• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

ecco

Veteran Member
ecco:
Not only serious, bur careful and thorough. But that doesn't mean I should shoulder the burden to "read the links thoroughly". It's your job to make your argument.​

How can I make the arguments if you don´t read the arguments???


You posted links to articles and expected me to read through the articles to find portions that support your arguments. The burden is on you to find those portions that you feel support your point of view and present them. You've been a member on this forum since 2011 and you don't know that?

Oh, I just thought you knew that light IS electromagnetic.
Yes, but you were talking about a Sun God...

When the entity opened, it revealed Ra, the fiery sun, inside.

I don't consider Egyptian gods to be electromagnetic.

1200-265025-467101435.jpg


However, it seems that you haven't made up your mind whether, in this bit of mythology, Ra/sun refers to the Sun or to the Galaxy (there is a bit of a difference between the two).
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Yes, but you were talking about a Sun God...
Yes and? Does a Sun God represent the Sun or what? Has the Sun electromagnetic proporties or what?
I don't consider Egyptian gods to be electromagnetic.
It´s because you don´t understand the ancient mythical language. To you it is just ancient fairy tales.

Besides this, your image doesn´t represent the Sun but the central light of creation in the Milky Way. Heliopolis has nothing to do with the Sun in our Solar System. Read more here - Ancient Egyptian creation myths - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

ecco

Veteran Member
Yes and? Does a Sun God represent the Sun or what? Has the Sun electromagnetic proporties or what?

The Egyptian Ra is a myth, just like ...



    • Aryaman, god of the midday sun.
    • Savitr, god of the sun at sunrise and sunset.
    • Surya, the sun god, rides across the sky in a horse-drawn chariot ala Helios and Sol.
    • Aruna, charioteer of Surya, god of the morning sun.
    • Tapati, sun goddess.
... and others.

Mythical entities do not have electromagnetic properties.

It´s because you don´t understand the ancient mythical language. To you it is just ancient fairy tales.

I do understand myths. And yes, they are not much more than fairy tales for adults.

Besides this, your image doesn´t represent the Sun but the central light of creation in the Milky Way. Heliopolis has nothing to do with the Sun in our Solar System.


Your link said:
When the entity opened, it revealed Ra, the fiery sun, inside.
I posted an image of RA, a sun god based on your own linked article. Are you confusing yourself as much as you are trying to confuse me?



Naa. You just don't get it, do you? If there is something in that link you want me to see, copy it and comment on it. I'm not doing your work for you anymore.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes and? Does a Sun God represent the Sun or what? Has the Sun electromagnetic proporties or what?

Do you have any evidence the Egyptians *knew* the sun has electromagnetic properties? Everyone knew it gave off *light*, but nobody knew that light was electromagnetic until Maxwell published his equations about 160 years ago.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Do you have any evidence the Egyptians *knew* the sun has electromagnetic properties? Everyone knew it gave off *light*, but nobody knew that light was electromagnetic until Maxwell published his equations about 160 years ago.
If I'm not mistaken, they also believed that the moon and Mars and Venus emitted the same kind of light.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Your link said:
When the entity opened, it revealed Ra, the fiery sun, inside.I posted an image of RA, a sun god based on your own linked article. Are you confusing yourself as much as you are trying to confuse me?
1) The entity Ra (Atum-Ra) in question shows up as the first assembled creation in the Egyptian story.
2) Ra/Atum-Ra is close connected to the Egyptian Mother Goddess Hathor, who resembles the contours of the Milky Way on the southern hemisphere.
3) Together these (and the primeval deities) creates everything.

Question: Do you think Ra = The Sun in our Solar System was the first to be formed in the Milky Way?

Do you think the Sun = Ra created everything in the Milky Way?

The Egyptian Ra is a myth, just like ...


    • Aryaman, god of the midday sun.
    • Savitr, god of the sun at sunrise and sunset.
    • Surya, the sun god, rides across the sky in a horse-drawn chariot ala Helios and Sol.
    • Aruna, charioteer of Surya, god of the morning sun.
    • Tapati, sun goddess.
... and others.

