Public Education And Independent Self-Taught Research

[Native]

First: Your "gravity" cannot be scientifically or logically explaned by what dynamically means and forces it should work. So all you have is interpretative assumptions based on circumstantial observations. Just remember this everytime you´re replying to "gravitational" matters.

No, there is no resistance because there is nothing to resist it. The space around the Earth is a vacuum to a very high degree (as I pointed out, even with solar wind there is only 3-10 molecules per cubic centimeter--hardly enough to cause a resistance to the motion of the Earth of any significant degree).

And the 'pull' from gravity is in the direction of the sun. So the change is velocity from that force is what keeps the Earth in orbit.

Native said: ↑
Tree times you´re deriving from the linked Class Room explanations, just in order to be biasedly opposing and avoiding the illogics and inconsistencies in the class room nonsense.

No, those numbers were the result of actual measurements. Sorry, but your philosophical musings don't win against that.

Not in the real physical world they surely were´nt. They simply didn´t fit the real world.

Because you need to know how much that resistance slows the spacecraft. Also, if you go too fast, you can get an effect like skipping a stone off of water.

Your own correct reply here should then give you the logical hint of spacial velocity resistance forces and action on objects in general.

And the 'pull' from gravity is in the direction of the sun. So the change is velocity from that force is what keeps the Earth in orbit.

What will you call a "constant pull between two objects" which results in increasing distances between the objects?

The Sun isn´t pulling at anything as the entire Solar System is the result of a centrifugal expanding inside-out formation in the Milky Way which logically explains the increasing distances between objects in our Solar System.

And the elliptic orbits of planets is the logical result of this inside-out expanding motion as well.

 

[Polymath257]

First: Your "gravity" cannot be scientifically or logically explaned by what dynamically means and forces it should work. So all you have is interpretative assumptions based on circumstantial observations. Just remember this everytime you´re replying to "gravitational" matters.

Gravity is not unique in not having a deeper explanation. The same is true for E&M.

But yes, those 'ircumstantial observations' are *precisely* what science is there to explain. WHY do you think the observations made are circumstantial as opposed to general?

Native said: ↑
Tree times you´re deriving from the linked Class Room explanations, just in order to be biasedly opposing and avoiding the illogics and inconsistencies in the class room nonsense.

Not in the real physical world they surely were´nt. They simply didn´t fit the real world.

Direct measurements *are* the real world. Philosophical musings are not.

Your own correct reply here should then give you the logical hint of spacial velocity resistance forces and action on objects in general.

And those forces are almost zero.

What will you call a "constant pull between two objects" which resutls in increasing distances between the objects?

Forces change the *velocity* in the direction of the force. So, yes, if the initial velocity is away from the other object, the distance between the two will increase while the velocity slows.

For a planet, the force is close to perpendicular to the direction of motion. If the initial velocity is directed a bit outward, away from the sun, then yes, the planet will move away from the sun at first. Then, as the force slows the outward part of the motion, the planet will decrease in distance to the sun and start moving faster. If it is moving mostly perpendicular to the direction of the sun, that motion inward will stop and the planet will then move away again. The result will be an elliptical orbit.

The Sun isn´t pulling at anything as the entire Solar System is the result of a centrifugal expanding inside-out formation in the Milky Way which logically explains the increasing distances between objects in our Solar System.

And the elliptic orbits of planets is the logical result of this inside-out expanding motion as well.

Prove it. Mathematically, show how an elliptical orbit is the result of your model.

In contrast, it is a standard exercise to see how an inverse square force produces elliptical orbits.

Wait, what? Increasing distances in our solar system? What are you talking about? How fast do you think the distance from the Earth to the sun is increasing? You do realize that the Earth-Sun distance fluctuates, increasing sometimes and decreasing others?

 

[Native]

Gravity is not unique in not having a deeper explanation. The same is true for E&M.

This is an oxymoron. Your weak gravity has non scientific dynamic explanation whatsoever.

Native said: ↑
Tree times you´re deriving from the linked Class Room explanations, just in order to be biasedly opposing and avoiding the illogics and inconsistencies in the class room nonsense.
Not in the real physical world they surely were´nt. They simply didn´t fit the real world.

