The Devine Light in the Electromagnetic Universe

[Native]

It's not inventing something.

First it was assumed that Newtons laws of celestial motion applied everywhere, but this was contradicted directly regarding galaxies.

Following the scientific method strictly, this should lead to a revision of the law, but they just invented another assumption to the first one and now lots of other assumptions have followed all around in the observable univers.

This is not science, but science fictions and pure hindsigth bias speculations.

 

[Native]

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.

Yes you´re nice example of a consensus PhD.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes you´re nice example of a consensus PhD.

Only have the PhD in math. ABD in physics.

 

[Polymath257]

First it was assumed that Newtons laws of celestial motion applied everywhere, but this was contradicted directly regarding galaxies.

Actually, we knew Newton's laws did not apply universally. It was expected that they would apply in the case of galaxies because of the low velocities involved.

Following the scientific method strictly, this should lead to a revision of the law,

No, it requires that we revise our understanding. There are two main ways to do that: change the law itself or hypothesize something extra. Both ways were tried with galactic dynamics (MOND and dark matter). But it was found that even if you change the law, there is still a requirement for dark matter.

One possibility that has arisen is that the assumption that Newton's laws are a good enough approximation for galactic dynamics because of the low velocities may be wrong. It seems that the non-linear aspects of general relativity might explain some of the observations. In essence, the relatively strong gravitational field in galaxies might be enough to explain the observations. We shall see.

but they just invented another assumption to the first one and now lots of other assumptions have followed all around in the observable univers.

This is no more an assumption than the hypothesis that a planet was producing the effects on Uranus. Using Newton's laws in that case lead to the discovery of Neptune.

Another example: conservation of energy was seen to be violated in certain weak reactions (beta decay). In 1930, Fermi postulated an unseen particle, the neutrino, to explain these observations.Neutrnos were first detected 26 years later.

This is not science, but science fictions and pure hindsigth bias speculations.

Actually, it *is* science. It is perfectly in line with how science does things: investigate ALL possibilities and choose the one that fits the observations the best. In this case, the basic law was preserved and an extra type of matter fit the data better.

 

[epronovost]

First it was assumed that Newtons laws of celestial motion applied everywhere, but this was contradicted directly regarding galaxies.

Following the scientific method strictly, this should lead to a revision of the law, but they just invented another assumption to the first one and now lots of other assumptions have followed all around in the observable univers.

This is not science, but science fictions and pure hindsigth bias speculations.

Modifying the law would not mean it's true either. Geocentrism had mathematical models to predict star movements and they were accurate, but the theory of geocentrism is completely false. Mathematical models and laws are there to illustrate and predict things, not establish what is what.

 

[Native]

Only have the PhD in math. ABD in physics.

OK, then you`ll understand everything in this linked article. Go ahead and take the challenge.

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

 

[Native]

Modifying the law would not mean it's true either. Geocentrism had mathematical models to predict star movements and they were accurate, but the theory of geocentrism is completely false. Mathematical models and laws are there to illustrate and predict things, not establish what is what.

Newton´s math was contradicted too in the galactic realms, so believing only in math is not any guarantee at all.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, then you`ll understand everything in this linked article. Go ahead and take the challenge.

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

A fundamental lack of understanding of barometric pressure: it does NOT press down! It is a pressure on *all* sides of an object: underneath as well. This is common between air pressure and, say, pressure under water. In both cases, the amount of pressure depends on the weight of the column above, while ALL surfaces feel that pressure, both top, bottom, and sides.

This is basic for fluid flow and has been long understood. That this author does not understand it only proves his incompetence.

In his description of the 'ton of force' experienced by an airplane passenger, the pressure *inside* minus the pressure *outside* gives that ton of force: the pressure outside is smaller, so that pressure *difference* is larger.

Again, rank incompetence. This would be covered in the *first* course discussing air pressure.

 

[Native]

A fundamental lack of understanding of barometric pressure: it does NOT press down! It is a pressure on *all* sides of an object: underneath as well. This is common between air pressure and, say, pressure under water. In both cases, the amount of pressure depends on the weight of the column above, while ALL surfaces feel that pressure, both top, bottom, and sides.

This is basic for fluid flow and has been long understood. That this author does not understand it only proves his incompetence.

In his description of the 'ton of force' experienced by an airplane passenger, the pressure *inside* minus the pressure *outside* gives that ton of force: the pressure outside is smaller, so that pressure *difference* is larger.

Again, rank incompetence. This would be covered in the *first* course discussing air pressure.

Get out of your box and read the entire article before making your usual in advance consensus comments.

Try again and take on the challenge.

 

[epronovost]

Get out of your box and read the intire article before making your usual consensus comments.

Try again and take on the challenge.

What do you mean "take on the challenge"? He pointed a glaring flaw in that essay that affects everything based on it non-sense. What else is to be said when someone produces an essay filled with rookies mistake, but to say "you got the basics wrong" your entire reasonning is thus flawed. Do you want him to point out every single idiocy in there?