Mythical entities do not have electromagnetic properties.
No not in your disconnected fairy tale world. But in the real cosmological world the Sun has electromagnetic properties then and now.
Naa. You just don't get it, do you? If there is something in that link you want me to see, copy it and comment on it. I'm not doing your work for you anymore.
Once again you are fence-jumping away from the informations. Are you really that lazy not to look up the contents in a link?
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Do you have any evidence the Egyptians *knew* the sun has electromagnetic properties? Everyone knew it gave off *light*, but nobody knew that light was electromagnetic until Maxwell published his equations about 160 years ago.
The Egyptians really didn´t mention the Sun in their Myths of Creation. They refer to the "first fiery entity" which showed up as a result of the comming together of the primordial elements in the beginning of the creation, when even the Sun wasn´t formed.

They refered to the Central Light in the Milky Way, a "fiery light" which participates in the creation of the entire galaxy.

I really don´t care if the Egyptians didn´t know or knew of electromagnetism. Light IS electromagnetic whether you know it or not and I of course have the freedom to re-interpret the ancient myths in modern terms.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
If I'm not mistaken, they also believed that the moon and Mars and Venus emitted the same kind of light.
Possibly so. But they surely didn´t mention planet Mars and Venus as the prime creative "fiery light" in their Creation Story, which is the topic here. (Mars and Venus wasn´t even formed in this stage of the creation story).
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
How could he possibly make this comparison and conclusion? I think it was pure guessworks and nothing else. Well outside the Earth atmosphere there is nothing to hold you on the Earth, just think of that.

How could he possible? Because there is a force holding us on the Earth. Objects fall towards Earth. Then in space he saw moons orbiting planets and planets orbiting the sun.
The calculations he came up with perfectly describes the force.
Outside of the Earth's atmosphere there is still gravity?! Gravity follows the inverse square so it does get weaker but it extends far into space. The moon is quite far and still caught in Earths gravity, so I don't know what your point about "nothing to hold you on the Earth" is about?


The knowledge of the orbiting planets around the Sun was empirical knowledge long before Newton was a glimse in his parents eyes. Newton just put mathematical equations on the motions and assumed the Sun to hold the planets in their orbits.

Right, and it turned out he was right because NASA still uses those equations in the space program.

This celestial assumption of "a central force which holds the celestial objects in orbits" was contradicted by the starry motions in our galaxy where all objects orbits the galactic center with the same velocity, which stunned the scientists who belived that such velocity would sling the stars away from the galaxy - and then they invented "dark matter" to hold the stars inside the galaxy. The observed motion "was wrong" and then they patched their celestial "laws" with "dark matter" in order to save the hypothesis instead of revising their laws.

You don't seem to understand we use gravitational equations to correct out GPS, without the corrections from general relativity GPS would not work.
It also predicted gravity waves, gravitational lensing and accounted for Mercury's orbit.

So it isn't "wrong".

And now scientists are looking for "dark matter" which only can be found as a thought pattern inside the head of the scientists.

It's a weakly interacting matter, they have some candidates in mind.

And skewed thougth patterns also consitutes much of the rest of your reply. "Gravity" are getting the better of you in most of the mentioned issues.

This is cosmological gibberish. Have you analyzed the logics in these sentenses before you wrote this? Or are you just refferring from a textbook?

Like I said the Newtonian theory is used to navigate space travel, it works.
General relativity made predictions that all came true and allows us to properly coordinate satellite GPS time with time on Earth. GR predicts a time dillation which is exactly what we see. The corrections follow the math exactly and we get the exact correct time.
So yes, there is strong logic behind gravitational theories.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
This is nonsense. According to the theory, time and space is connected. But in the case of a "massless particle" wich moves very fast, time suddenly has dissappeared out of the equation!?

And a "massless particle"? What on Earth is this? Excuse me for laughing out loud :)

Have you ever studied the topic of unsolved cosmological problems? I think cosmological scientists have their problems explaining their own "successes".


Special relativity explains all of this nicely. All of the predictions made by SR have been tested to billionths of a degree, ticking atomic clocks moving at different rates, mass/energy, it's all proven beyond a doubt.
At light speed a particle moves zero through the time dimension.
This was explained in 1906 by Minowski Einsteins teacher.

