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 Clete View Post
    OK
    Sent

    Comment


    • 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.
      My final proposal is, what if each galaxy had surrounding it a shell of electrons. I have no idea how such an object could stably exist, apart from gravity. If the inside of the galaxy was electrically neutral, there would be no electrical attraction to it, so the only force acting on the swarm of electrons would be gravity. This should address the problem of gravity explaining perfectly well behavior within each galaxy itself, and a variable amount of electrons/charge swarming around each galaxy would explain how some of them orbit each other happily, while others are racing away from each other.
      Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
      Being wrong in public is good for the soul (if not your reputation ). But I post under my real name. Well, as initials.
      You're braver then me. I come here to air out the cobwebs in my brain.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Nihilo View Post
        My final proposal is, what if each galaxy had surrounding it a shell of electrons. I have no idea how such an object could stably exist, apart from gravity. If the inside of the galaxy was electrically neutral, there would be no electrical attraction to it, so the only force acting on the swarm of electrons would be gravity. This should address the problem of gravity explaining perfectly well behavior within each galaxy itself, and a variable amount of electrons/charge swarming around each galaxy would explain how some of them orbit each other happily, while others are racing away from each other.
        You're braver then me. I come here to air out the cobwebs in my brain.
        This made me think. But the electron shell would not bee able to exert a force on the galaxy, so if the shells around two galaxies pushed each other apart, the galaxies would remain behind.


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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
          This made me think. But the electron shell would not bee able to exert a force on the galaxy, so if the shells around two galaxies pushed each other apart, the galaxies would remain behind.
          Ah, yes. Thank you so much.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Nihilo View Post
            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.
            Well, I've watched several videos on youtube and read some things here and there about this electric universe model. Some of what they are proposing seems very plausible and some of what they say isn't plausible at all. In fact, some of what they propose is so outlandish that it will have the effect of sidelining their other good ideas. Anyone who doesn't like the theory will just have to say "Those are the guys who believe that XYZ wacky nonsense!" and that'll be enough to discredit everything else they say.

            They are, I think, a victim of the same thing that has allowed them to flourish to the extent they have. That being the internet. It is a real double edged sword. The same thing that allows you to have your voice heard by millions at very little cost is the same thing that draws every nut job who happens to be articulate to your cause. Every bit of traction you get with your legitimate ideas is more incentive for the wackos to glom on and ride your coat tails. Walt Thornhill would have a lot more credibility if he'd distance himself from David Talbot, for example. (Not that Talbot is the only one saying wacky things.)

            Primarily, the part I find most plausible about the electric universe model is the simple idea that plasma physics plays a much more important role in the formation and evolution of the universe than the standard model is willing to entertain. Electromagnetism is almost infinitely stronger than gravity and it, like gravity, diminishes according to the inverse square law and thus extends off into infinity. And so even a little bit of electromagnetism can have as much or more of an effect as gravity has on the way things behave.

            Now, there's a problem with that idea. The laws of gravity and the equations used to calculate the motions of the planets and other celestial bodies work really well and it makes no mention of any other force. In other words, Newton's equations (and Einstein's) can tell you will a lot of precision where Jupiter is going to be 50 years from now or where it was 50 years ago and it doesn't need to take electromagnetism into account. Therefore, at least in our solar system (and in a lot of other places), electromagnetism doesn't seem to be a factor.

            In fact, this is the primary objection used to refute the whole idea. The EU model folks have explanations and even suggest that the EU model predicts this but I'm not familiar enough with it to explain it here. The point though is that their explanations are plausible and yet, just as happens here on TOL, their explanations don't make the objection go away. People who make the argument just keep on making it as though it hasn't been refuted or even addressed. This behavior only lends the EU model more credibility in my view, even if only on an emotional level.

            At any rate, your idea about a net negative charge causing galaxies to move away from each other is interesting but I'm pretty sure that isn't what they think is going on. In fact, the only reason anyone thinks that galaxies are moving away from each other is because of red shift. There are a lot of holes in red shift theory. Red shift cannot rightly be used the way the standard model uses it. As a result, I don't think that there is any need to explain galactic motion as there is some doubt that it is happening the way and to the extent that we've been taught. The EU model would suggest that red shift is a function of a celestial body's age rather than it's distance. As a result, the EU model suggests a much smaller and much younger universe than does the standard model.

