, which is a lie, but that sets one up to become indoctrinated in their movement. I'm guessing books and videos have been sold. Someone is making money on non-scientists.

 

[joelr]

Thanks for this link which contents I´ve already read. It´s a (fine) step on the way to discard the human invention of "dark matter" but it doesn´t help the least "tweaking the laws of gravity" when it is the cosmological minds who needs a bit of tweaking, including other fundamantal forces but "gravity", which really isn´t a force at all.

Going in circles, already been here. You haven't accounted for Newtonian gravity never mind GR and all of the predictions they make that have shown true.
You have no alternate model and haven't debunked any of the proofs of GR.

What? There are several EU models at hand, included the one which I promote here. You just have to ponder over the contents and let go of the Standard Model doctrines for a while and see if the EU contents is more logic or not.

No, it isn't. Name one thing EU predicts? Show the equations of EM causing gravity waves, micro lensing and all aspects of gravity.

Som WHY can´t cosmological scientists explain this very simple issue with plain words? My guess is that they are stuck in the "gravitational particle physics doctrines" and frequently forget the EM qualities of atoms. To me, it is downright stupid to call electromagnetic charges for "matter and particles".

It's not a cosmological issue, it's quantum physics. That is just the word they used in the 1950's and it stuck.
The particles have a charge, positive, negative, sometimes neutral.
I'm not sure what your issue with charge is?

 

[joelr]

[

I really don´t care what the standing perception of the fundamental forces says. EM has the same basic qualities all over the places and it is nonsense to divide EM out in 3 different fundamental forces just because different scientists have had their different approaches to everything.

Except is doesn't have the same qualities. There is a classical behavior to the EM wave described by Maxwell's equations.
QED describes how quanta of EM, a photon interacts with charged particles like an electron. It also describes a feature of quantum mechanics - the virtual particles and how they are involved in interactions.
Your complaints betray such a deep and fundamental lack of physics knowledge that it's funny to read what's coming next.

Because it is the most logical one Of course it ALSO has to do with religious and mythological beliefs as in the cultural Stories of Creation as for instants in the biblical "Let there be light" = Electromagnetic Force.

You see? Even "God Himself" were/are an active follower of the Electric Universe

Physics stopped obeying mans logic around 1905. You have a long way to go.
I'm glad to hear this is all ties to some supernatural wu-wu. Now I see why someone so uneducated in physics would be so enthusiastic about a crank science theory.
The world makes sense again.
Maybe Zeus or whoever can send you an EU theory by revelation. Pray for that.

 

[joelr]

First of all, antimatter is NOT just matter with a reversed charge. There are a number of other properties of subatomic particles that are also affected (spin, 'color', parity, etc).

Yes, we do see it in the labs (and in cosmic rays) on a regular basis. it is NOT purely theoretical. In fact, if you have ever heard of a PET scan, then you know positrons exist: they are the basis of such scans and are a type of antimatter.

particle accelerators regularly produce anti-protons. In fact, the most energetic accelerators tend to collide regular protons and anti-protons to get their results.

Furthermore, we have been able to produce actual atoms of anti-hydrogen. This is not an easy process, but it has been done.

So, yes, antimatter is real. It has not only been detected, but it is regularly worked with and is well described by our equations dealing with subatomic particles.

It was good enough to get the point across to Sun God-of-time-wasting.

 

[joelr]

Sorry, but the Higg's particle has been detected and has the properties predicted. Your protestations notwithstanding.

He doesn't care about what's been detected and has the properties predicted. That's for scientists and scientists are obviously all wrong. Luckily the EU website has all the answers (in words, no theory) but it's obviously the only right choice because it fits stone age mythology the best.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
The term "antimatter" is STILL just a question of EM all over the places, right from the use of EM in order to accelerate atoms and hold these in position in the accelerator, to the measurement of collisions. The entire CERN wouldn´t function without the EM, whjch governs everything in the Universe, including the CERN apparatus.'t

What 'mother atom'??? What in the world do you mean by that??

I just meant the natural stages of atoms.

No particle changed polarity. It is a new particle with the opposite charge.

No is not a "new particle" It just has an opposite spin and polarity and these occurs naturally all over in macro- and micro cosmos from the Earth´ weather hight and low pressure systems to the right and left spinning galaxies - All governed by the E&M from the Sun and from the central electric currents in galaxies.

Sorry, but the Higg's particle has been detected and has the properties predicted. Your protestations notwithstanding.

I´m not protesting at all. I´m just taking a natural approach to everything, thus revealing the artificial thinking in modern science.

 

[Native]

He doesn't care about what's been detected and has the properties predicted. That's for scientists and scientists are obviously all wrong. Luckily the EU website has all the answers (in words, no theory) but it's obviously the only right choice because it fits stone age mythology the best.

So now your level of debatting has come to comment on your fellow debaters in third person?

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
So now it is "super close minded" to look outside the squared box of the Standard Cosmology doctrines and it´s problems?

