@MikeB

Quote:

If you run out of arguments (even with likes of Einstein on your side!) I don't think you should resort to this kind of behaviour.

We haven't run out of arguments. We've just got fed up of continuously providing you with science and observation, only to have you stick your fingers in your ears.

For example:

Quote:

So what you are saying is that they do have a magnetic field! Do you understand that that's what you're saying? How do you know if 1000 times weaker wouldn't already be enough to keep a planet in orbit by a freaking huge and powerful magnet as the sun?

So, what you're saying is that in your theory, there's no problem with a magnetic field of 0.03 orbiting at distance 0.7 with speed 35km/s, a field of 1 orbiting at distance 1 with speed 29km/s, and a field of 0.02 orbiting at a distance of 1.5 with speed 24km/s?

Can't you see that this just isn't internally consistent? If magnetism is the cause of everything, then the orbits, their distances and their speeds *must* be proportional to that magnetic force. Since they are clearly *not* proportional, some other force must be acting.

Gravity.

Venus and Mars at 0.7 AU and 1.5 AU respectively have incredibly weak, localised magnetisation of sections of their crust - note NOT a geomagnetic field in the sense that Earth Science accepts the term. (you've been told this before)




Quote:

Quote:In a magnetic solar system, they would not be able to orbit at their current distances without moving much faster than they currently do. Why? Actually in my model speed can vary greatly. In the model of universal gravity, the theory would only allow a certain exact speed (based on mass) in combination with a certain exact direction.

Its simple mechanics, man!

If your model shows differently, show us the equations that allow you to reach those conclusions!

Last edited by T-J on 28-Apr-2011 at 11:06 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

Sorry belief requires no evidence.

I have provided much evidence on why I reason the universal gravity theory is incorrect and provided many reasons why I reason there are repulsive forces at play next to attractive forces (balances between them). You just opt to ignore this enormous amount of evidence that I have provided.

Quote:

Science requires inductive reasoning.

Your "saint" Einstein said:
"I never came upon any of my discoveries through the process of rational thinking."

Last edited by MikeB on 28-Apr-2011 at 11:06 AM.

@MikeB

Quote:

I have provided much evidence on why I reason the universal gravity theory is incorrect and provided many reasons why I reason there are repulsive forces at play next to attractive forces (balances between them). You just opt to ignore this enormous amount of evidence that I have provided.

You haven't provided any evidence. You've made loads and loads of conjecture, but you've provided no evidence. Everything you've thrown up has either already been better explained by the current physics, or has been bunk like that last crank you linked to.

Show us your equations that allow you to calculate the orbits of the planets. Then we can compare them to the current physics. Its really that simple.

And as for your Einstein quote, well.

Quote-mining is an intellectually dishonest activity not worthy of real debate:

Psalm 14:1 - 'There is no God.'

Last edited by T-J on 28-Apr-2011 at 11:12 AM.
Last edited by T-J on 28-Apr-2011 at 11:11 AM.
Last edited by T-J on 28-Apr-2011 at 11:11 AM.

@T-J

Quote:

If magnetism is the cause of everything

I am not an extremist, so I would never state that.

The movement is most likely due to heliospheric current I pointed out earlier. This spiral is moving in the same direction as the planets. This current gets weaker further away from the sun. So a body near to the sun having been in this orbit for millions of years will develop a much faster balance orbit speed than if the same object was further away from the sun.

The actual balance of speed and orbit would then be dependent upon the force of the current, mass, volume of the object and the amount of time it has been in this orbit.

Quote:

show us the equations

Why not show the involved math with regard to keeping Stereo A and Stereo B with the very small mass in the same orbittal path at the same speed as a huge mass object like the earth?

@MikeB

Quote:

The actual balance of speed and orbit would then be dependent upon the force of the current, mass, volume of the object and the amount of time it has been in this orbit.

Alright, good, we're getting somewhere. That's a list of variables. Now, arrange them and add the operators to the equation and we'll be able to see where you're getting your answers from.

Quote:

Why not show the involved math with regard to keeping Stereo A and Stereo B with the very small mass in the same orbittal path at the same speed as a huge mass object like the earth?

http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/launch.shtml

Now, will you please put your equations up so we can see how you're calculating the orbits of the planets?

