Electric Universe

[cynthialee]

ok.....
That took a weird turn.

[el_flesh]

Truth is truth, no matter which direction a discussion goes in.
It can be obscure, and hard to see, but it's always there.

Learn critical thinking, and you will get better at perceiving it. You cannot ignore what evidence says just because you "like" the alternative. The Universe (which is NOT electric) is not here to be what someone *wants* it to be. It simply is one way, and humans have to work *very* hard to find out what that one way is.

[Gold Bearer]

Scientists are people who do and use Science. I'm in that group.

You're in the group that uses scientific research that you don't understand to support your views and ignores scientific evidence that refutes your position.

The fact that you make an accusation of lying on my part about credentials is not lost on anyone.

Anyone? Who else are you speaking for? You lied about being a martial arts instructor despite not having the first clue about martial arts, you lied about the context of external information you've posted and you've lied about things that I've said despite it being here for everyone to see so I think you've lied about your credentials as well given your irrationally high regard for formal qualifications as if there's only one rout to knowledge and the fact that you don't seem to have the first clue about science either judging from your attempts to refute something you obviously don't understand and you provided links that have any relevance to the actual points that have been raised.

EPIC FAIL OF BOVINEWASTE BEARER:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.2441 PROOF OF GENERAL RELATIVITY
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511087 PROOF OF GENERAL RELATIVITY
http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s4.htm WARPED SPACETIME PROVEN
http://newsoffice.mit.edu/1997/blackholes OBSERVATIONAL PROOF SPACETIME CURVES (If you drag a triangular flat frame with vectors (or, light from a far star) coming at you from each tip, they will point in the same direction no matter where the frame is dragged. If spacetime is curved, however, they have to point in a different direction after being dragged. Guess which one happens? Go on, guess.)

How many more times do you need to be told that there's no physical difference between following a curved path through flat spacetime and following a straight path through curved spacetime before it finally sinks in? How could there be a difference when both describe the exact same thing? The only measurements that can be made are of the curvature itself, making flat or curved spacetime completely subjective. There's no test that could in principle distinguish between the two so it's completely nonsensical to claim that spacetime is curved rather than flat. The results of any test are only able to show that objects are following curved paths through four dimensional spacetime, they can't distinguish between the object following a curved path through through flat spacetime and following a straight path through curved spacetime because there is no distinction.

GRAVITATIONAL LENSING PROVEN:
http://astronomyonline.org/Cosmology/Gr ... ensing.asp
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... 06nov97_1/
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~ger/ASTRO-11 ... Matter.pdf.
http://www.historyofinformation.com/exp ... hp?id=2015 PROOF OF GRAVITATIONAL LENSING

How many more times do you need to be told that what GR describes can't be what's causing the lensing before it finally sinks in? If GR were accurate then there would be lensing wherever light passes close to a massive body and this isn't the case. No amount of observed lensing can change the fact that it can't possibly be due to mass! If it were due to mass then there would be a measurable beninding of light close to the sun outside as well as inside its atmosphere and there would be lots of lensing at the centre of the galaxy. There isn't. So what lensing we do see has nothing to do with GR. You can provide all the GR links you like, they can only describe a model that's demonstratively false.

But of course, we're talking to a blithering eediot who will say the proof is invalid because... conspiracy theory! Who is a crackpot?!?

You are! You'd already made up your mind and are working backwards from that baseless assumption, you ignore arguments that you can't refute, you think that the only way to gain knowledge is through formal education, you think intelligence can be taught, you ignore points that show you to be wrong, you lie about your credentials and your IQ, you have a severe lack of understanding about the topic under discussion but you still maintain that you know better despite being shown evidence refuting your claims that you refuse to even acknowledge and you completely annihilated me on the crackpot index. You enormous crackpot!

Also, this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... gh-school/
http://www.rogersyouthfund.com/the-facts.html
http://www.voxeu.org/article/educated-a ... l-dropouts

1. Those are just talking about the US. I'm not USian. The world is bigger than your one single nation you know! Americans. It's hugely stigmatised in the US to drop out of school and it's very difficult for people who do to progress professionally but that's just a cultural US thing and it's totally ridiculous. It's not like that in the real world, at least not to the same extent. We're far less close minded.

2. They're mainly talking about the average amount of money a person makes. What does that have to do with anything?

3. Of course there's a correlation between formal education earnings, and even knowledge but that's just an average. I bet the correlation is much higher in the US but it's bound to apply everywhere. You can't apply it on an individual basis.

Not so accurate as claimed, I am sure; nevertheless I obtained 139 on http://www.free-iqtest.net/. And I don't consider myself smart; just educated to the minimum acceptable level: a Bachelor's degree.

