Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[joelr]

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.

All physics is done with math. The universe obeys precise mathematical laws. Our most accurate theory ever, QED is the most accurate because of how far the decimal point goes in it's predictive power. Which has been confirmed. At the quantum scale there is only math, predictions from the math and testing to see if the results are accurate.
What alternative could you be suggesting? Do you think we can run tests on particles and forces like we do with test trials on new medications?
Should we put an ad in the paper "particles and forces needed for clinical trials, $200 compensation."???

 

[joelr]

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

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?

No it's a conspiracy when one follows a conspiracy theory. You are NOT "thinking otherwise of the consensus cosmology", that is not what's happening at all.
For starters you are convinced all cosmologists and physicists are wrong, super close minded right from the start.
But then your alternate theory isn't a theory because it's just an idea that has not been flushed out as a viable theory. It also doesn't make predictions and can't be tested. But somehow it's got to be correct. Just because it's "outside of the box"?
Well, that is exactly what a conspiracy theory is.

Again, I showed you a variety of new theories. You couldn't see them as new theories. This doesn't seem to be about new theories at all. You're hiding behind the idea that EU is a "new theory" and therefore correct. But it isn't yet a theory and what's worse is the real reason you're backing it has nothing to do with how "new" it is, it's just tied to supernatural wu-wu beliefs.

That is the absolute worst way ever to attempt science. Starting out with a need to make some fantasy belief real.

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.

Uh, "focusing"? You haven't accounted for one single aspect of Newton or any other gravitational phenomenon? You just keep saying "it's wrong"?

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.

"In fact"? You call that a fact? An idea, that has no math, doesn't account for the other forces, at all, and you already admitted you like it because of personal wu-wu beliefs, but that is a fact?
All physics is wrong and it's a fact. And you think you are being open minded? Again, where is your proof?

 

[joelr]

Native said: ↑


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.

No, physicists do not study quasars, super clusters of galaxies and neutron stars.
So EM is everything? Cool, we can add that to the list of stuff you have to explain with EM.
Besides gravity now also explain the strong force with EM.

So now you are saying that EM is wrong? Protons of like charge should repel each other but they don't. The strong force is 137 times stronger than EM and is a different stronger charge. Where and who made modified EM equations to account for the strong force and why would EM act differently in the nucleus? The bonding force of the quarks gives a predicted mass/energy which is confirmed. Especially in nuclear explosions.
But if it's really just EM then why would it alter it's behavior?

This would mean Maxwell's equations don't always work. Applying EM to protons in an atom shows they must repel. But you posted Maxwell's work already as a viable theory? This would require a revised EM theory which is one thing you speak against, having multiple theories?
None of this makes sense? Please explain.

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"

Your guess is wrong. There isn't even a "gravitational particle physics doctrines", particle physics does not even take gravity into account at that scale. There are no known particles of gravity.

There is a reason why it's called antimatter however and it has to do with the timing and unexpected nature of the discovery. It doesn't fit as well as it could as a name. Everyone knows this. It's has nothing to do with the accuracy of standard particle physics?
And why are you guessing one minute and then making statements like "all physicists are wrong"??

Why don't you learn basic physics first and then make your case. You keep making basic errors but then insisting you know better than all physics? It's totally bizarre?

and frequently forget the EM qualities of atoms. To me, it is downright stupid to call electromagnetic charges for "matter and particles".

Physicists forgot EM? Right except the most accurate theory in physics is quantum electrodynamics which explains how photons interact with electrons? Electrons are in atoms.
Did you forget about that? Or are you just parroting stuff you heard on an EU site with no real insight into what you are saying?

Why is it stupid to call EM charges of particles? Please explain that. Why exactly is it stupid to explain which particles are positive/negative and that charges attract or repel?

 

[joelr]

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.

And the fundamentalist Christians are sorry because we are going to burn in hell and the UFO people are sorry for us because we don't realize the government is hiding secret alien spaceship technology from us. And the flat Earthers are sorry because we don't realize we are being lied to about the flat earth. Whatever.

You are not connecting ancient knowledge with modern science. You are connecting ancient superstition with modern speculation.
An open minded person would at least admit this.

Crank physics science is science that has no theory to back it. Until you provide a link to a EU theory that accounts for gravity mathematically and also accounts for dark matter and such then it is a crank theory.
Your sig simply doesn't understand what "crank science" is.
Your sig also calls for open mindedness. You show none of that. Being convinced all physics is wrong without any competing model is already close minded.
I would think that it's the most close minded one could be.
Until I realized someone could insist all physics was wrong and rather than base it on a competing theory they base it on mythology.
So modern physics is all wrong because Lord of the Rings.
Fantastic.