A massless particle is just a particle that has no rest mass but it does have momentum energy. By being massless it can move at light speed. This is old news, well established science tested and re-tested for over 100 years.
What you sound like is this:
"germs! right, like there are these little lifeforms that get inside us and make us sick, whatever, sounds like gibberish......"
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Oh yes, this speculative "spooky action at distances" :) Well show me this force then.

It's called entanglement. First shown in the lab in the 1980s by Alain Aspect.
Since shown in many experiments.
It will also be a central feature in quantum computers which are now real.


Just think of it: Modern cosmology has the weakest of all forces to govern the entire Universe!? This is nonsense.

At universal scales gravity is the strongest force. You might consider learning science before you critique it?
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
At universal scales gravity is the strongest force. You might consider learning science before you critique it?
You might devellop a logical sense before you critique anything at all.

A fundamental force don´t get stronger because you place it in an universal scale. In fact the assumed "gravity" has already lost most of its assumed influence just outside the Earth atmosphere.

Be more updated here - Fundamental Forces
 
Last edited:

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
A force don´t get stronger because you place it in an universal scale.

I explained this in #116.

In fact the assumed "gravity" has already lost most of its assumed influence just outside the Earth atmosphere.

This is simply untrue. The force of gravity is not much different at the edge of the atmosphere than at ground level. See here and here.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain how atmospheric pressure explains things that happen outside the atmosphere and how we have atmospheric pressure at all without gravity: #120.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
I explained this in #116.
This is simply untrue. The force of gravity is not much different at the edge of the atmosphere than at ground level. See here and here.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain how atmospheric pressure explains things that happen outside the atmosphere and how we have atmospheric pressure at all without gravity: #120.
You haven´t explained anything at all regarding the subject of "gravity", simply because nobody in modern science knows what it is.

You could just as well have called it The Donald Duck Force and it STIIL would fit the assumptions and calulations in modern science - and STILL without explaining what it is or not.

What kind of a stupid question is this: "And I'm still waiting for you to explain how atmospheric pressure explains things that happen outside the atmosphere . . . ???

Just get rid of the strange idea of particles = mass = gravitational attraction and you´ll get all the answers you need. And even a Nobel Prize if you do.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You haven´t explained anything at all regarding the subject of "gravity", simply because nobody in modern science knows what it is.

This is simply untrue. We have a well tested theory and an explanation. That you don't like it is neither here nor there.

What kind of a stupid question is this: "And I'm still waiting for you to explain how atmospheric pressure explains things that happen outside the atmosphere . . . ???

Did you go back and look at reply #120? You said that Newton had confused air pressure with gravity when, we were discussing things like planetary motion and general relativistic time dilation.

Just get rid of the strange idea of particles = mass = gravitational attraction and you´ll get all the answers you need. And even a Nobel Prize if you do.

How? Why don't you get the Nobel? You still haven't even got close to a hint of a smidgen of a scintilla of a credible explanation of why, if it's so wrong, gravity gets the right answers and matches reality to the limit of our ability to test it.

You can go on about dark matter and energy, but that doesn't negate the spectacular success of both the Newtonian and Einsteinian theories - given that dark matter is an obvious first assumption and dark energy could be a non-zero cosmological constant (which was in GR originally for different reasons).

Anything that attempts to refute and replace current tested theories has to explain their success.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
1)
3) Together these (and the primeval deities) creates everything.

Question: Do you think Ra = The Sun in our Solar System was the first to be formed in the Milky Way?

No, I do not think our sun was the first star formed in our Milky Way. Why would I believe something so ridiculous?

Do you think the Sun = Ra created everything in the Milky Way?

I wouldn't call our sun Ra. If you are referring to a mythical Egyptian god named Ra, no, I don't think he created everything in the Milky Way. I also don't believe the Hebrew god created everything in the Milky Way. I also don't believe Bald Eagle created everything in the Milky Way.

No not in your disconnected fairy tale world. But in the real cosmological world the Sun has electromagnetic properties then and now.

The sun does, but your Ra didn't.

Once again you are fence-jumping away from the informations. Are you really that lazy not to look up the contents in a link?
So far I have followed three of your links. None of them support your mystical views.