Direct measurements *are* the real world. Philosophical musings are not.

I suggest you to go back to the cited Class Room Lecture and read it without your automatically opposing biases.

But yes, those 'ircumstantial observations' are *precisely* what science is there to explain. WHY do you think the observations made are circumstantial as opposed to general?

Because the standing conventional circumstantinal observations en masse, could have been direct observations by incorporate other forces but the assumed oneway working gravity weakling.

And those forces are almost zero.

Once again your argument is disconnected from reality. You try to convince the reentring spacecraft in question of this.

Forces change the *velocity* in the direction of the force. So, yes, if the initial velocity is away from the other object, the distance between the two will increase while the velocity slows.

Fine, you just confirmed my and the scientific take of an inside-out centrifugal formation in the Milky Way.

For a planet, the force is close to perpendicular to the direction of motion. If the initial velocity is directed a bit outward, away from the sun, then yes, the planet will move away from the sun at first. Then, as the force slows the outward part of the motion, the planet will decrease in distance to the sun and start moving faster. If it is moving mostly perpendicular to the direction of the sun, that motion inward will stop and the planet will then move away again. The result will be an elliptical orbit.

Thsi is pure reversed mathematics projected upon planetary motions which cannot be explained scientifically by what means it should work, remember?

Native said:
The Sun isn´t pulling at anything as the entire Solar System is the result of a centrifugal expanding inside-out formation in the Milky Way which logically explains the increasing distances between objects in our Solar System.
And the elliptic orbits of planets is the logical result of this inside-out expanding motion as well.

Prove it. Mathematically, show how an elliptical orbit is the result of your model.
In contrast, it is a standard exercise to see how an inverse square force produces elliptical orbits.

I´m sure you can do the mathematical calculation without being able to explain WHY planets are moving. I suggest you trying to get the assembled n-body planetary calculation solution correct before you speak of planetary motions and their ellipctic orbits pointing in the same direction.

Wait, what? Increasing distances in our solar system? What are you talking about? How fast do you think the distance from the Earth to the sun is increasing?

I don´t care how fast this increasing takes place. You´re nitpicking numbers and ignoring the cosmological philosophy and its implications.

You do realize that the Earth-Sun distance fluctuates, increasing sometimes and decreasing others?

Of course, I realize. And how on Earth can "gravity" descide when to pull harder or lesser, thus resulting in different orbital distances around a center?

 

[Polymath257]

This is an oxymoron. Your weak gravity has non scientific dynamic explanation whatsoever.

And neither does E&M.

Native said: ↑
Tree times you´re deriving from the linked Class Room explanations, just in order to be biasedly opposing and avoiding the illogics and inconsistencies in the class room nonsense.
Not in the real physical world they surely were´nt. They simply didn´t fit the real world.

I suggest you to go back to the cited Class Room Lecture and read it without your automatically opposing biases.

Because the standing conventional circumstantinal observations en masse, could have been direct observations by incorporate other forces but the assumed oneway working gravity weakling.

Once again your argument is disconnected from reality. You try to convince the reentring spacecraft in question of this.

And see what happens when the spacecraft is farther from Earth: there is a vacuum. The atmosphere only needs to be considered when the spacecraft is close to the Earth.

Fine, you just confirmed my and the scientific take of an inside-out centrifugal formation in the Milky Way.

Thsi is pure reversed mathematics projected upon planetary motions which cannot be explained scientifically by what means it should work, remember?

Native said:
The Sun isn´t pulling at anything as the entire Solar System is the result of a centrifugal expanding inside-out formation in the Milky Way which logically explains the increasing distances between objects in our Solar System.
And the elliptic orbits of planets is the logical result of this inside-out expanding motion as well.

Prove it. Give detailed calculations showing that is what would happen in your inside-out world.

I´m sure you can do the mathematical calculation without being able to explain WHY planets are moving. I suggest you trying to get the assembled n-body planetary calculation solution correct before you speak of planetary motions and their ellipctic orbits pointing in the same direction.

At the level of the solar system, that has been done.