Also what is it with you and your "profile signature"? "Read my profile signature, look at my profile signature, my profile signature says, profile signature, profile signature........

Do you see how I have no profile signature?
Because who cares what my sig says?
But if you yourself can't follow the sig why would you expect other people to follow it?

 

[Native]

All physics is done with math. The universe obeys precise mathematical laws.

This is not correct at all on the cosmic and Universal scales! You confuse the theories to be correct, which you only can do when the math fits ALL STANDING COSMOLOGICAL TEORIES, wich it evidently does NOT, since the Theory of Everything isn´t found and accepted.

No it's a conspiracy when one follows a conspiracy theory.

This is a nonsens level of discussion as long as you directly reject the EU theory and do everything to defence the standing consensus theories and all its obvious contradictive problems.

Uh, "focusing"? You haven't accounted for one single aspect of Newton or any other gravitational phenomenon? You just keep saying "it's wrong"?

I´m just trying to help you and other unreflecting believers. And when I´m trying to argue againts the Newtonian speculations, and for other solutions, you just goes into automatically denial mode.

And the fundamentalist Christians are sorry because we are going to burn in hell and the UFO people are sorry for us because we don't realize the government is hiding secret alien spaceship technology from us. And the flat Earthers are sorry because we don't realize we are being lied to about the flat earth. Whatever.

I reject to discuss your plain emotional projections here.'

You are not connecting ancient knowledge with modern science. You are connecting ancient superstition with modern speculation.
An open minded person would at least admit this.

You possibly couldn´t know this, partly because you don´t take ancient Stories of Creation seriously and partly because you THINK modern science has all answers on everygting, which it obviously don´t have.

Also what is it with you and your "profile signature"? "Read my profile signature, look at my profile signature, my profile signature says, profile signature, profile signature........

It obviously is neccesary since you keep on disrespecting your fellow debaters with demeaning "cranky comments".

 

[cladking]

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.​

Math is merely quantified logic.

Reality is based in logic.

Reality can be expressed in math but that doesn't mean reality can be expressed in any "known" math. I believe we'll have to solve this and then find the math.

How am I supposed to know?

 

[cladking]

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.

I agree except there are endless possibilities. A century of seeking the unified field theory should be enough to tell everyone that either our math isn't working, our premises are flawed, or there exist factors we can't (haven't) identified.

Perhaps we have the universe emerging from a point that never existed and is merely an artefact of our definitions.

 

[Native]

I agree except there are endless possibilities. A century of seeking the unified field theory should be enough to tell everyone that either our math isn't working, our premises are flawed, or there exist factors we can't (haven't) identified.

If one believes in a Big Bang, all fundamental forces would IMO derive from this event. But this BB explanation has different problems wich NEVER can be tested or causally explained and personally, I take the BB as a flawed premises.

I take the ancient mythoilogical understanding of everything as an eternal circle of formation, dissolution and re-formation as a much better and logical premise compared to the modern peception of a linear development of the Universe. In most ancient cultures there was/is a prime force of light in the creation which splits up in two polarites (male and female deities) and these basic forces creates and formes everything.

This mean to me that the Electromagnetic Force is the prime force in the Universe and to me it is nonsense to divide the EM up in several fundamental forces. It it is just a question of the EM to work EVERYTWHERE with different electric charges and different polarites.

Regarding the specific formation in cosmos. EU has it´s prime and very sttrong formative function in the plasmatic areas of cosmic clouds, thus attracting gas and dust and form different kinds of stars, which are spread out in the galactic surroundings.

In fact, I´m convinced that the undivided EU Force really can constitute the Theory of Everything.

 

[ecco]

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.

Math is merely quantified logic.

Reality is based in logic.

Reality can be expressed in math but that doesn't mean reality can be expressed in any "known" math.

The reality is that in our solar system, the moon revolves around the earth and the earth/moon system revolves around the sun.

Math, specifically the formulas for gravity, are used by computer programmers to make simulations of our solar system.

It should be easy for EM believers to create a simulation of our solar system using just the principles of EM.

They haven't because they can't because EM is nonsense.

 

[ecco]

Perhaps we have the universe emerging from a point that never existed and is merely an artefact of our definitions.

Perhaps god created the universe hastily Last Thursday. So hastily that he forgot to make all the "laws" agree with each other.