@MikeB

Quote:

I have provided much evidence

You gave us lots of guesses, which isn't evidence. You were unable to provide any evidence that your guesses work on the scale of planets.

For example:
Quote:

The movement is most likely due...

All here was conjecture. You claim forces at work but provide no measure which to validate. You have no equation which would predict this behavior.

Quote:

Your "saint" Einstein said:

Sorry no Saints here. Everyone has the same requirement. Even Einstein.

Last edited by BrianK on 28-Apr-2011 at 11:37 AM.
Last edited by BrianK on 28-Apr-2011 at 11:37 AM.

@T-J

Quote:

http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/launch.shtml

Where's your formula and calculations?

@T-J

Quote:

Alright, good, we're getting somewhere. That's a list of variables.

And I can think of many more such as resistance, shape, other bodies nearby, etc, etc.

Quote:

Now, arrange them and add the operators to the equation and we'll be able to see where you're getting your answers from.

I think you should start to learn not everything can be simplified into a simple 'one-dimensional' equation. IMO that should be the first step into understanding the universe.

For example what's the lenght of a human being?

It would be dependent upon amount of food/liquid intake, component in this food, gravity, light, excercise, etc, etc. But also depend on such things the person's genetics/gender and feeling of well-being.

Now try to put this into an equation!?

@MikeB

Quote:

I think you should start to learn not everything can be simplified into a simple 'one-dimensional' equation. IMO that should be the first step into understanding the universe.

That's fine we have multi-dimensional equations. Feel free to use some higher mathematics.

@BrianK

Quote:

That's fine we have multi-dimensional equations. Feel free to use some higher mathematics.

And then when you created your equation for human lenght, one little virus destroys your entire equation.

Equations help to understand the simple things, human beings aren't so simple to be dumbed down into a simple equation and neither is the universe. But we can understand the various factors involved by reason. We don't have the tools and instruments needed to understand our own solar system (hence the development of theories and the theory of universal gravity is IMO extremely flawed based on indepth reasoning and observation, the theory of attraction / repulsion IMO however makes sense).

@MikeB

No, the problem is *you* don't understand higher mathematics. So you decide that *nobody* can understand higher mathematics, therefore the universe is unknowable.

Your theory does not make sense. It falls at the first hurdle of reasoning and observation - non magnetic planets! It also cannot predict the motion of anything from the simplest objects up to galaxies.

If it could, you'd be able to give us an equation. Since you clearly cannot provide us with one, indeed you claim that it is impossible to encapsulate your theory in an equation, the only conclusion we can come to is that your theory is useless. And wrong.

In fact, by the standards of scientific endeavour, its not even wrong.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_severe_weather

Quote:

The National Weather Service's Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Okla., said it received 137 tornado reports around the regions, including 66 in Alabama and 38 in Mississippi.

Move along now. Nothing to see here folks. Business as usual.
/yawn

@T-J

I am still waiting for your calculations...

And none of the fundamental questions I repeatably asked in this thread you had answers for.

Quote:

we can come to is that your theory is useless

No, it explains the orbits aren't some kind of miracle (but can be well reasoned), it explains the tilts of the planets, it explains the the orbits are counter-clockwise, it explains why despite the amazingly scars the earth has (such as the huge impact near Mexico which killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago) this did not effect its orbit due to changed momentum, it explains why the solar system as well as our galaxy is flat, etc, etc.

As long as humanity rigidly holds onto the old believes that universal gravity explains our solar system we aren't even at the beginning of unravelling the secrets of the universe. We will be dragged deeper and deeper into bogus theories trying to explain the things which do not behave according to the "law". Science has turned into a religion for many and even a religion without purpose (endless accidents and chaos).

@Lou

Quote:

Move along now. Nothing to see here folks. Business as usual.

At least 194 people dead and CNN Europe is currently focussing on some wedding. In Japan during the days/weeks after the massive Tsunami/Earthquake and the nuclear meltdown in the world's largest nuclear complex people were closely following the media and guess what was on TV... Only pre-recorded japanese game shows with lots of happy people and lots of laughter...

@MikeB

Quote:

I am still waiting for your calculations...

That's rich, coming from mister 'can't do the maths' himself. Read the NASA page and you might find them.

If you want the wider equations describing gravity, you might as well start at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian_mechanics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Quote:

And none of the fundamental questions I repeatably asked in this thread you had answers for.