            I think this younger and smaller universe idea is the point that causes the establishment science community to just close their minds to the whole idea. I guarantee you that many just instantly assume that these EU people must be Christians, which they aren't at all, by the way. But regardless of whether they care about their religious beliefs, a younger universe would force them to up-end their entire worldview, which they are just not willing to do.

            Well, I've rambled on too long. If you're interested in hearing more about the EU model. Check out their website here...

            https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/

            and their YouTube channel here...

            https://www.youtube.com/user/ThunderboltsProject

            My advice is to watch the videos in the "Beginner's Guide Video Clips" section first.

            And just ignore the videos in the "Discourses on an Alien Sky" section.

            Try doing a search of "red shift" and watch their videos about that. Those will blow your mind.

            Clete
            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
              Ah, yes. Thank you so much.
              Hi Nihilo.

              Rather than spend scarce time watching Clete's crank alternative physics videos, you might enjoy this old Usenet Physics FAQ. It is really illuminating.

              http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/

              Please ask me any follow up questions, and I'll do my best to help out.


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

              Comment


              • Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
                Please ask me any follow up questions, and I'll do my best to help out.
                Darwinists love answering — in great detail — questions that do not challenge their precious religion.
                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 Clete View Post
                  Clocks don't measure anything. At least not anything that is real, UN! Time is an idea, not a thing that can be manipulated, warped, speed up or whatever. It's an idea. It is nothing but a convention of language that we use to communicate information about the duration and sequence of events. That's it! It isn't space and it isn't wet or hard or hot or anything else that you can observe, it exists inside a thinking mind and nowhere else. And clocks are nothing at all but something that gives you a regular set of events with which to compare other events.

                  Indeed, nothing existence at all except in the present moment. Neither the past nor the future exists except as concepts in our minds. The past exists only as memories and written history and the future only as hopes, dreams and predictions. All that exists, exists now. Everything that exists arrived at the present together and will arrive at the next moment in time in perfectly synchronized unison, whether their clocks agree or not.

                  Incidentally, distance doesn't exist either. Rulers measure the distance between two point but it isn't measuring anything that exists ontologically. Distance is an idea.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
                    Hi Nihilo.

                    Rather than spend scarce time watching Clete's crank alternative physics videos, you might enjoy this old Usenet Physics FAQ. It is really illuminating.

                    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/

                    Please ask me any follow up questions, and I'll do my best to help out.
                    That is a fun page! Everybody should check that out. I admit to being at least vaguely familiar with every question, but I am definitely not a physicist, nor a crank physicist, but I am friends with a physicist. So ..

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                      You'd never know it by watching science television or by sitting in a public school class room but the fact is that we do not know most of what science claims to know. We do not know for a fact that nuclear fusion is what powers stars - it's a theory based on gravity only processes. We do not know what causes supernovas, it's a theory based on gravity only processes. We do not know how solar systems are formed, it's a theory based on gravity only processes. We do not know that heavy elements are only created in supernova explotions, it's a theory based on gravity only processes. We do not know for a fact that the craters on the Moon and other planets and asteroids are caused only by impacts, it's a theory based on gravity only processes.
                      .
                      Last edited by User Name; September 18th, 2017, 09:59 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by User Name View Post
                        .
                        Which cosmological theory is correct? Not being a cosmologist, I have to see if I can take a 50% chance and make it 95%, then I can do something. Of the number of experts on the planet in cosmology, there are vaster numbers of those who preach the standard model and gee-ar, since I am not a physicist, I can't judge the theories myself, that's hubris, all I can do is count. There are tons of physicists preaching the standard model and GR. There are, not that many preaching anything else. As interesting as minority reports are, unless they overwhelm, or merge together with the majority somehow, it's unlikely they're correct. But this is coming from someone who believes the Maker created the heavens and the earth within the past ten thousand years, with the appearance of age, so take it with a grain or two of salt.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Nihilo View Post
                          Which cosmological theory is correct? Not being a cosmologist, I have to see if I can take a 50% chance and make it 95%, then I can do something. Of the number of experts on the planet in cosmology, there are vaster numbers of those who preach the standard model and gee-ar, since I am not a physicist, I can't judge the theories myself, that's hubris, all I can do is count. There are tons of physicists preaching the standard model and GR. There are, not that many preaching anything else. As interesting as minority reports are, unless they overwhelm, or merge together with the majority somehow, it's unlikely they're correct. But this is coming from someone who believes the Maker created the heavens and the earth within the past ten thousand years, with the appearance of age, so take it with a grain or two of salt.
                          This mentality is precisely the opposite of scientific or even just plain old rational thought. It's called an appeal to popularity fallacy.

