What's wrong with physics?

[Native]

I know that. GPS systems being in space and much higher up in a gravity well than the clocks and maps on the ground have several types of time/space dillation to correct for. The theory predicts it, It does show up as predicted. The equations allow us to correct all of the errors due to time dillation from several relativistic effects.

IMO this is not because of *time dillation* at all. It´s because of the orbital velocity pressure on and around the Earth which frequently causes the satellites to move out of positions by "the Solar wind" if you like. This have nothing to do with *gravity* at ll but to do with simple laws of motions in the not empty space.

I don't understand what you mean by "assumption" being the basis for gravity? The theory predicts that several relativistic effects will be seen in GPS triangulation and with sending the information to the ground. We do in fact see these issues.
Why would that be an assumption? We have a theory and it works to an incredible degree? Look at the paper.
Gravity is one of the forces, do you have reason to believe it's not?

I´s my firm conviction that the Earth´s Atmospheric Pressure is confused by Newton to be "a force of gravity" and if this confusion is superimposed all over in the Universe, this can only lead to further ad hoc assumptions of gravity, including the Einsteinan ones.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Yes, begining with a total silence when asked what "gravity is" and then admitting that "we don´t know what gravity is" and then they wasted 1 1/2 hour speaking of all the areas in where their not understood gravity plays the main role.

at 3:27 he says from a practical standpoint we know exactly what gravity is. What they mean by not "knowing what gravity is" is just because we do not have a description of what's happening at the quantum level. That's it. This doesn't mean it's not real? That conclusion is absurd.

The absurdity derives from knowning nothing of the *gravitational force" to conclude "it works practically" according to the consensus assumptions connected to such an unknown force. Such "an assumed force" only "confirms" the prime assumption by further assumptions when STILL knowing nothing dynamically and scientifically at all of the assumed force. This is absurd if anything is.

With EM we have a quantum description - quantum fields for the photon and Q. Electrodynamics about it's interaction with photons.

You STILL don´t have a *Quantum Gravity* and you´ll never get one either as" gravity" is a pure misconception of the Atmospheric Pressure conditions on Earth in the first place.

When Maxwell came up with his equations for E.M we had no quantum description either. So does that mean E.M. was just a fiction scientists made up? No, it was clearly a real force and eventually we discovered more about it.

Of course the EM force is real forces right from the atomic to the cosmological scales as it can be measured directly and explained logically in contrary to Newtons (and Einsteins) *occult agency force*.

No other force is suddenly going to take over gravity and be able to reproduce the effects.

There´s no need to find another cause for *gravity* but only a need to interpret the factual cause of Atmospheric Pressure as the cause for the *gravity assumptions* around the Earth and historically far out in space.

Whatever propaganda you are buying into is leading you into crank territory.

I know. All alternate approaches to consensus assumptions are automatically given such *consensus crank stamps*.

In fact, such *consensus crank stamps* are often the genuine halmark of all new real and more logical perceptions and advances in science.

 

[Native]

Subject: "The Dark Side Of The Universe"

In timestamp 29:36 even the scientific staff in MOND who tryed to regulate gravity, is by "an unconscious slip of tongue", stated to be "our Lunatic friends" by consensus scientist participationers.

Again: We don´t know what "dark matter" or "dark energy" is but according to the dogmatic educated consensus scientists, these "dark ghosts" fills the 96% of the Universe.

 

[Polymath257]

No I just picks the logical one and leave the rest to fight against their own contradictions and inconsistensies.

The universe is not constrained by your ideas of what is logical.

Fortunately.

 

[Native]

The universe is not constrained by your ideas of what is logical.
Fortunately.

For the time beeing the Universe is by per the standing consensus definition filled up to 96 % of dark nonsense. Unfortunately.

 

[Polymath257]

You can´t disprove Einstein´s overall points of views by uncritically accepting Einsteins philosophical world view and calculations at all. You can only do this by taking alternate approaches to his postulations and speculations.

This is incorrect. You can disprove Einstein by looking at the results of a calculation based on his assumptions, seeing what the observable consequences are, making the necessary observations, and finding that the calculations do not agree with the observations.

