Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Great job missing his point.
    Great job missing my point.

    Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    You cared enough to make a comment about it, so you're lying when you say no one cares.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Nihilo View Post
      It is a tenuous thing, when Christians do this. Our faith is so powerful, that cosmology can't compete, like holding a match next to the sun, and focusing on the matchlight. It's also a terrible thing, because such a view, that "supports" the Christian faith with science (the best science can do is confirm that HE IS RISEN, and anything that points to this), ties and binds the Christian who believes it, limiting their Christian love.

      Of course, it could just be that it keeps us humble when we have such biases and cognitive errors, because otherwise we might become too full of ourselves.
      Thanks Nihilo.

      Originally posted by Nihilo View Post
      If the galaxies all had a net negative charge, enough that it'd repel them all away from each other, would they accelerate, or decelerate as they're avoiding each other, due to them all having net negative charge? (If that question even makes sense. )
      That's a perfectly sensible question, and the idea explains the acceleration of the galaxies. Unfortunately, the repulsion would be strongest for close galaxies, yet we see that they happily orbit each other due to gravity, so your idea can't be the answer. And in the past, there was no acceleration, only deceleration, so the same problem exists then too.

      The difficulty for the interested amateur is that there are an awful lot of very clever young scientists thinking about all these things, and these apparently nice seeming alternatives to the status quo have already been fully considered and modelled and tested and rejected before it had occurred to anyone on this forum. So I come across as a dogmatic nay-sayer, even though I try to explain exactly where the ideas don't match observations of reality. But that is why I joined this forum, to show the wonders of science in all its glory to those who may be influenced by all the ill advised rejections by some of the more determinedly misleading posters. Science doens't need protecting, but there plenty of people who would appreciate an authoritative description of the science without all those little and large distortions that pass as debate around here.



      Self appointed representative of the reality based community. [Send complaints to /dev/null.]

      Comment


      • Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
        That's a perfectly sensible question.


        Are you serious? You think a pair of galaxies would respond to each other due to their electrical charges? You think this would overcome gravity?
        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
        E≈mc2
        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
        -Bob B.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Stripe View Post


          Are you serious? You think a pair of galaxies would respond to each other due to their electrical charges? You think this would overcome gravity?
          The electrostatic forces have an infinite range, and would influence motion even in the presence of gravity. So it is a sensible question if it is not clear how much charge there is or the possible side effects.

          And of course, as you would know if you read the answer, the side effects rule out electrostatics in this case.

          ('Overcome gravity' is an interesting phrase to hear when I am diagnosing physics concept misconceptions in my professional capacity. Would you like to know why?)


          Self appointed representative of the reality based community. [Send complaints to /dev/null.]

          Comment


          • Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
            Despite you calling me a moron in the earlier post, and this..


            I responded carefully and considerately and in some detail. Your response was to discuss what was raised? Thank me for my attempts to explain? Well, no:



            Great. What a grown up response when I answered one of your two questions with care. The other, a demand that I do your research for you and find the experiments you should have found yourself if you had researched the topic enough to claim to understand the universe better than Einstein did, I declined. You should be able to find them for yourself — I am not going to teach you all the Physics and history of science you ought to know.

            Then this:


            What is this? It is not a discussion point from any grown ups I know. Last chance demands? Sheesh.. I wonder what will come next. A rational rebuttal to the point made? Nope …



            No, sadly. More attempts at personal insults and another threat. Funnily, you have told me several times you wouldn't respond, but you couldn't help yourself. Never mind.

            In any case, I know from experience that when you engage people who also hold other crank science ideas that they will never listen to what is said and never accept that they are misrepresenting the science they criticise. No, I am just pointing out to anyone reading that Enyart's acceptance of crank ideas to further his own religious positions (as he claimed himself) does not represent any great intellectual insight, but rather a desperate rearguard action to prevent science undermining things he holds strongly as a matter of faith. Sad, really. That you only have Stripe on your side says much.

            Bye bye! I will continue to critique your funny attempts to bring down relativity, or gravitational theory or whatever. But I won't hold out for rational responses from you. Feel free to ignore me, it will save me from having to wade past the juvenile insults to try to find the morsels worth addressing.
            Your choice is final. Welcome to my ignore list. You've deserved to be there for a while.
            sigpic
            "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Nihilo View Post
              If the galaxies all had a net negative charge, enough that it'd repel them all away from each other, would they accelerate, or decelerate as they're avoiding each other, due to them all having net negative charge? (If that question even makes sense. )

              They would accelerate but I know of no one that even suggests that galaxies have a net negative charge. Certain not such that they would repel each other like so many magnets. Do you?
              sigpic
              "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                They would accelerate but I know of no one that even suggests that galaxies have a net negative charge. Certain not such that they would repel each other like so many magnets. Do you?
                Except for you, Clete, with your support for the electromagnetic theory of gravity. How did you think it was supposed to work? It is a crank theory and you do yourself no favours by associating with it.