I don´t care how fast this increasing takes place.

Which increase? And why don't you care about the details? Remember that it is the details that show that something else is going on at the galactic level.

Of course I realize. How on Earth can "gravity" descide when to pull harder or lesser, thus resulting in different orbital distances around a center?

The force pulls harder close by and less hard when farther away. That is the inverse square law for the force. Planets at larger distances need lower forces to produce the orbits. if you took some basic physics, this would be made more clear. For gravity, F=GMm/r^2 and for circular orbits, F=mv^2/r. The rest is easy algebra.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
This is an oxymoron. Your weak gravity has non scientific dynamic explanation whatsoever.

And neither does E&M.

I don´t bother to inform you of E&M discoveries, experiments, measurements and laws.

Native said: ↑
Tree times you´re deriving from the linked Class Room explanations, just in order to be biasedly opposing and avoiding the illogics and inconsistencies in the class room nonsense.
Not in the real physical world they surely were´nt. They simply didn´t fit the real world.
I suggest you to go back to the cited Class Room Lecture and read it without your automatically opposing biases.
Because the standing conventional circumstantinal observations en masse, could have been direct observations by incorporate other forces but the assumed oneway working gravity weakling.
Once again your argument is disconnected from reality. You try to convince the reentring spacecraft in question of this.

And see what happens when the spacecraft is farther from Earth: there is a vacuum. The atmosphere only needs to be considered when the spacecraft is close to the Earth.

I´m not surprised of this reply of only counting on a one way effect when it suits an unexplanable gravity pull assumption.

Native said:
The Sun isn´t pulling at anything as the entire Solar System is the result of a centrifugal expanding inside-out formation in the Milky Way which logically explains the increasing distances between objects in our Solar System.
And the elliptic orbits of planets is the logical result of this inside-out expanding motion as well.

Prove it. Give detailed calculations showing that is what would happen in your inside-out world.

Didn´t you read the linked arxiv-article about the inside-out formation article which confirms what I´ve said for decades just by looking at the barred structure of the Milky Way and it´s formation and rotation.

You´re one who loves math beyound everything else, so do your own calculations from the E&M perspective and leave out your unexplanable gravity assumptions.

Native said:
I´m sure you can do the mathematical calculation without being able to explain WHY planets are moving. I suggest you trying to get the assembled n-body planetary calculation solution correct before you speak of planetary motions and their ellipctic orbits pointing in the same direction.

At the level of the solar system, that has been done

Really? Show me articles which have explained and solved the planetary elliptic plane direction.

Native said:
I don´t care how fast this increasing takes place.

Which increase?

Wake up! The increasing distances between objects in the Solar System!

And why don't you care about the details? Remember that it is the details that show that something else is going on at the galactic level.

There you go again nitpicking on distance numbers and completely ignoring the logical centrifugal causes of this increasing outgoing motion in our Milky Way galaxy. It´s apparently impossible to discuss connected matters with your redusing mathematical take on cosmology.

Native said
Of course I realize. How on Earth can "gravity" descide when to pull harder or lesser, thus resulting in different orbital distances around a center?

The force pulls harder close by and less hard when farther away. That is the inverse square law for the force. Planets at larger distances need lower forces to produce the orbits. if you took some basic physics, this would be made more clear. For gravity, F=GMm/r^2 and for circular orbits, F=mv^2/r. The rest is easy algebra.

Fine and Bravo! Then explain scientifically by what dynamic means such a force should work.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
This is an oxymoron. Your weak gravity has non scientific dynamic explanation whatsoever.

I don´t bother to inform you of E&M discoveries, experiments, measurements and laws.

And I won't bother to inform you of the same with gravity.

Native said: ↑
Tree times you´re deriving from the linked Class Room explanations, just in order to be biasedly opposing and avoiding the illogics and inconsistencies in the class room nonsense.
Not in the real physical world they surely were´nt. They simply didn´t fit the real world.
I suggest you to go back to the cited Class Room Lecture and read it without your automatically opposing biases.
Because the standing conventional circumstantinal observations en masse, could have been direct observations by incorporate other forces but the assumed oneway working gravity weakling.
Once again your argument is disconnected from reality. You try to convince the reentring spacecraft in question of this.