The philosophy of science is that *actual measurements* are the basis for validating or invalidating an idea.

Not whether the idea agrees with some pre-determined philosophy. Not whether someone finds the idea to be intuitive. Not whether it agrees with someone's religion. *ONLY* whether the idea can predict the results of actual measurements.

So, if an idea cannot predict the results of any measurement, it is *worthless*. If it can predict such a result, but gets it wrong when another idea gets it right, it is discarded. If it is correct to 3 decimal places and another idea is correct to 6, then the other idea is better.

THAT is the philosophy of science.

So, in the current discussion, if your ideas cannot predict whether something will fall in a vacuum, then it is *worthless* because we have a theory that can. if your idea cannot predict the actual rate of falling, then it is less than the ones we have that can. If your idea cannot say why certain calculations *in detail* should be done, then it is less than the present ideas that can. And if your idea cannot explain the velocities of stars in the galaxy, it is useless compared to one that can.

It is really that simple: either your views can give detailed descriptions or they cannot. if they cannot, they will and should be discarded.

 

[Polymath257]

For the time beeing the Universe is by per the standing consensus definition filled up to 96 % of dark nonsense. Unfortunately.

If you have a better theory *that fits the facts*, present it. But it better be able to specifically predict stellar motion while agreeing to several decimal places on the motion of planets in the solar system.

I won't hold my breath.

You claim to agree with the calculations, but I would bet you have *never* actually done any calculations for planetary motion that can be verified to within a minute of arc per century. And that would be *low* quality for today's descriptions.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
You can´t disprove Einstein´s overall points of views by uncritically accepting Einsteins philosophical world view and calculations at all. You can only do this by taking alternate approaches to his postulations and speculations.

This is incorrect. You can disprove Einstein by looking at the results of a calculation based on his assumptions, seeing what the observable consequences are, making the necessary observations, and finding that the calculations do not agree with the observations.

The philosophy of science is that *actual measurements* are the basis for validating or invalidating an idea.

Not whether the idea agrees with some pre-determined philosophy. Not whether someone finds the idea to be intuitive. Not whether it agrees with someone's religion. *ONLY* whether the idea can predict the results of actual measurements.

So, if an idea cannot predict the results of any measurement, it is *worthless*. If it can predict such a result, but gets it wrong when another idea gets it right, it is discarded. If it is correct to 3 decimal places and another idea is correct to 6, then the other idea is better.

Fine, With all these methods there schould be no more problems in cosmos and everything is now assembled in a TOE, right?

THAT is the philosophy of science.

So all of a sudden, you´re now interested in the subject of philosophy which you evidently have refuted several times?

So, in the current discussion, if your ideas cannot predict whether something will fall in a vacuum, then it is *worthless* because we have a theory that can. if your idea cannot predict the actual rate of falling, then it is less than the ones we have that can. If your idea cannot say why certain calculations *in detail* should be done, then it is less than the present ideas that can. And if your idea cannot explain the velocities of stars in the galaxy, it is useless compared to one that can.

It is really that simple: either your views can give detailed descriptions or they cannot. if they cannot, they will and should be discarded.

Once you´ve learned the Noble Art of Philosophy and Logics, you can get back in this matter.

 

[Native]

Subject: "Beyond Einstein In Search of the Ultimate Explanation".

Excerpt:
"Albert Einstein spent his last thirty years unsuccessfully searching for a ‘unified theory’ — a single master principle to describe everything in the universe, from tiny subatomic particles to immense clusters of galaxies".

Why was Einstein interested in the unified theory? 2:39

Even Einstein was (of course) sort of "excommunicated", in his own time by his *curved space-time" ideas.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
You can´t disprove Einstein´s overall points of views by uncritically accepting Einsteins philosophical world view and calculations at all. You can only do this by taking alternate approaches to his postulations and speculations.

Fine, With all these methods there schould be no more problems in cosmos and everything is now assembled in a TOE, right?

