The Devine Light in the Electromagnetic Universe

[Native]

Abstract:
For my fellow debaters here, It should not come to any surprise, that I go all in for a modern interpretation of the Ancient Myths of Creation and take their prime *deities* of Light as in an Electric Universe.

Of course I´m not alone in this perception as several Independent Thinkers always are asking questions to standing theories and their ancient dogmas.

I want to introduce you all for such an excellent example here:

Mahmoud E. Yousif
External Magnetic Field Propulsion Systems (ExMF-PS) Foundation · Independent Researcher
Diploma in Electronics.

His articles:
(PDF) Newtons Gravitation Law is Wrong | Mahmoud E . Yousif - Academia.edu

(PDF) The Hydrostatic Force (F_H) of Gravity (The Atmospheric Force of Gravity) | Mahmoud E . Yousif - Academia.edu

(PDF) The Unified Force of Nature: 1-The Electric & Magnetic Forces | Mahmoud E . Yousif - Academia.edu

(PDF) The Grand Unification: 2-The Nuclear (F_N ) and Weak (F_W ) Forces | Mahmoud E . Yousif - Academia.edu

For those of you who cannot take in *oral* philosophical explanations by plain words and sentenses, I´m happy to say, that the articles contains lots of *mathematical number acrobatics* as well. Enjoy!

And your comments to these articles are?

Edit: REMEMBER to have an independent thinker approach before replying.

 

[epronovost]

The first article is a bit redundant. Newton's gravitational law is indeed false. It has been replaced almost a 100 years ago by Eisntein general relativity though Newton's calculous is still quite useful to calculate and predict the movement of stars.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Abstract:
For my fellow debaters here, It should not come to any surprise, that I go all in for a modern interpretation of the Ancient Myths of Creation and take their prime *deities* of Light as in an Electric Universe.

Of course I´m not alone in this perception as several Independent Thinkers always are asking questions to standing theories and their ancient dogmas.

I want to introduce you all for such an excellent example here:

Mahmoud E. Yousif
External Magnetic Field Propulsion Systems (ExMF-PS) Foundation · Independent Researcher
Diploma in Electronics.

His articles:
(PDF) Newtons Gravitation Law is Wrong | Mahmoud E . Yousif - Academia.edu

(PDF) The Hydrostatic Force (F_H) of Gravity (The Atmospheric Force of Gravity) | Mahmoud E . Yousif - Academia.edu

(PDF) The Unified Force of Nature: 1-The Electric & Magnetic Forces | Mahmoud E . Yousif - Academia.edu

(PDF) The Grand Unification: 2-The Nuclear (F_N ) and Weak (F_W ) Forces | Mahmoud E . Yousif - Academia.edu

For those of you who cannot take in *oral* explanations by plain words and sentenses, I´m happy to say, that the articles contains lots of *mathematical number acrobatics* as well. Enjoy!

And your comments to these articles are?

Hmm. I have not read them though the journal those are published in:

Flaky Academic Journals: International Organization of Scientific Research (IOSR) Publishing

 

[Regiomontanus]

The first article is a bit redundant. Newton's gravitational law is indeed false. It has been replaced almost a 100 years ago by Eisntein general relativity though Newton's calculous is still quite useful to calculate and predict the movement of stars.

Indeed; Newtonian mechanics is sufficient for sending spacecraft around our solar system (and we probably owe more to Leibniz as far as the calculus goes, though the two developed it independently).

 

[Native]

Hmm. I have not read them though the journal those are published in:

Flaky Academic Journals: International Organization of Scientific Research (IOSR) Publishing

So what? Just read the linked articles.

 

[Regiomontanus]

So what? Just read the linked articles.

No.

 

[Native]

Indeed; Newtonian mechanics is sufficient for sending spacecraft around our solar system (and we probably owe more to Leibniz as far as the calculus goes, though the two developed it independently).

This is correct but this is not the question in the OP. The question is about EXPLAINING the assumed force or to dismiss the *gravity ideas*.