And you have to convince the spacecraft well above the atmosphere that it isn't in a vacuum.

I´m not surprised of this reply of only counting on a one way effect when it suits an unexplanable gravity pull assumption.

What one-way effect? Yes, gravity is a force between two objects and, for each, is in the direction of the other.

Native said:
The Sun isn´t pulling at anything as the entire Solar System is the result of a centrifugal expanding inside-out formation in the Milky Way which logically explains the increasing distances between objects in our Solar System.
And the elliptic orbits of planets is the logical result of this inside-out expanding motion as well.

Didn´t you read the linked arxiv-article about the inside-out formation article which confirms what I´ve said for decades just by looking at the barred structure of the Milky Way and it´s formation and rotation.

Except, of course, that it doesn't. There is no link between that inside-out formation and anything to do with planetary orbits. It says NOTHING about increasing distances in the solar system.

You´re one who loves math beyound everything else, so do your own calculations from the E&M perspective and leave out your unexplanable gravity assumptions.

And if you do so, the results are dramatically counter to what is actually observed.

Native said:
I´m sure you can do the mathematical calculation without being able to explain WHY planets are moving. I suggest you trying to get the assembled n-body planetary calculation solution correct before you speak of planetary motions and their ellipctic orbits pointing in the same direction.

The motion of the planets is incredibly well described by gravity acting between the planets and the sun. The n-body calculations in the solar system are not all that difficult because the speeds and forces involved are small enough to allow for perturbation methods. This has been done since the late 1700's.

Really? Show me articles which have explained and solved the planetary elliptic plane direction.

Huh?

Native said:
I don´t care how fast this increasing takes place.

Wake up! The increasing distances between objects in the Solar System!

There you go again nitpicking on distance numbers and completely ignoring the logical centrifugal causes of this increasing outgoing motion in our Milky Way galaxy. It´s apparently impossible to discuss connected matters with your mathmatical take on cosmology.

Well, when you ignore actual measurements in favor of your philosophical musings, there is nothing to discuss.

Native said
Of course I realize. How on Earth can "gravity" descide when to pull harder or lesser, thus resulting in different orbital distances around a center?

Fine and Bravo! Then explain scientifically by what dynamic means such a force should work.

From your questions alone, it is clear you don't understand many of the basics. You tend to use a word salad that often makes no sense and attribute causes to things that are known to be insignificant to the processes you are discussing. You deny the existence of a vacuum in space, you deny the existence of gravity and BOTH of those are known by direct measurements.

 

[gnostic]

@Native

In physics, in any scientific theory where the evidence support both the explanatory models and the logical or mathematical models, then we know that the explanations and maths are sound.

Here, when the equations are sounds, then the maths and evidence work together and can be useful in providing deeper understanding of the phenomena under investigation.

That have been the case with Newton and his equations on motion and forces, and in the case with Maxwell with his equations on electromagnetic fields. But of course, they both can be improved on, eg General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, Quantum Electrodynamics, the Standard Model (particle physics), etc.

Newton, Faraday & Maxwell, they were each ahead of their times, but their works weren’t complete.

But if the evidence don’t support either the explanations or the equations, or both, then the problems are with one or the other (or both), being incorrect or unsound, not the evidence.

In the matter of Earth’s orbit around the sun, then the evidence support the Newton’s equations.

Can you show the EM equations to replace the equations on gravitational force, as to what keep the Earth in motion?

 

[Native]

From your questions alone, it is clear you don't understand many of the basics. You tend to use a word salad that often makes no sense and attribute causes to things that are known to be insignificant to the processes you are discussing.

Of course, being a mathmagician only, you have no clues of the ancient and present natural philosophical pondering method and pattern recognition skills, hence your mathematical/cosmological judgements in such areas are completely invalid.

As expressed several times before, I of course grant you that cosmology and technique have led to successful launchings of spacecrafts by applying trigonometry math to historical already known planetary orbital motions.