No it's super close minded to think that just because some conspiracy website tells you what cosmologists are doing wrong you actually think it's 100% true. And that if cosmologists would just do this one thing everything would all work out.

So now it is a conspiracy to think otherwise of the consensus cosmology? How will you get new knowlegde if you don´t think otherwise?

It's also super close minded to think that cosmologists don't already work with all the forces and see if they could explain dark matter. Even after I went through the trouble to demonstrate students are putting out papers and exploring all sorts of avenues in cosmology.

I haven´t generally denied that! I´m specifically focusing on the case of "gravity", where scientists in Standard Cosmology completely have misconcieved what gravity is or not.

For example that "5th force" mentioned in that paper you commented on would actually be WAY out of the box. But did you even pick up on the fact that it was complete outside thinking? No. Not at all. It didn't fit your specific narrative so it automatically was lumped into the "same-old cosmology" box??

Of course scientists invents a "fifth force". This is what they frequently do because they don´t understand the already 4 conventionally acepted forces. In fact there is just ONE force and you can by know guess what force I´m thinking of.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Som WHY can´t cosmological scientists explain this very simple issue with plain words? My guess is that they are stuck in the "gravitational particle physics doctrines" and frequently forget the EM qualities of atoms. To me, it is downright stupid to call electromagnetic charges for "matter and particles".

It's not a cosmological issue, it's quantum physics. That is just the word they used in the 1950's and it stuck.
The particles have a charge, positive, negative, sometimes neutral.
I'm not sure what your issue with charge is?

So you don´t take "quantum physics" as counting for everything in the cosmological Universe? And why don´t scientistst reframe old sayings?

EM charges is everyting, working on all levels of formation, that´s just it.

 

[Native]

Your complaints betray such a deep and fundamental lack of physics knowledge that it's funny to read what's coming next.

Funny indeed. This is exactly what I think everytime I read of most of the standing cosmology and all it´s lack of natural understanding


Native said: ↑
Because it is the most logical one Of course it ALSO has to do with religious and mythological beliefs as in the cultural Stories of Creation as for instants in the biblical "Let there be light" = Electromagnetic Force.
Native said: ↑
You see? Even "God Himself" were/are an active follower of the Electric Universe

Physics stopped obeying mans logic around 1905. You have a long way to go.
I'm glad to hear this is all ties to some supernatural wu-wu. Now I see why someone so uneducated in physics would be so enthusiastic about a crank science theory.
The world makes sense again.
Maybe Zeus or whoever can send you an EU theory by revelation. Pray for that.

Yes I know physics stopped thinking naturally for over 100 years ago when mathematics took over Natural Philosopy - and now they are totally lost in space.

I feel sorry for you for not being able to connect the acient knowledge with modern science as well for your personal need to call all ideas outside your bias science as "crank science". Read my profile signature in this matter.

 

[cladking]

No it's super close minded to think that just because some conspiracy website tells you what cosmologists are doing wrong you actually think it's 100% true. And that if cosmologists would just do this one thing everything would all work out.

It's also super close minded to think that cosmologists don't already work with all the forces and see if they could explain dark matter. Even after I went through the trouble to demonstrate students are putting out papers and exploring all sorts of avenues in cosmology.

How do physicists explore forces that aren't interrelated? Everything in the universe appears to be interrelated. Since when can a universe and all it contains spring from a blackboard? If one can't do it then how do an infinite number of them do it?

Just because I don't have the answer doesn't mean cosmologists are on the right path. I think they have taken bad turns at Euclid, Newton, and Einstein. I believe the problem is solvable but it won't be done through math.

 

[ecco]

I haven´t generally denied that! I´m specifically focusing on the case of "gravity", where scientists in Standard Cosmology completely have misconcieved what gravity is or not.

We are still waiting for you to show a simulation of the motions of the planets in the solar system using EM instead of gravity.

 

[ecco]

I believe the problem is solvable but it won't be done through math.

If it doesn't involve math, perhaps you could take up the challenge that I have presented to Native:

We are still waiting for you to show a simulation of the motions of the planets in the solar system using EM instead of gravity.​

 

[Native]

How do physicists explore forces that aren't interrelated? Everything in the universe appears to be interrelated. Since when can a universe and all it contains spring from a blackboard? If one can't do it then how do an infinite number of them do it?

Precisely. Everything in the Universe IS related and even when modern cosmoloical science believe in a Big Bang, they logically should have taken this approach and scientifically conclude that the three E&M forces really is ONE working everywhere as the united formative power.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Precisely. Everything in the Universe IS related and even when modern cosmoloical science believe in a Big Bang, they logically should have taken this approach and scientifically conclude that the three E&M forces really is ONE working everywhere as the united formative power.

That is mere wishful thinking, not science. In the sciences one forms a model and then tests it. What is the EM model? What reasonable test would show it to be wrong? If you can't come up with a test then it looks as if all that you have are the mad ravings of a lunatic, and you would not want that, would you?

Please don't try to try to shift the burden of proof yet. You need to first demonstrate that your beliefs are scientific.