So all of a sudden, you´re now interested in the subject of philosophy which you evidently have refuted several times?

I'm interested in philosophy even though it is irrelevant to the progression of science. It has other values: discussions with friends over whiskey, for example.

Once you´ve learned the Noble Art of Philosophy and Logics, you can get back in this matter.

I'm certain I know more logic than you. And I am pretty sure I know more philosophy. Part of that is knowing the limitations of the subject. It is good for figuring out assumptions, but very poor at giving conclusions.

 

[Polymath257]

Subject: "Beyond Einstein In Search of the Ultimate Explanation".

Excerpt:
"Albert Einstein spent his last thirty years unsuccessfully searching for a ‘unified theory’ — a single master principle to describe everything in the universe, from tiny subatomic particles to immense clusters of galaxies".

Why was Einstein interested in the unified theory? 2:39

Even Einstein was (of course) sort of "excommunicated", in his own time by his *curved space-time" ideas.

One goal of modern physics is a unified theory that describes everything. Since Maxwell unified the electric force and the magnetic force, this has been a central goal.

Einstein was NOT excommunicated because of his ideas on space and time. He removed himself from the leading edge of research because he rejected quantum mechanics. And, most of his objections have since been shown to be wrong. His intuitions about QM were simply false (according to actual measurements).

If anything, Einstein serves as a reminder that a philosophical bias tends to be counterproductive in science.

 

[cladking]

I'm interested in philosophy even though it is irrelevant to the progression of science. It has other values: discussions with friends over whiskey, for example.



I'm certain I know more logic than you. And I am pretty sure I know more philosophy. Part of that is knowing the limitations of the subject. It is good for figuring out assumptions, but very poor at giving conclusions.

The assumptions are always the conclusions. When theory changes it requires a change in or jettison of some assumptions.

Native (et al) is simply saying fundamental assumptions are wrong and we have been led astray. I tend to agree but I believe even more fundamental assumptions are wrong. Science is a product not only of observation and experiment but also definitions and axioms. It's not that Newton or Einstein were "wrong", merely that they were right from a limited number of perspectives.

I hope I haven't misstated Native's case.

 

[Native]

I'm interested in philosophy even though it is irrelevant to the progression of science.

I accept this in a way as your good Newton was a Natural Philosopher in his onw time - even not a good one with his *occult gravity agency assumptions*. He forgot his philosophical natural thinking and was led completely astray by math with his superstitious "Universal Law of Gravity".

I'm certain I know more logic than you. And I am pretty sure I know more philosophy. Part of that is knowing the limitations of the subject. It is good for figuring out assumptions, but very poor at giving conclusions.

You´re contradicting yourself! Philosophy has no limitations of any subjects, hence "your enormeous logics" also fails by your own restrictions.

 

[Native]

Einstein was NOT excommunicated because of his ideas on space and time. He removed himself from the leading edge of research because he rejected quantum mechanics.

This is wishfull quoting. Of course such new speculative thoughts as "a curved space-time" would take some time to be included in the standing scientific society.

Personally I still take Einsteins curved space time a pure nonsense and not much better than Newton´s occult speculations of an "Universal Law of Gravtíty" - which already was contradicted by observations in the galactic realms and another "occult superstitious dark matter" was invented.

If anything, Einstein serves as a reminder that a philosophical bias tends to be counterproductive in science.

Have you ever had a single independent philosophical cosmological thought at all? If so then please tell me so I can correct my perception that you´re just full of dogmatic convensus bias.

 

[Native]

It's not that Newton or Einstein were "wrong", merely that they were right from a limited number of perspectives.

I sort of agree in that. But as it happend in the 1920-30 with the galactic rotation curve contradiction of Newton¨s "Universal law of Gravity", this assumed law should have been seriously revised and even discarded. But here, the fameous "Scientific Method Claims" was directcly overruled by inserting superstitious dark matters in order to save the contradicted law.

The very "Scientific Method" failed completely!

Newton WAS concluded WRONG by observations and nothing happend to his assumed "universal law" which now is filling the entire Universe and all convensus scientists brains, thus haunting all attemps to find alternate unified solutions in cosmos.

