Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate

[Native]

Electromagnetism is a force. Electromagnetic fields are not. They *induce* forces on charged particles, but are not, themselves, forces. Electric currents are also not forces. They will induce a magnetic field circling the current, and that magnetic field can induce a force on moving charged particles, but the current itself is not a force.

--------
Good grief! Are you aware of what you are saying here? Electric helical currents creates perpendicular magnetic fields and circuits which again induces electric currents, which again creates magnetic fields etc. etc.

How on Earth can you separate this and that and at one stage call this a force and on another stage that this is not a force when it all hangs together?

One thing that shows how little of this you understand is your lack of precision when discussing this stuff. That shows basic confusion between things like force, fields, charges, currents, energy, etc. Those are all very different things.

----------------
No. your electromagnetic distinctions above just shows that modern cosmological science is confused by all kinds of speculative separations where there basically are none.

 

[Native]

Why don't you go write a paper then, and submit it for peer review?

-----------
This is sort of what I´m doing here. And I assume I´m getting the same kind of respons here as if posting to a peer review audience.

Shift of paradigms isn´t exactly the primary quality for reviewers

 

[gnostic]

-----------------
Electric currents creates perpendicular magnetic fields which affects the surroundings = Electromagnetic forces. I don´t make distinctions where there are non.


-----------
Even gaseous moist overcome your "gravity" when lifting up in the atmosphere. This is indeed a very week force, I would say.


------------
So because "it involves doing enormous amounts of work", scientists doesn´t work with the very large amounts of energy? And then scientists just reject it all together? And you call this science?


----------
This is a contradiction by terms! "Gravity" is per definition attractive and the "clumping of matter towards each other" is assumed to be the very and only quality of gravity. "The week gravity allows the matter in the Universe to be spread out"?

This is really funny ! When you have to explain how everything hangs together, you use gravity - and when you have to explain how everything is spread out in the Universe, you also use gravity


--------------------
Your explanation is certainly a paradox, that´s for sure. It´s more pure speculations than explanations.


---------------
From your reply here, I at least got the understanding that your scientific understanding is to ignore forces because they involve too much work to grasp.

Man, Native. You sure know to digger a deeper hole to bury your head under.

Without gravity, there are no stars, no galaxies, no planets, no orbits, no rotational motion.

Without gravitational fields and forces, there are nothing to keep the atmosphere in place.

In our solar system, it is not EM forces that keep planets orbiting around the sun.

No one here, is denying EM interaction have their roles, Native. It is just not the only force. All you are doing, is confusing one force with another, and placing far more emphasis without consideration of the other forces.

Gravity being a weaker force, doesn’t mean the way you think it mean, because without gravity there are no formation of stars, and without gravity, there are no thermonuclear fusion reaction, because there would be no pressures and heat to kickstart that reaction in the first place. And no thermonuclear fusion (the process is known as Stellar Nucleosynthesis), there would be radiating of light and heat from a star.

And let’s not forget that strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force also have their place in Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

All FOUR FORCES are involved in the lifecycle of each star. EM force do have a role, but so does each and every other forces.

So please, Native, stop this excessive emphasis on just EM, and looked at the whole damn picture.

 

[gnostic]

--------
Good grief! Are you aware of what you are saying here? Electric helical currents creates perpendicular magnetic fields and circuits which again induces electric currents, which again creates magnetic fields etc. etc.

How on Earth can you separate this and that and at one stage call this a force and on another stage that this is not a force when it all hangs together?


----------------
No. your electromagnetic distinctions above just shows that modern cosmological science is confused by all kinds of speculative separations where there basically are none.

The only person is confused, is you, Native.

 

[Native]

E="gnostic, post: 5758674, member: 4958"]Sorry, but you don’t seem to realise that your “logic” is terribly flawed.[/QUOTE]
----------------
A logical acid test:
When I, by reading ancient myths of creation and just looking at an image of the Milky Way, can come up several decades ago with the similar understanding, which recently states that the Milky Way formations goes inside out, you hardly cannot judge my logics to be terribly flawed, can you?

You should go back to high school or 1st year uni, and take up physics up again (if you haven’t already done so).