Math is just fine in “Earthly practical matters” but when it comes to astrophysics, cosmogony, and cosmology, it isn´t much help as it´s based on assumptions of false constants, a false distance measuring method, and on an illogical linear formation perception, and most of all on a gravity assumption which produces and requires all kinds of “dark this and that”-patching’s, just to fit the standing assumptions and it´s attached math, which even directly breaks completely down when used on several astrophysical and cosmological issues.

Get your cosmological philosophy correct before applying your math and stop your patronizing attitude. You have only 4 % matter and an unexplained force to brag of, remember?

In fact you - and other debaters - should be grateful for having persons coming up with a new cosmological take and new ideas, but that seems to be too dangerous to you, with reference to your own profile signature statement.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course, being a mathmagician only, you have no clues of the ancient and present natural philosophical pondering method and pattern recognition skills, hence your mathematical judgements in such areas are completely invalid.

On the contrary, I have read and studied a lot of ancient philosophy as well as modern philosophy and realize it is mostly bunk.

As expressed several times before, I of course grant you that cosmology and technique have led to successful launchings of spacecrafts by applying trigonometry math to historical already known planetary orbital motions.

Not just trigonometry. Calculus using the equations of gravity. And the methods give far more than what was known historically: they give much more accurate answers and in many ore situations.

Math is just fine in “Earthly practical matters” but when it comes to astrophysics, cosmogony, and cosmology, it isn´t much help as it´s based on assumptions of constants, a false distance measuring method, and on an illogical linear formation perception, and most of all on a gravity assumption which produces and requires all kinds of “dark this and that”-patching’s, just to fit the standing assumptions and it´s attached math, which even directly breaks completely down when used on several astrophysical and cosmological issues.

Get your cosmological philosophy correct before applying your math and stop your patronizing attitude. You have only 4 % matters and an unexplained force to brag of, remember?

And your theory doesn't even explain that much. While we know the areas of our ignorance, we also know some areas of knowledge. And we know enough to reject your views simply because they don't correspond with reality.

 

[Native]

On the contrary, I have read and studied a lot of ancient philosophy as well as modern philosophy and realize it is mostly bunk.

Obviously you haven´t understood it - or, according to this very OP, your public school/University teachers didn´t.

 

[Native]

NOTE: I´m about to end this thread and I do it by posting this video, in where Sabine Hossenfelder comment on the standing astrophysics and cosmology.

 

[Polymath257]

NOTE: I´m about to end this thread and I do it by posting this video, in where Sabine Hossenfelder comment on the standing astrophysics and cosmology.

And does Hossenfelder agree that gravity does not exist?

Of course not. She is trying to figure out quantum gravity, after all.

 

[Native]

And does Hossenfelder agree that gravity does not exist?
Of course not. She is trying to figure out quantum gravity, after all.

And of course you ignore Sabine´s critical comments about the standing problems in astrophysics and cosmology.

And especially her statement of modern cosmology needing more philosophical ponderings.

 

[Polymath257]

And of course you ignore Sabine´s critical comments about the standing problems in astrophysics and cosmology.

And especially her statement of modern cosmology needing more philosophical ponderings.

Not at all. She has many good points. None of them support your position.

 

[Native]

Not at all. She has many good points. None of them support your position.

She surely has - and I´ve never claimed she supports me on anything - beside her important take on more philosophical cosmolgical ponderings needed,

Note: As far a I´m concerned, I´m finished with this thread.

 

[Polymath257]

She surely has - and I´ve never claimed she supports me on anything - beside her important take on more philosophical cosmolgical ponderings needed,

She makes some good criticisms. Philosophical ponderings aren't relevant at all.

 

[gnostic]

NOTE: I´m about to end this thread and I do it by posting this video, in where Sabine Hossenfelder comment on the standing astrophysics and cosmology.

And does Hossenfelder agree that gravity does not exist?

Of course not. She is trying to figure out quantum gravity, after all.

Not at all. She has many good points. None of them support your position.

She surely has - and I´ve never claimed she supports me on anything - beside her important take on more philosophical cosmolgical ponderings needed,

Note: As far a I´m concerned, I´m finished with this thread.

She makes some good criticisms. Philosophical ponderings aren't relevant at all.