Actually, I think the only one who supports your mystical views is you.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
You might devellop a logical sense before you critique anything at all.

A fundamental force don´t get stronger because you place it in an universal scale. In fact the assumed "gravity" has already lost most of its assumed influence just outside the Earth atmosphere.

Be more updated here - Fundamental Forces


This was in regards to your statement about gravity being too weak, gravity is weak but at very large scales it dominates. In the case of neutron stars even electron degenerate pressure can't hold it back and in black holes it even beats neutron degenerate pressure making it the ultimate force when high mass is concerned.

Don't bother linking to Hyperphysics, I am familiar with that site.

Outside of the atmosphere gravity weakens with the inverse square law. For something floating in space only the slightest pull would change it's direction toward Earth so you don't need much of a force anyways. But it's inverse square, do you not understand what that means?
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
This is simply untrue. We have a well tested theory and an explanation.
We have many theories, most of them untested (and of these not many are even all that well formulated). However, restricting ourselves only to the well-tested theories explaining gravitation and/or fundamental forces, we immediately run into the problem that
1) The most used theory of gravitation is a modification of Newton's theory in which gravity is an invisible force field defined at every point in the universe. The description of Newtonian gravity as a field would be quite alien to Newton as the concept was developed as a crutch by Faraday to describe electromagnetic fields and later formalized by Maxwell and others. On the one hand, defining Newtonian gravity as a field theory automatically makes it local (whereas Newton's gravity was so incredibly nonlocal it makes even the most fantastic descriptions of quantum nonlocality appear mild). On the other, there was no justification for it.
Worse, we know that Newtonian gravitation is not adequate even as an effective field theory within the scales it was developed to operate at. To the best of my knowledge, we still have not discovered the planet Vulcan that Newtonian gravity predicted but which general relativity does not.
2) General relativity has so far proved to be very well tested for the most part both in successfully giving us all the correct predictions we'd obtain from Newtonian gravitation and succeeding where Newtonian gravity fails (namely, in explaining the motions of things like planets as well as larger systems). However, general relativity explains gravitation as a dynamical interaction between the physical system of spacetime and what we would classically think of as physical systems in space and time. Simply put, in general relativity gravity is not a force. Gravitation is just a term we give to the effects that result from the manner in which systems with energy change the local geometry of spacetime.
More importantly, though, general relativity completely fails to predict anything or even be compatible with anything that correctly predicts the behavior of atomic or subatomic "particles". In the standard model of particle physics as well as just about all effective quantum field theories (and quantum mechanics), we run into problems even with special relativity. But in special relativity, space is affine. So one can still quantize (canonically or otherwise) classical systems/forces and arrive at e.g., QED or the standard model or whatever. However, there is no way to quantize systems (canonically or otherwise) without doing so by treating the systems as somehow described in spacetime. Simply put, we can't treat systems quantum-mechanically without doing so by describing them in spacetime, and general relativity requires that they be treated as interacting with a dynamical spacetime not quantized within one.
3) In particle physics, we have the graviton. One can go to the Particle Data Group or to standard references and find that the spin of the graviton, that it is a kind of boson, and so on, and yet there is absolutely no empirical evidence for any such entity. It is not even entirely clear what form such evidence might take. Mostly we just take what what must be true of forces in the standard model apply this to what we would like from quantizing gravitation even though this doesn't actually lead anywhere.

So, we have the most familiar form of gravity provided by Newtonian gravitation that has been thoroughly tested and so we know that it breaks down and we know at least at large-scales how and when it does. We know that this force doesn't exist as more than a useful mathematical model. The best theory of gravitation is then the theory of general relativity, in which gravity isn't a force. This highly successful theory is completely at odds with the entire nature, structure, and framework of modern fundamental/particle physics. Then we have the theory of gravity in particle physics: there is a particle that doesn't exist but if it did we could say some stuff about some properties it would have to have given the standard model.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
We have many theories, most of them untested (and of these not many are even all that well formulated).

Those wouldn't be theories in the scientific sense of the word.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.
...
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

The rest of your post seems to be a long description of how we don't know how to reconcile GR with QFT which is true but is not the same thing as us not having a theory or explanation of gravity.
 
Top