                Self appointed representative of the reality based community. [Send complaints to /dev/null.]

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                  Your choice is final. Welcome to my ignore list. You've deserved to be there for a while.
                  I've wanted to be there for a while, and you said you'd do it weeks ago. I'll no longer have to deal with your petty insults and 5th grade scientific reasoning. (See what I did there? )


                  Self appointed representative of the reality based community. [Send complaints to /dev/null.]

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                    Your choice is final. Welcome to my ignore list. You've deserved to be there for a while.
                    Now that he's on your ignore list, perhaps you could help me out in a few other threads? I'll PM you the links if you're interested.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
                      The electrostatic forces have an infinite range, and would influence motion even in the presence of gravity. So it is a sensible question if it is not clear how much charge there is or the possible side effects.

                      And of course, as you would know if you read the answer, the side effects rule out electrostatics in this case.

                      ('Overcome gravity' is an interesting phrase to hear when I am diagnosing physics concept misconceptions in my professional capacity. Would you like to know why?)
                      I see that the relative masses of protons and neutrons (baryons) to electrons is about 1800-to-1. On a mass basis, how much surplus or excess electrons would two neighboring galaxies require, in order to possess a net negative charge sufficient enough to violate their expected behavior wrt each other, based only on gravity?

                      In other words, in a strictly hypothetical object exclusively composed of only atomic mass (baryons and leptons), of 75% hydrogen and 25% helium, with a net zero charge, the mass relation between baryons and electrons is about 3000-to-1, so only 1/3000th of the mass of the object is electrons. What mass of the object would be required to manifest an effect contrary to what we would expect, if the only force in play is gravity, in just electrons?

                      I'm asking because I don't think it would be very much, on a mass basis.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
                        Thanks Nihilo.



                        That's a perfectly sensible question, and the idea explains the acceleration of the galaxies. Unfortunately, the repulsion would be strongest for close galaxies, yet we see that they happily orbit each other due to gravity, so your idea can't be the answer.
                        What if then, instead of all galaxies possessing a uniform net negative charge, different galaxies have different net charges? Therefore, the galaxies that happen to be closest to each other, and do not repel each other, happen to possess lower-magnitude net negative charges than those farther away, off by themselves?

                        My instinct tells me that I'm missing something in the question, but I'm OK being wrong in public. On an anonymous internet discussion board.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                          They would accelerate but I know of no one that even suggests that galaxies have a net negative charge. [Certainly] not such that they would repel each other like so many magnets. Do you?
                          I don't, but that's why I'm asking about the notion. You're the one who mentioned electromagnetism, so you planted this seed.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Nihilo View Post
                            What if then, instead of all galaxies possessing a uniform net negative charge, different galaxies have different net charges? Therefore, the galaxies that happen to be closest to each other, and do not repel each other, happen to possess lower-magnitude net negative charges than those farther away, off by themselves?
                            There is a problem of the self repelling nature of those electric charges: how would the galaxy form if the charge could overwhelm the attractive nature of gravity. Offhand, the quantity would be of the order of the mass of the galaxy reduced by the extra strength of the force of the electric charge, as you have guessed. But an electric charge would affect the motion of constituent parts of the galaxy, which would be clearly visible in telescopes.

                            Originally posted by Nihilo View Post
                            My instinct tells me that I'm missing something in the question, but I'm OK being wrong in public. On an anonymous internet discussion board.
                            Being wrong in public is good for the soul (if not your reputation ). But I post under my real name. Well, as initials.


                            Self appointed representative of the reality based community. [Send complaints to /dev/null.]

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
                              The electrostatic forces have an infinite range, and would influence motion even in the presence of gravity. So it is a sensible question if it is not clear how much charge there is or the possible side effects.
                              Sounds unlikely.

                              And of course, as you would know if you read the answer, the side effects rule out electrostatics in this case.
                              The answer to the question I just asked?

                              'Overcome gravity' is an interesting phrase.
                              That's nice. Should I have said "overwhelm"?

                              Would you like to know why?)
                              How about you answer one of the on-topic questions I've asked.

                              How do you establish relativity? Have you even read Einstein's paper that claims to do so?

                              Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
                              There is a problem of the self repelling nature of those electric charges: how would the galaxy form if the charge could overwhelm the attractive nature of gravity. Offhand, the quantity would be of the order of the mass of the galaxy reduced by the extra strength of the force of the electric charge, as you have guessed. But an electric charge would affect the motion of constituent parts of the galaxy, which would be clearly visible in telescopes.

                              Being wrong in public is good for the soul (if not your reputation ). But I post under my real name. Well, as initials.




                              Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
                              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                              E≈mc2
                              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                              -Bob B.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                                Now that he's on your ignore list, perhaps you could help me out in a few other threads? I'll PM you the links if you're interested.
                                OK
                                sigpic
                                "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X