 

[epronovost]

Did YOU read the article before *monkeying* Polymath 257?

Yeah I did. To make a long story short, it seems like garbage. Most of the text is complete filler that in no way back the conclusion. It needs some spelling revision and some work on the stucture of the text. The bibliography is laughable and lack all forms of structure and links to many non-professional sources which might be subject to plagiarism which is the case for wikipedia for example. Wikipedia doesn't produce orginal works and often copies entire sections of textbooks and other sources. You are suppose to quote those sources, which wikipedia links to, not Wikipedia itself.

PS: I'd like to point out that object dropped in a vacuum sealed chamber at ground level do fall down towards the earth and all at the same speed too no matter their shape, mass or composition. That seems to be something this article doesn't address at all.

 

[Polymath257]

Get out of your box and read the entire article before making your usual in advance consensus comments.

Try again and take on the challenge.

Given the basic mistakes that this author did already, why waste the time? His basic knowledge is bad. His math is bad. He mixes things together that have little to do with each other.

I looked at this article. I looked at the first one, having to do with gravity. And I looked at the one 'unifying' forces. NONE of them have any value at all. Basic mistakes are made throughout.

What 'challenge' do you want me to take? Attempting to make sense out of nonsense?

I am more than happy to consider well thought out ideas that are different than the standard ones. If anything, I was in favor of MOND, for example. But there are some ideas that are so bad that they refute themselves. This author's ideas are among those.

 

[epronovost]

So all you can is to critice grammar and not the context? Your "answer" is not credible at all.

I also did criticise your bibliography, your methods and some obvious omissions. That text is not credible, contains errors, is poorly written and poorly researched.

And note that I'm not even a physicist. I'm a history teacher and yet I can see glaring flaws in the "scientific analysis" of that work.

 

[Native]

Given the basic mistakes that this author did already, why waste the time? His basic knowledge is bad. His math is bad. He mixes things together that have little to do with each other.

On the contrary. He connects and compares areas which you and consensus science ignore. That´s the point all over in his articles.

What 'challenge' do you want me to take? Attempting to make sense out of nonsense?

A slong as a TOE isn´t found, it very well could be yourself who are full of nonsense, Just remember that!

I am more than happy to consider well thought out ideas that are different than the standard ones. If anything, I was in favor of MOND

Even MOND tryed to get rid of Newtons *occult force* and it would have succeded if they had insight and the gut to binn the strange idea.

 

[epronovost]

THAT says it all. Don´t bother to participate in this thread at all.

Feel free to ignore me, but I'll participate in all the threads I want in a manner that pleases me most. I don't believe you, or the author of this paper (if it's not you), have any knowledge of physics or mathematics beyond a high school level considering the type errors and the poor standards of writtings. This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[epronovost]

Said he who admits his own limitations.

Just get out of this thread and do your historic grammar critique otherwhere.

It's wiser to admits one's own limitations that let oneself be deluded by excess of vanity and misplaced confidence.

PS; its elsewhere not otherwhere ;p /joke

 

[epronovost]

In this OP case you ´re not even able to judge at all. All you can is to follow your guru and monkeying him.

I actually raised several points @polymath did not (or at least that I don't remember him making). That we are in agreement doesn't mean that I'm incapable of judging the case presented by the author of these papers. Considering they are written at my level of expertise on the domain, I can perfectly read and comprehend them and realise they are ridiculous and forget elementary elements all the while being bloated with useless information.

 

[Polymath257]

On the contrary. He connects and compares areas which you and consensus science ignore. That´s the point all over in his articles.

No, actually, he simply misunderstand what the consensus science says.

A slong as a TOE isn´t found, it very well could be yourself who are full of nonsense, Just remember that!

Not on these matters. They have been extensively tested over the course of centuries.

Even MOND tryed to get rid of Newtons *occult force* and it would have succeded if they had insight and the gut to binn the strange idea.

No, actually, it didn't. It tried to modify the relation between force and acceleration with a cut-off. Action at a distance was still very much there. And no, they would not have succeeded if they eliminated gravity altogether because we are quite aware that Newton's laws are a *very* good approximation, in spite of the misunderstandings of the author of those vanity papers.

 

[Polymath257]

THAT says it all. Don´t bother to participate in this thread at all.

it says it all, but not in the way you think. It shows that someone outside of physics can see the gaping holes in these papers. And is criticisms are spot on.

 

[Polymath257]

Said he who admits his own limitations.

Just get out of this thread and do your historic grammar critique otherwhere. You´re not even able to follow an OP in a thread.

He made valid criticisms of the papers you linked to. His limitations may well be there, but he was correct in those criticisms and you have yet to give any cogent response.

it seems to me he *did* follow the topic of the OP: he read the linked papers and commented on them. It just wasn't the ringing endorsement you wanted.