-----------------
Thanks but no thanks. Of course I read of scientific ideas and arguments and also of scientific problems, but I have NO wish to be indoctrinated by the separative speculations which rules in modern cosmology.

My approach to it all is founded on natural philosophy, not on conventional doctrines from books which repeats assumptive ideas ad hoc.

 

[exchemist]

-----------------
Electric currents creates perpendicular magnetic fields which affects the surroundings = Electromagnetic forces. I don´t make distinctions where there are non.


-----------
Even gaseous moist overcome your "gravity" when lifting up in the atmosphere. This is indeed a very week force, I would say.


------------
So because "it involves doing enormous amounts of work", scientists doesn´t work with the very large amounts of energy? And then scientists just reject it all together? And you call this science?


----------
This is a contradiction by terms! "Gravity" is per definition attractive and the "clumping of matter towards each other" is assumed to be the very and only quality of gravity. "The week gravity allows the matter in the Universe to be spread out"?

This is really funny ! When you have to explain how everything hangs together, you use gravity - and when you have to explain how everything is spread out in the Universe, you also use gravity


--------------------
Your explanation is certainly a paradox, that´s for sure. It´s more pure speculations than explanations.


---------------
From your reply here, I at least got the understanding that your scientific understanding is to ignore forces because they involve too much work to grasp.

Then you are an irredeemable fool.

 

[Native]

Without gravitational fields and forces, there are nothing to keep the atmosphere in place.

-----------
So how is it that gaseous particles close to the ground escape the gravity of Earth and ends up in the atmosphere? You have to decide what your gravity really does here. Where is the consistency?

In our solar system, it is not EM forces that keep planets orbiting around the sun.

------------
I haven´t claimed this. I claim our Solar System once to have been primarily formed by electromagnetic forces in the galactic center. and slung centrifugally out in the galactic surroundings. The helical motion in electric currents and magnetic fields creates both rotation and orbital motions all over the place.

Besides this, the original outgoing motion STILL works in the Solar System. Even here planets escapes your assumptions of gravity holding everything together. I know: "Frame-dragging" is your answer of this: "Spooky action at distances" is very unscientific indeed.

Gravity being a weaker force, doesn’t mean the way you think it mean, because without gravity there are no formation of stars, and without gravity, there are no thermonuclear fusion reaction, because there would be no pressures and heat to kickstart that reaction in the first place. And no thermonuclear fusion (the process is known as Stellar Nucleosynthesis), there would be radiating of light and heat from a star.

-------------
The only natural thermonuclear fusion I know of, is located in galactic centers from where strong gamma rays beams out of the galactic poles as a cause of this central electromagnetic fusion which creates stars etc.

And by know you should know that "gravity in galaxies" is contradicted, so you have to come up with another logical and consistent cause of formation as such.

And let’s not forget that strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force also have their place in Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

All FOUR FORCES are involved in the lifecycle of each star. EM force do have a role, but so does each and every other forces.

So please, Native, stop this excessive emphasis on just EM, and looked at the whole damn picture.

I agree in the overall picture - All I´m doing is just to underline the strange idea that the weakest link with it´s one way force is supposed to govern the entire Universe.

By counting mostly on the weakest force/link, scientists lacks lots of matters and lots explanations of motions in the Universe - and when counting on the much stronger fundamental forces than gravity, no mass is missing at all.

This is actual and factual "the whole damn picture" in modern cosmology.

 

[Native]

Then you are an irredeemable fool.

------------
Just explain to me how, for instants, train tracks, expands when the Sun is warming them up.

 

[exchemist]

------------
Just explain to me how, for instants, train tracks, expands when the Sun is warming them up.

No, your credit rating with me is now zero. I'm not jumping through hoops producing 4th form science lessons for your amusement. If you want to know the answer (which I don't believe you do), look up "kinetic theory: thermal expansion" on the internet. You will find plenty of explanations there, to suit all levels of scientific competence.

If and when you have done that, I will be happy to try to deal with any genuine questions you may have.

 

[Native]

No, your credit rating with me is now zero. I'm not jumping through hoops producing 4th form science lessons for your amusement.