Newtons *occult agency gravity* ideas has hypnotized scientists as a collective psychosis for centuries and has never been seriously questioned - before now.

I hope I haven't misstated Native's case.

No worries at all and thanks for your reply.

 

[joelr]

IMO this is not because of *time dillation* at all. It´s because of the orbital velocity pressure on and around the Earth which frequently causes the satellites to move out of positions by "the Solar wind" if you like. This have nothing to do with *gravity* at ll but to do with simple laws of motions in the not empty space.

Ha, well that was easy. That is hilarious. As if scientists don't know about orbital positioning issues? Here is a paper on how those are dealt with:
GPS Based Reduced-Dynamic Orbit Determination for Low Earth Orbiters with Ambiguity Fixing

But relativity also predicts not just time dilation but gravitational frequency shift, and eccentricity effects.
The Wiki page on GPS positioning errors start out with all the orbital and positional calculations then move on to relativistic effects.
Error analysis for the Global Positioning System - Wikipedia
You should scroll through this page and then wonder how your fantasy force will explain all this?

I
I´s my firm conviction that the Earth´s Atmospheric Pressure is confused by Newton to be "a force of gravity" and if this confusion is superimposed all over in the Universe, this can only lead to further ad hoc assumptions of gravity, including the Einsteinan ones.

Atmospheric air pressure works because air has gravity. Beyond that you have to explain why Newtons gravity works all across the universe, black holes, space travel being done with Newtonian equations, gravity waves being detected, neutron stars...
Why would your "firm belief" matter when you have zero scientific support?
The Einstienien equations predicted the exact amount of time dilation with atomic clocks traveling in planes. Among other things. You cannot account for that.

 

[Native]

Beyond that you have to explain why Newtons gravity works all across the universe, black holes, space travel being done with Newtonian equations, gravity waves being detected, neutron stars...

Nonsens. Newtons occult assumptions was already contradicted in the galactic scales, but scientist forgot to revise and discard his occult laws according to the claimed Scientific Method and now they insert this occult agency all over in the Universe.

It´s only the standing and continued gravity assumptions which "works" in the scientific minds as all kinds of dark ghosts all over the places.

Air pressure works because air has gravity.

At least you got that right - in contrary to Newton

 

[joelr]

Native said: ↑
Yes, begining with a total silence when asked what "gravity is" and then admitting that "we don´t know what gravity is" and then they wasted 1 1/2 hour speaking of all the areas in where their not understood gravity plays the main role.

Except they do understand gravity on the macroscopic level. The equations work. You can deny that all you want it isn't going to change.

The absurdity derives from knowning nothing of the *gravitational force" to conclude "it works practically" according to the consensus assumptions connected to such an unknown force. Such "an assumed force" only "confirms" the prime assumption by further assumptions when STILL knowing nothing dynamically and scientifically at all of the assumed force. This is absurd if anything is.

Again, the equations work, they make predictions, they happen as predicted, we use them in space travel and countless theories, black holes, neutron stars, galaxy formation.
Meanwhile you have a theory that you think is true because of Egyptian myths. Hmmm, which one is absurd?

You STILL don´t have a *Quantum Gravity* and you´ll never get one either as" gravity" is a pure misconception of the Atmospheric Pressure conditions on Earth in the first place.

Exactly, there is no quantum gravity. So?

Atmospheric pressure also follows the rules of gravity perfectly. The equations do not work without gravity.
Do you have a link to a way to make atmospheric pressure work in zero gravity?

What is gravity's relationship with atmospheric pressure?

Of course the EM force is real forces right from the atomic to the cosmological scales as it can be measured directly and explained logically in contrary to Newtons (and Einsteins) *occult agency force*.

Are you living in 1700? Has anyone told you that we now have equations that have made many predictions that have happened?
Two years ago I asked you to give an alternate explanation, with equations and proof of all the things gravity is responsible for. You could not. You still cannot.