 

[Polymath257]

If one believes in a Big Bang, all fundamental forces would IMO derive from this event. But this BB explanation has different problems wich NEVER can be tested or causally explained and personally, I take the BB as a flawed premises.

I take the ancient mythoilogical understanding of everything as an eternal circle of formation, dissolution and re-formation as a much better and logical premise compared to the modern peception of a linear development of the Universe. In most ancient cultures there was/is a prime force of light in the creation which splits up in two polarites (male and female deities) and these basic forces creates and formes everything.

This mean to me that the Electromagnetic Force is the prime force in the Universe and to me it is nonsense to divide the EM up in several fundamental forces. It it is just a question of the EM to work EVERYTWHERE with different electric charges and different polarites.

Regarding the specific formation in cosmos. EU has it´s prime and very sttrong formative function in the plasmatic areas of cosmic clouds, thus attracting gas and dust and form different kinds of stars, which are spread out in the galactic surroundings.

In fact, I´m convinced that the undivided EU Force really can constitute the Theory of Everything.

OK, you have presented a *goal*. You have not, however, presented any reason to think that goal can be actually achieved. In particular, can you use EU to simulate the dynamics of the solar system? can you use EU to describe why muons decay into electrons and neutrinos? can you use EU to explain why protons are stable?

We have detailed mathematical laws for EM. They are known as Maxwell's laws. They work everywhere for the EM force, at least if sufficiently modified for quantum effects.

Are the Maxwell equations or even the QED equations the ones you want to use for EM? if yes, explain how they can be used to show the stability of the proton or the dynamics in the solar system. Because NOBODY else has been able to do that. And there is no reason to think it is possible.

If you *don't* want to use Maxwell's equations or QED to describe EM, please set out the equations you *do* want to use. And then, after they have been laid out, show how they lead to stable protons and the dynamics of the solar system.

Details are required to proceed. Anything else at this point is meaningless verbiage.

 

[We Never Know]

The reality is that in our solar system, the moon revolves around the earth and the earth/moon system revolves around the sun.

Math, specifically the formulas for gravity, are used by computer programmers to make simulations of our solar system.

It should be easy for EM believers to create a simulation of our solar system using just the principles of EM.

They haven't because they can't because EM is nonsense.

- the moon revolves around earth
- the earth and moon revolves around the sun
- the solar system revolves around the milky way
- other smaller satellite dwarf galaxies revolve around the milky way

My question; it seemed every thing revolves around another body
- does the milky way revolve around anything or could it but it is on such a scale we don't know about it yet.
- is the black hole what it revolves around

 

[Polymath257]

- the moon revolves around earth
- the earth and moon revolves around the sun
- the solar system revolves around the milky way
- other smaller satellite dwarf galaxies revolve around the milky way

My question; it seemed every thing revolves around another body
- does the milky way revolve around anything or could it but it is on such a scale we don't know about it yet.
- is the black hole what it revolves around

Well, you could say the central black hole is what the Milky way revolves around, but I don't know of anything that black hole revolves around.

In galactic clusters, the galaxies are gravitationally bound, but there is no 'center' that all of them are revolving around. That said, the galaxies close to the center tend to be much bigger because of collisions and mergers.

 

[We Never Know]

Well, you could say the central black hole is what the Milky way revolves around, but I don't know of anything that black hole revolves around.

In galactic clusters, the galaxies are gravitationally bound, but there is no 'center' that all of them are revolving around. That said, the galaxies close to the center tend to be much bigger because of collisions and mergers.

I often wonder because it seems a everything revolves around something and there are scales out there I think we can't even grasps in our minds yet.

I really like this video. It puts it into perspective how small our little planet is. It also at the end has multi-universe's.

 

[cladking]

- the moon revolves around earth
- the earth and moon revolves around the sun
- the solar system revolves around the milky way

Not to put too fine a point on it but each body revolves around the other body. Everything affects every other thing.

We don't understand gravity or the other forces until we understand how things are connected. How gravity works is probably related to this interconnection.

If not we'll still not know even after a unified field theory is proven.

 

[ecco]

- the moon revolves around earth
- the earth and moon revolves around the sun
- the solar system revolves around the milky way
- other smaller satellite dwarf galaxies revolve around the milky way

My question; it seemed every thing revolves around another body
- does the milky way revolve around anything or could it but it is on such a scale we don't know about it yet.
- is the black hole what it revolves around

Yes, as far as we now know.

 

[joelr]

This is not correct at all on the cosmic and Universal scales! You confuse the theories to be correct, which you only can do when the math fits ALL STANDING COSMOLOGICAL TEORIES, wich it evidently does NOT, since the Theory of Everything isn´t found and accepted.