                          Have you ever noticed that the majority are almost always wrong? It doesn't matter whether you're talking about the stock market or pop-culture or pop-science. People, by and large, don't think. They feel their way through life, allowing their emotions to carry them hither and yon so long as they aren't alone in their wanderings. The majority can very definitely be wrong and very often is. Scientists are just as human as everyone else and the drive to be accepted and respected by one's peers is a driving force that most aren't even aware of, never mind on guard against.

                          Nearly every truly great breakthrough in any field of science you care to name came from the loner, the outcast, the nut, the crank. A great many of the things you think are obvious didn't use to be so obvious. Everyone used to know that the Earth was flat and that it was the center of the Universe; The Milky Way was the whole of the Universe; Disease was caused by bad humors and that bloodletting helped people get better; Etc, etc. It was the lone thinker who wasn't afraid to disregard the majority who figured out the truth.

                          Now, that doesn't mean that we ought to make the opposite mistake by assuming that the majority is wrong by virtue of the fact that its the majority. The point is that the number of people who either accept or reject something is not relevant to whether that thing is right or wrong, true or false.

                          And whether you're a physicist or not doesn't mean that you are not qualified to make judgments about modern cosmological theories. I don't care how good at math and science you are, if you come to me and tell me that the self-contradictory is the truth, I'm going to know that you've made an error. I don't have to know that 2+2=4 nor do I have to have ever heard of an electron to know that the self-contradictory is false. I may not be able to tell you where the error has been made nor even be able to conceptually understand the issue enough to articulate anything meaningful about the error at all but I can be certain that the error exists or that certainty is not possible at all, including for the cosmologist trying to sell me the contradiction.

                          Clete
                          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


                          • The problem with all that, Clete, is that your understand so little about the physics that you simple reject what you don't want to be true. You aren't capable of spotting inconsistencies because you have no idea of what it means for relativity to be self consistent.

                            And then you go for the friendly, fringe, crank theory of EU simply because it offers you the possibility. Of a biblical fundamentalist young earth creation.

                            Seems like your biases and academic shortfalls are showing, [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION].


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

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by User Name View Post
                              He doesn't get two minutes into the video before declaring an absurdity the truth.

                              I've seen this video before. Trust me, folks, there's no need to watch past 1:40. That's as far as you have to go to know that the rest is bunk!

                              I fully understand that the guy in the video is being completely honest and is genuinely convinced that what he's saying isn't insane. I have no doubt that the vast majority of scientists are also equally sincere in their belief that this stuff is the truth in spite of its absurdities (there's a lot of them).

                              But here's where the epistemological rubber hits the road...

                              If the absurd is true then how could you possibly know it?

                              What are you going to do to convince me, perform an experiment? You just got through telling me that my experimental results can disagree with yours and we can both be right. So, how is experiment going to convince me? If you claim to be an expert and I claim that you're a slobbering idiot how are you going to tell me that I'm wrong? Are you going to point out that your mouth is dry? Maybe it's not dry! Maybe the drool is dripping off your chin and it's just dry in your own frame of reference.
                              How would you know?

                              You would not know. You could not know! That's the answer to that question!

                              These scientists, who are supposed to be telling you the nature of reality (which that video states explicitly in the first few sentences of the video) are trying to sell you on a concept that removes the ability to know anything at all, never mind the nature of reality! This includes their own ability! By their own arguments, they cannot know that what they are telling you is true!

                              Clete
                              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


                              • [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION], at the 1:40 point in the video, where you recommend to stop, the presenter says to click the links below to see the experimental evidence. You weren't interested in the evidence, though, were you?

                                You seem to have swallowed the idea that Relativity means that truth is relative, ie, that anyone's claims to 'truth' should be given equal status. That is uneducated bunk, as you should know by now. Relativity doesn't simply state that experimental results will disagree, but the will disagree in entirely predictable ways, given the two facts that the speed of light will be measured the same by all observers, even those moving relative to the others, and there appears to be no absolute standards of time and distance.

                                That you don't understand how it can be so tells us more about your limitations than it does of the limitations of the Physics. The video is good — you should stick it out and challenge yourself to at least follow the arguments.


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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X