There´s no need to find another cause for *gravity* but only a need to interpret the factual cause of Atmospheric Pressure as the cause for the *gravity assumptions* around the Earth and historically far out in space.

So you don't have atmospheric equations to explain time dillation, relativity, planetary motion, fusion, black holes, neutron stars? So you just love crank.

Have you re-worked atmospheric pressure equations now as well? Because they work with gravity?

I know. All alternate approaches to consensus assumptions are automatically given such *consensus crank stamps*.

In fact, such *consensus crank stamps* are often the genuine halmark of all new real and more logical perceptions and advances in science.

Yet another post from Crankville without evidence. Meanwhile GPS still works. And relativity fixed it.

 

[joelr]

Nonsens. Newtons occult assumptions was already contradicted in the galactic scales, but scientist forgot to revise and discard his occult laws according to the claimed Scientific Method and now they insert this occult agency all over in the Universe.

It´s only the standing and continued gravity assumptions which "works" in the scientific minds as all kinds of dark ghosts all over the places.

You didn't answer the question. Newtonian gravity accounts for the incredible pressures needed for neutron stars, fusion in the sun, planetary motion, space travel, atomic clock time dillation, black holes. Everything can be accounted for. You haven't made a case against any of that?

At least you got that right - in contrary to Newton

Yes the equations of atmospheric pressure include gravity. Without gravity they don't work. You have to re-write them and explain why everyone got it wrong. But you haven't explained GPS yet.


They do account for atmosphere effects as well as several others before we even get to relativistic effects. There are special and general relativistic effects. Wow, what a great verification of relativity.

Error analysis for the Global Positioning System - Wikipedia
Atmospheric effects

Inconsistencies of atmospheric conditions affect the speed of the GPS signals as they pass through the Earth's atmosphere, especially the ionosphere. Correcting these errors is a significant challenge to improving GPS position accuracy. These effects are smallest when the satellite is directly overhead and become greater for satellites nearer the horizon since the path through the atmosphere is longer (see airmass). Once the receiver's approximate location is known, a mathematical model can be used to estimate and compensate for these errors.

Derivation of equations for computing geometric dilution of precision
The equations for computing the geometric dilution of precision terms have been described in the previous section. This section describes the derivation of these equations. The method used here is similar to that used in "Global Positioning System (preview) by Parkinson and Spiker"

Relativity
A number of sources of error exist due to relativistic effects[15] that would render the system useless if uncorrected. Three relativistic effects are the time dilation, gravitational frequency shift, and eccentricity effects. Examples include the relativistic time slowing due to the speed of the satellite of about 1 part in 1010, the gravitational time dilation that makes a satellite run about 5 parts in 1010 faster than an Earth-based clock, and the Sagnac effect due to rotation relative to receivers on Earth. These topics are examined below, one at a time.
Calculation of time dilation
To calculate the amount of daily time dilation experienced by GPS satellites relative to Earth we need to separately determine the amounts due to special relativity (velocity) and general relativity (gravity) and add them together.

The amount due to velocity will be determined using the Lorentz transformation.




WOW, look at that. Relativity predicts a slowing and a speeding up to produce an exact error which we see exactly as predicted? Huh? What a coincidence?

 

[Native]

Except they do understand gravity on the macroscopic level. The equations work. You can deny that all you want it isn't going to change.

I don´t care about any equations as long as scientists cannot explain the relevant force in question.

Atmospheric pressure also follows the rules of gravity perfectly. The equations do not work without gravity.

Correct and therefore you can dump the gravity assumptions and count on the Atmospheric Pressure on the Earth as the reason for Newtons assumption of his misconcieved "gravity".

Two years ago I asked you to give an alternate explanation, with equations and proof of all the things gravity is responsible for. You could not. You still cannot.

Waoo! Two years? And you still dont comprehend my philosophical ponderings?

Meanwhile you have a theory that you think is true because of Egyptian myths. Hmmm, which one is absurd?

Are you living in 1700?

Yet another post from Crankville without evidence.

More of this emotional and ignorant downgrading mud, and you´ll soon end up on my ignore list.