All theories in physics and cosmology will have math, including any TOE. All will make predictions that will be able to be tested and any TOE will unify all of the forces. To "unify" the forces that means they will be unified mathematically.
Again, how else would they be unified? Emotionally? Spiritually?
Do you think you cannot have a theory unless it's a TOE? If not why did you post the math from Maxwell's theory?
You posted Maxwell's equations but you just now said you can't have a theory unless the math fits all theories?
Why did you post Maxwell's work then????

This is a nonsens level of discussion as long as you directly reject the EU theory and do everything to defence the standing consensus theories and all its obvious contradictive problems.

I'm not defending the current theories, the theories do that themselves? They have math and make predictions and scientists do work and see if the predictions match reality. That happens weather you like it or not. It has nothing to do with me.
I don't reject EU theory because there is no such thing as EU theory.
Please post an actual theory and I'll consider it.

I´m just trying to help you and other unreflecting believers. And when I´m trying to argue againts the Newtonian speculations, and for other solutions, you just goes into automatically denial mode.

Uh, if by "denial mode" you mean I ask you for proof?
Go ahead, help us unreflecting believers. Start anytime. Where shall we start?
GPS triangulation of satellites using special and general relativity?
Explain how this can be done without those theories and just with EU?

Or something else? Macro and micro lensing? Newtonian gravitational equations replaced by EU? Go ahead, show how that's done........

I reject to discuss your plain emotional projections here.'

Well you said "I feel sorry for you". That's an emotion. That was my response to you saying "I feel sorry for you". Which is an emotion.
And now you reject an emotional response to an emotion? Make up your mind?

You possibly couldn´t know this, partly because you don´t take ancient Stories of Creation seriously and partly because you THINK modern science has all answers on everything, which it obviously don´t have.

No one thinks modern science has all the answers. Science certainly doesn't think that. I don't think that. I never said anything close to that? Talk about emotional projections?
No, I do not take stories of creation seriously. Do you know why? Because they are ancient stories of creation.
I don't take Lord of the Rings serious either.
Is that your new response - that science is wrong and ancient stories of creation is your source?

 

[joelr]

If one believes in a Big Bang, all fundamental forces would IMO derive from this event. But this BB explanation has different problems wich NEVER can be tested or causally explained and personally, I take the BB as a flawed premises.

What problems though? Why do you never give examples?

I take the ancient mythoilogical understanding of everything as an eternal circle of formation, dissolution and re-formation as a much better and logical premise compared to the modern peception of a linear development of the Universe. In most ancient cultures there was/is a prime force of light in the creation which splits up in two polarites (male and female deities) and these basic forces creates and formes everything.

Or, ancient people saw that things on Earth had cycles, like the seasons repeating themselves and the night/day cycle. They saw that there was light and dark and they saw polarities like male and female. So they based their limited understanding on what they saw.
Before Egypt all cultures worshiped solar deities so of course light was in their mythology. They thought the sun was god.
The rise of Judaism was one of the first movements to reject solar gods. In the Q'ran Abraham says he didn't like the solar and lunar gods because they went out at night/day. So he revelationed up a better god. Actually he took a minor warrior god from Egypt and promoted him to "one true god" Yahweh.
That is why everyone was so crunk on light. Not because ancient people had some deep mystical understanding that modern man has "forgotten".

Also the big bang has a cyclic model. Big bang, big crunch and so on? Ancient people didn't even understand the conservation laws? How can you get to a re-formation without some big bang type model? Or are those laws wrong too?

 

[The Anointed]

What problems though? Why do you never give examples?



Or, ancient people saw that things on Earth had cycles, like the seasons repeating themselves and the night/day cycle. They saw that there was light and dark and they saw polarities like male and female. So they based their limited understanding on what they saw.
Before Egypt all cultures worshiped solar deities so of course light was in their mythology. They thought the sun was god.
The rise of Judaism was one of the first movements to reject solar gods. In the Q'ran Abraham says he didn't like the solar and lunar gods because they went out at night/day. So he revelationed up a better god. Actually he took a minor warrior god from Egypt and promoted him to "one true god" Yahweh.
That is why everyone was so crunk on light. Not because ancient people had some deep mystical understanding that modern man has "forgotten".

Also the big bang has a cyclic model. Big bang, big crunch and so on? Ancient people didn't even understand the conservation laws? How can you get to a re-formation without some big bang type model? Or are those laws wrong too?

According to the ancient cultures, we live in an eternal oscillating universe that expands outward and contracts back to its beginning in space time.

“Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non-being, and again from non-being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all, the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence.” ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122.

The days and nights of Brahma are called Manvantara, or the cycle of manifestation, ‘The Great Day,’ which is a period of universal activity, that is preceded, and also followed by ‘Pralaya,’ a dark period, which to our finite minds would seem as an eternity, or but a moment in time.

‘Manvantara,’ is a creative day as seen in the six days of creation in Genesis, ‘Pralaya,’ is the evening that proceeds the next creative day. The six periods of Creation are referred to in the book of Genesis as the “GENERATIONS OF THE UNIVERSE.”

The English word “Generation,” is translated from the Hebrew “toledoth” which is used in the Old Testament in every instance as ‘births,’ or ‘descendants,’ such as “These are the generations of Adam,” or “these are the generations of Abraham, and Genesis 2: 4; These are the generations of the Universe or the heavens and earth, etc. And the ‘Great Day’ in which the seven generations of the universe are eternally repeated, is the eternal cosmic period, or the eighth eternal day in which those who attain to perfection are allowed to enter, where they shall be surrounded by great light and they shall experience eternal peace, while those who do not attain to perfection are cast back into the refining fires of the seven physical cycles of endless rebirths that perpetually revolve within the eighth eternal cosmic cycle.

Enoch the righteous, wrote that God created an eighth day also, so that it should be the first after his works, and it is a day eternal with neither hours, days, weeks, months or years, for all time is stuck together in one eon, etc, etc, and all who enter into the generation of the Light beings, are able to visit all those worlds that still exist in Space-Time, but not in our time.

A series of worlds following one upon the other-- each world rising a step higher than the previous world, so that every later world brings to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in the former, and itself then prepares the seed for the universe that will follow it. This is the true resurrection in which all from the previous cycle of universal activity, who still have the judgmental war raging within them, are born again into the endless cycles of physical manifestation, or rebirths.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
If one believes in a Big Bang, all fundamental forces would IMO derive from this event. But this BB explanation has different problems wich NEVER can be tested or causally explained and personally, I take the BB as a flawed premises.

I take the ancient mythoilogical understanding of everything as an eternal circle of formation, dissolution and re-formation as a much better and logical premise compared to the modern peception of a linear development of the Universe. In most ancient cultures there was/is a prime force of light in the creation which splits up in two polarites (male and female deities) and these basic forces creates and formes everything.

This mean to me that the Electromagnetic Force is the prime force in the Universe and to me it is nonsense to divide the EM up in several fundamental forces. It it is just a question of the EM to work EVERYTWHERE with different electric charges and different polarites.

Regarding the specific formation in cosmos. EU has it´s prime and very strong formative function in the plasmatic areas of cosmic clouds, thus setting everything in a swirling motion and attracting gas and dust and form different kinds of stars, which later on are spread out in the galactic surroundings.

In fact, I´m convinced that the undivided EU Force really can constitute the Theory of Everything.

OK, you have presented a *goal*. You have not, however, presented any reason to think that goal can be actually achieved. In particular, can you use EU to simulate the dynamics of the solar system?

First: I should have written:
In fact, I´m convinced that the undivided EM Force really can constitute the Theory of Everything.

Secondly: No one can really explain how the Solar System works unless including the formational explanation of the Milky Way of which the Solar System is an integrated orbiting part.

Throughout the actual 34 pages in this topic, I´ve described the formational process in the Milky Way several times, governed by the EM.

The Solar System is formed in the center of the Milky Way by the attractive quality in EM which works strongest on the ionized plasma scale i.e. in "cosmic clouds of dust and gas". This EM attraction assembles dust and gas in a swirling mot4ioin in the galactic center into large spheres which become stars.

When these starry spheres reach a critical stage of weight, they are
expelled out from the galactic center out in the barred structure and further out in the galactic surroundings. On its way out of the barred structure, the planets are divided out from the hot Solar sphere and later on, the planetary moons are divided out from their hot mother planets.

All Solar System movements of rotations and orbital motions are a result of the motion of the EM force which initially started the motion in the galactic center, and the repulsive "birth motion" out from the galactic center STIILL works in the Solar System as the increased distance between the Earth and the Sun as well as between the Earth and the Moon. This outgoing motion from the galactic center also explain the observed galactic rotation curve.

Gravity? Is nowhere to bee seen or observed at all. It is the EM forces which binds everything together on the atomic scale and the feeling of weight on the Earth simply derives from the weight of the gaseous atmosphere, which for over 300 years ago pushed Newtons apple to the ground.