Wrong. I and others have answered each of your fundamental questions with the results of observation and the current physics.

You have failed to answer any of your theory's fundamental failures, though.

Quote:

No, it explains the orbits aren't some kind of miracle (but can be well reasoned), it explains the tilts of the planets, it explains the the orbits are counter-clockwise, it explains why despite the amazingly scars the earth has (such as the huge impact near Mexico which killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago) this did not effect its orbit due to changed momentum, it explains why the solar system as well as our galaxy is flat, etc, etc.

Repeating the assertion that your theory explains these things over and over again doesn't make it true, you know.

You haven't explained the tilts - a magnetic system should align all the planets along the field lines. This is not the case.

You haven't explained the anti-clockwise orbit of Venus, because in a magnetic system there should be no perturbing force that could do this. As you keep asserting.

You have nothing to say about impacts between the Earth and other bodies. We have calculated the magnitude of the orbital perturbation caused by the Chicxulub impact. By the way, it was really rather minor.

And I think if you'd read anything I'd linked you to, you'd know that the current physics has no problem explaining why the solar system forms a disc.

You've got nothing.

Quote:

As long as humanity rigidly holds onto the old believes that universal gravity explains our solar system we aren't even at the beginning of unravelling the secrets of the universe. We will be dragged deeper and deeper into bogus theories trying to explain the things which do not behave according to the "law". Science has turned into a religion for many and even a religion without purpose (endless accidents and chaos).

Show us an equation that describes the motion of the planets according to your magnetism theory. Then we'll test them and see whose theory is bogus.

But you can't do that, because your theory makes no falsifiable claims about the universe. You simply dismiss it all as unknowable.

Last edited by T-J on 28-Apr-2011 at 02:36 PM.

@T-J

I know the theories, I asked you to apply them for my example (so no apple falling from the tree stuff).

I guess this is going nowhere. So let's drop it for now. You stick to your theories and I stick to mine.

@MikeB

Quote:

At least 194 people dead and CNN Europe is currently focussing on some wedding. In Japan during the days/weeks after the massive Tsunami/Earthquake and the nuclear meltdown in the world's largest nuclear complex people were closely following the media and guess what was on TV... Only pre-recorded japanese game shows with lots of happy people and lots of laughter..

Yes, shocking that the tornado season should happen again, after only happening every single year in recorded history. Surely a sign of the end of days.

The USA has over 1200 tornados every year. The Netherlands has the highest rate of tornado incidence per unit area, at 0.00013 per square kilometre. Bangladesh has the highest casualty rate, averaging at 179 per year, every year. Tornados are also most common in spring (that's the season we're in now, by the way) and most common in the United States.

But whatever, its the end of the world, yeah.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_severe_weather Quote: The National Weather Service's Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Okla., said it received 137 tornado reports around the regions, including 66 in Alabama and 38 in Mississippi. Move along now. Nothing to see here folks. Business as usual. /yawn

Lou if this was honest you have a serious misunderstanding of position. An increase of bad weather is bad. We all agree on that.

Your conjecture is that the bad weather is not caused from forces internal to earth but an object that, at best, farther away than Jupiter. We're open to this idea. Though you've yet to bring any valid evidence to light that your conjecture is true. This is important -- remember conjecture is not conclusive nor is coorelation causation.

Last edited by BrianK on 28-Apr-2011 at 02:45 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

I know the theories, I asked you to apply them for my example (so no apple falling from the tree stuff).

What example? The solar system?

We did that. We found gravitation explained the orbits of the planets, and magnetism did not.

Then it was your turn to apply your theory, and you couldn't provide a single worked example of your theory working.

@MikeB

Quote:

I guess this is going nowhere. So let's drop it for now. You stick to your theories and I stick to mine.

You have been provided the numbers, the equations, and guidance on how to scientifically validate the data.

The reason this is going no where is you make claims that you haven't been provided this stuff. You tell us when we provide you links to those Scientific Theories in action that it's unacceptable because there's no equation. You seem to not realize the equation is underplay right in front of your nose. And when asked for your equations we get back it's a belief.

Again a belief is fine but do realize it's not open as you're unwilling to validate against observations. And do realize it's dishonest as you simply reject anything, without valid reason, that might oppose your belief.

Short -- this is going no where because you refuse to "Do the Math"!