------
The question was more for your own amusement in order for you to consider what electromagnetism really is and how it naturally works

 

[exchemist]

------
The question was more for your own amusement in order for you to consider what electromagnetism really is and how it naturally works

You mean in terms of the quantised lattice vibrations ("phonons") of a solid and how the population of the various energy levels changes as temperature goes up, altering mean interatomic distance, I presume?

I'd just stick to Egyptian mythology if I were you.

 

[Native]

You mean in terms of the quantised lattice vibrations ("phonons") of a solid and how the population of the various energy levels changes as temperature goes up, altering mean interatomic distance, I presume?

-------------
In plain natural language (so even a barmaid can understand it ) I mean in terms of electric currents from the Sun which hits and warm up/accelerate the atoms in an object.

 

[Polymath257]

--------
Good grief! Are you aware of what you are saying here? Electric helical currents creates perpendicular magnetic fields and circuits which again induces electric currents, which again creates magnetic fields etc. etc.

How on Earth can you separate this and that and at one stage call this a force and on another stage that this is not a force when it all hangs together?

Because I know how to use the language. All of what you mentioned is encompassed by Maxwell's equations. You need the Lorentz force law to get the expression for the force, though.

-----------
This is sort of what I´m doing here. And I assume I´m getting the same kind of respons here as if posting to a peer review audience.

Shift of paradigms isn´t exactly the primary quality for reviewers

----------------
No. your electromagnetic distinctions above just shows that modern cosmological science is confused by all kinds of speculative separations where there basically are none.

Oh, no. A peer-review audience would be *far* more critical. Well, if the editor even decided it was worth sending your ideas out for review, which I would strongly doubt.

-----------
So how is it that gaseous particles close to the ground escape the gravity of Earth and ends up in the atmosphere? You have to decide what your gravity really does here. Where is the consistency?

I'd suggest reading chapter 40 of the Feynamn Lectures on physics. The effect you mention is a playoff between the potential energy due to gravity and the thermodynamic effects due to the mass of the molecules in the air and the temperature. And the observations fit the theory.

------------
I haven´t claimed this. I claim our Solar System once to have been primarily formed by electromagnetic forces in the galactic center. and slung centrifugally out in the galactic surroundings. The helical motion in electric currents and magnetic fields creates both rotation and orbital motions all over the place.

Yes, we understand your proposal. It is just wrong.

Besides this, the original outgoing motion STILL works in the Solar System. Even here planets escapes your assumptions of gravity holding everything together. I know: "Frame-dragging" is your answer of this: "Spooky action at distances" is very unscientific indeed.

Gravity is an attractive force. That is why the planets orbit the sun instead of flying off in some direction. Neither frame dragging nor quantum effects are significant for this. Those are red herrings.

The only natural thermonuclear fusion I know of, is located in galactic centers from where strong gamma rays beams out of the galactic poles as a cause of this central electromagnetic fusion which creates stars etc.

That isn't where stars are created. They are created in nebulae like the Orion and Eagle nebulae. But stars *are* natural fusion reactors. Which means we have a pretty good sized one about 93 million miles away.

And by know you should know that "gravity in galaxies" is contradicted, so you have to come up with another logical and consistent cause of formation as such.

No, 'gravity in galaxies' is NOT contradicted. There is simple a component of matter that is invisible that needs to be taken into account. if that is done, things work out quite well, thank you.

By the way, this is the same way that the planet Neptune was discovered: the motion of Uranus didn't match the predictions based on the known planets. The fix was the existence of another planet adding its gravity into the mix. That planet was later discovered.

You like to rail against dark matter, but it is the only explanation of the observed data, ranging from velocities of stars in galaxies, to motions of galaxies in clusters, to bending of light as it passes clusters of galaxies, to the details of the cosmic background radiation. You focus on one piece of evidence and claim a contradiction to gravity when it works perfectly well when *all* the evidence is taken into account.



I agree in the overall picture - All I´m doing is just to underline the strange idea that the weakest link with it´s one way force is supposed to govern the entire Universe.

By counting mostly on the weakest force/link, scientists lacks lots of matters and lots explanations of motions in the Universe - and when counting on the much stronger fundamental forces than gravity, no mass is missing at all.