 

[Native]

No.

OK, then just leave this thread.

 

[Native]

The first article is a bit redundant. Newton's gravitational law is indeed false. It has been replaced almost a 100 years ago by Eisntein general relativity though Newton's calculous is still quite useful to calculate and predict the movement of stars.

Well, Newton´s laws of celestial motions failed to explain the motions in galaxies, hence 'dark matter' was invented.

 

[Regiomontanus]

OK, then just leave this thread.

OK

 

[epronovost]

Well, Newton´s laws of celestial motions failed to explain the motions in galaxies, hence 'dark matter' was invented.

It's a little bit more complex than that, but yes. This is the case. It would far from the first time we discovered the existence of a phenomenon by observing it's effect on something else. That's how we discovered neutrino and electrons for example or a variety of moons and exoplanets.

 

[ratiocinator]

(PDF) Newtons Gravitation Law is Wrong | Mahmoud E . Yousif - Academia.edu

So, the centripetal force needed to keep planets in their orbits is about the same as the gravitational force between the planets and the sun. No kidding, Sherlock! Of course the 'nearly' appears to come from the fact that the author doesn't seem to get that you can't take a table of average, low precision values for planetary characteristics and calculate something to 30 decimal places.

I also loved the bit in the Results and Discussion section at the end, when he contrasts the units for G from two formulas. One being N m^2/kg^2 and the other being kg^-1 m^3 /s^2. Not only is he being totally inconsistent in notation but, of course, they are exactly the same since Newtons are kg m s^-2.

 

[Native]

It's a little bit more complex than that, but yes. This is the case. It would far from the first time we discovered the existence of a phenomenon by observing it's effect on something else. That's how we discovered neutrino and electrons for example or a variety of moons and exoplanets.

Personally I think it is a scientific failure to invent something in space in order to save a theory.

 

[Polymath257]

It's a little bit more complex than that, but yes. This is the case. It would far from the first time we discovered the existence of a phenomenon by observing it's effect on something else. That's how we discovered neutrino and electrons for example or a variety of moons and exoplanets.

Not to mention the planet Neptune.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course the 'nearly' appears to come from the fact that the author doesn't seem to get that you can't take a table of average, low precision values for planetary characteristics and calculate something to 30 decimal places.

That alone is quite enough to qualify him as a moron. This is something covered in the *first* class in any scientific field.

I also loved the bit in the Results and Discussion section at the end, when he contrasts the units for G from two formulas. One being N m^2/kg^2 and the other being kg^-1 m^3 /s^2. Not only is he being totally inconsistent in notation but, of course, they are exactly the same since Newtons are kg m s^-2.

The other papers are even more silly.

Not 'thinking outside the box'. It is simply not understanding the first thing about what he is talking about.

 

[Native]

So, the centripetal force needed to keep planets in their orbits is about the same as the gravitational force between the planets and the sun. No kidding, Sherlock!

You´re going out of the focus of comparing a force on a planet.
So far I´ve studied his articles, I haven´t yet read about what he think of the cause of celestial motions, which BTW the planets were made by an direct opposite motion from the Sun than *gravity*.

 

[Native]

Not 'thinking outside the box'. It is simply not understanding the first thing about what he is talking about.

And how does the reverse argument fit to yourself?

 

[epronovost]

Personally I think it is a scientific failure to invent something in space in order to save a theory.

It's not inventing something. It's discovering something that could not be seen before, but now can be observed and could help explain other phenomenon like cosmic inflation for example. Note that the rotational speed of the galaxies isn't the only evidence for the existence of some dark matter or energy that is yet to be discovered and observed directly.

 

[WalterTrull]

Very strange realization: I get a kick out of reading through these threads. I guess I'm really REALLY retired.

 

[Polymath257]

And how does the reverse argument fit to yourself?

I'll let the experts decide that question. Given that I did well in my astrophysics class and was studying for a PhD in astrophysics, my guess is that I know something about it.