This is what I cannot figure, Polymath257, about Native.

Native is SO ANTI-GRAVITY, ANTI-GRAVITATION, ANTI-DARK MATTER, ANTI-NEWTONIAN MECHNICISM, ANTI-RELATIVITY, and anything that even remotely relating to gravity...

...AND YET, Native keep posting YouTube videos in the last 2 years of the one person trying to introduce another theoretical model on gravity and gravitation - Quantum Gravity.

Plus, Sabine Hossenfelder is working on another model on gravity, that so far, don't work...yet.Sabine hasn't found the solution herself.

She is not the only theoretical physicist working on Quantum Gravity, and the whole idea of the Quantum Gravity, is to still unify General Relativity with Quantum Field Theory into a single theory.

Beside that, even should Quantum Gravity become a tested and official scientific theory, one day, QG won't refute there are masses out there in the cosmos that don't interact with EM forces - Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Maybe, one day there will be one or more theoretical physicist who would find the testable solution to Quantum Gravity, I don't think it would be Hoffemfelder, because I don't think she is smarter enough a physicist...meaning Hossenfelder is in the same boat with the rest of physicists.

Isn't Native's position on this, being two-face...hypocritical?

 

[Native]

[

She makes some good criticisms. Philosophical ponderings aren't relevant at all.

Apparently your ignorant teachers even didn´t bother to define the philosophical terms for you:

Philosophical
/ˌfɪləˈsɒfɪkl/
adjective

1. 1.
   relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

Natural Philosophy

1. natural science, especially physical science.

You´re de facto ignoring ancient, historic and modern natural philosophical thinkers, and all you have left is a bunch of highly speculative cosmological assumptions embedded with math and equations.

Even 6-000-5.000 BC years old cultural Stories of Creation superseds modern cosmology by far when re-interpreted into modern terms.

IMHO: Educationally, historic and modern humans have studied themselves increasingly cosmologically stupid by disconnecting themselves from nature as such, and reading too many books of disconnected speculations and mental constructs.

THIS IS MY CONCLUSION ON THIS EDUCATION OP THREAD.

 

[Polymath257]

[

Apparently your ignorant teachers even didn´t bother to define the philosophical terms for you:

Philosophical
/ˌfɪləˈsɒfɪkl/
adjective

1. 1.
   relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

Natural Philosophy

1. natural science, especially physical science.

Sorry, but philosophy is *speculation* concerning those matters and 'natural philosophy' has been superseded by science. it is an outdated term.

You´re de facto ignoring ancient, historic and modern natural philosophical thinkers, and all you have left is a bunch of highly speculative cosmological assumptions embedded with math and equations.

No, I am not ignoring them. I looked at what they had to say and found it to be wrong or irrelevant. Philosophers need to stop doing so much 'pondering' and start doing some actual *thinking* that takes into account actual data about the real world.

Even 6-000-5.000 BC years old cultural Stories of Creation superseds modern cosmology by far when re-interpreted into modern terms.

Not even close. They are speculative myths that have very little to do with actual reality.

IMHO: Educationally, historic and modern humans have studied themselves increasingly cosmologically stupid by disconnecting themselves from nature as such, and reading too many books of disconnected speculations and mental constructs.

THIS IS MY CONCLUSION ON THIS EDUCATION OP THREAD.

Well, I think you are wrong in this, as you are in so much else in these threads. Even your basic philosophy is permeated with biases that are easily seen to be wrong.

But you do you. You clearly don't care if anyone takes your ideas seriously.

 

[Native]

Well, I think you are wrong in this, as you are in so much else in these threads. Even your basic philosophy is permeated with biases that are easily seen to be wrong.

Polymath, if you were a philosophical specialist, I would take your judgements seriously - but you aren´t, so I don´t.

If you were a mythological specialist, I would take your judgements seriously, but you aren´t, so I don´t.

IMHO: Educationally, historic and modern humans have studied themselves increasingly cosmologically stupid by disconnecting themselves from nature as such, and reading too many books of disconnected speculations and mental constructs.

THIS IS MY CONCLUSION ON THIS EDUCATION OP THREAD.