This is actual and factual "the whole damn picture" in modern cosmology.[/QUOTE]

 

[Polymath257]

-------------
In plain natural language (so even a barmaid can understand it ) I mean in terms of electric currents from the Sun which hits and warm up/accelerate the atoms in an object.

You ask for an explanation and require it to conform to your ideology. Furthermore, you ask that nothing technical be used. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

 

[Native]

I'd suggest reading chapter 40 of the Feynamn Lectures on physics. The effect you mention is a playoff between the potential energy due to gravity and the thermodynamic effects due to the mass of the molecules in the air and the temperature. And the observations fit the theory.

.
------------
You see? Even the simplest and smallest changes of temperature (mostly caused electromagnetically by the Sun) can overcome the assumed strong gravitation from the Earth.

No, 'gravity in galaxies' is NOT contradicted. There is simple a component of matter that is invisible that needs to be taken into account. if that is done, things work out quite well, thank you.

----------
OK, so there is an invisible component of matter which makes it all well working. I hope for you that it doesn´t take more centuries before this "invisible component" is found. As it it stands for the moment, "this component" is only found in the minds of the cosmologists i.e. you are counting with meta-physical components.

At the very best Standard Cosmologists works with circumstantial evidences which isn´t proved beyond any doubts and then there is NO evidence in the cosmological court.

 

[Native]

You ask for an explanation and require it to conform to your ideology. Furthermore, you ask that nothing technical be used. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

--------------------
There is NO need to include technical explanations in order to explain how the electromagnetic Sun heats up and extend objects.

May I remind you of this Einsteinian quotation:
"If you cannot explain your cosmological thoughts and theories so even a barmaid can understand it, you haven´t fully understood it yourself".

 

[Native]

I'd just stick to Egyptian mythology if I were you.

-----------
That wouldn´t make any difference at all. Even the Egyptian story of creation confirms my cosmological understanding of the formation process in our galaxy

 

[Native]

I am very pleased to discuss cosmological matters here on the Religious Forum which is the perfect forum for Standard Cosmologist and their de facto religious doctrines, mostly without themselves having mythological or religious understanding or points of views.

In my opinion the Standard Cosmologists should be de-programmed, re-programmed and rebooted

 

[exchemist]

-------------
In plain natural language (so even a barmaid can understand it ) I mean in terms of electric currents from the Sun which hits and warm up/accelerate the atoms in an object.

Since heating by sunlight is not the result of an electric current between the sun and earth, it will not be possible for me to give you an explanation in such terms.

EM radiation from the sun is however absorbed by the electrons in atoms and by polar molecules, causing a mixture of excitations, of electrons into higher energy orbitals, of interatomic vibrations and of molecular rotations.

The electron excitations decay (by various internal conversion processes often involving collisions between atoms or parts of molecules - this is complex and beyond anyone without some knowledge of quantum chemistry) into vibrational and rotational excitations. In a short time after absorption of each photon from the sun, its energy has become part of an equilibrium energy distribution in the absorbing material, contributing to its temperature and thus making it hotter.

In a solid, there are no molecular rotations, so it is only the interatomic vibrations that contribute to the temperature. More energetic vibrational states vibrate with a greater amplitude, resulting in a greater mean distance between adjacent atoms, i.e. they move - on average - apart slightly. This results in the whole material expanding.

There, you have got me to do what I said I would get you to do for yourself. It is not in the language of a barmaid, as things have moved on a bit since Rutherford's time a century ago, making this impractical. (Atomic physics would have been a doubtful chat-up line, even then, I suspect.)

By the way, you would make a bloody ugly barmaid.

 

[exchemist]

--------------------
There is NO need to include technical explanations in order to explain how the electromagnetic Sun heats up and extend objects.

May I remind you of this Einsteinian quotation:
"If you cannot explain your cosmological thoughts and theories so even a barmaid can understand it, you haven´t fully understood it yourself".

This is wrong. Einstein never said anything of the sort.

When you consider that is impossible to understand General Relativity properly without some knowledge of tensor mathematics, you may realise how silly it is to imagine he could have said it.

The saying is in fact attributed to Ernest Rutherford who, unlike Einstein, was an experimental physicist, working on problems that were far easier to visualise and explain.