Right, you just happen to have the exact highest score you could have without your genius comments applying to you as well. How very convenient for you. You're so full it *lemony goodness* it must be coming out of your ears. Don't sneeze! I'd be surprised if you got over 100. You don't come across as someone with above average intelligence. I doubt you even managed to score half that. Being smart has nothing to do with being educated! You'd know that if you had anywhere near the IQ that you claim to. Intelligence can't be taught, that's knowledge and even that can easily be obtained from outside the official system, more easily in fact because you're free to use any source material and you're not told what you should and shouldn't believe.

As mentioned, bovinewastebearer hasn't made ONE LINK to actual proof. Because it doesn't exist.

You can't prove a model right, it's impossible. How many times do you need to be told this before it finally sinks in? What I can do it show multiple cases of damn good evidence, far more than should be reasonably required for the model to be the leading candidate in the scientific community.

Keep restating your fantasy BWB. This thread will one day be referenced for a big laugh at your conspiracy theory ignorance.

Only by somebody too thick to know any better.

Black Holes, same story. While it is not possible to use relativity to calculate things crossing the horizon, they themselves actually have been a prediction of this theory.

And they've never been observed, how could they be? I think they do exist but GR obviously doesn't give a good description of them and can't be claimed as a complete description of gravity if it can't fully describe them.

In fact they have.

They observed the center of our galaxy for about 15 years, ten photos a year, and made a small film of it.
Here, very short, the pure (calculated) result
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3qSr5HmGkI

If it is not a black hole, then it is something else which is invisible and able to throw stars around like tennis balls.

If you want some more details, have some more time and if you also want to see the optical effect of the gravitational lensing of it, i would recommend rather this video.
http://www.eso.org/public/videos/eso0846a/

That's not a direct observation. How can you directly observe something that gives off no light? What they observe is the effects on the surrounding objects. That link doesn't mention lensing. This is the exact study that showed that there's no lensing at the centre of the galaxy.

The latter system may be less precise and not allow for as many sub-classes as the genetic one, but it is not erratic or "ignorant", not even if you state it in bold letters.

He needs to write it in capital letters, that will make it true. If he bolds it as well and adds a ! it will be irrefutable.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/04/14/g2_new_observations_show_it_survived_a_black_hole_encounter.html yet another FAIL for the Eckeltrecktrick yUun-vinerse.

Do you know how immature those silly misspellings make you look? For it to be "another" fail you would have to have already pointed out a previous one. You've been unable to do this. For this one to be pointing out a failure it would have to have some relevance to the discussion. It doesn't.

This one keeps coming up, so I think it is worth pointing out how wrong it is:

Why is the solar system stable for billions of years when the gravitational interaction between the planets should cause chaos in a matter of centuries.

The amount of gravitational influence that the planets have on each other is tiny in comparison to the Sun (which contains 99.8% of the entire mass of the solar system). Planets would have to pass significantly closer to do more than slightly nudge the orbit of each other. It's a fairly common astrophysics programming exercise to create a model of the solar system using the equations for gravity.

The gravitational influence of the planets on each other isn't in any way weakened by the sun, that's completely absurd! The attraction the planets exert on each other is no different than it would be in the absence of the suns gravity, other than the fact that they move them closer to and further way from each other as they orbit around the sun. They are always exerting a gravitational pull on each other as if they are the only two objects in the system and this would be a cumulative effect if they weren't some other force counteracting it and keeping the whole thing stable. The only force that could be doing this is electromagnetism. Any simulation of the solar system that shows it to be stable for thousands of years is ignoring the gravitational influence of the planets on each other.

and why are the planets distances from the sun at perfectly regular intervals as if they're being attracted to evenly spaced charge separations at period distances from the sun if there's current flowing through the solar system as a whole?

The planets aren't at regular intervals at all, nor are they evenly spaced.

They're evenly spaced out to Mars, so the four terrestrial rocky ones are evenly spaced, more or less. The outer ones aren't evenly spaced with the inner ones but I think they are evenly spaced with each other, I can't remember but even if they're not the spacing is regular. There's an order to it.

Current flow is caused by electrons moving between charge separations, current flow doesn't create charge separations.

Yes, that's right. And?

This whole thing is both nonsense and false.

Then why did IBEX show no bow shock at the edge of the solar system exactly as the electric model predicted? Why did IBEX detect a build up of energetic neutral atoms exactly as the electrical model predicted? How can stars and galaxies form along strings if there's no electrical connection. Why are galaxies arranged in shapes that gravity is completely incapable of producing but that exactly match shapes taken by plasma when a strong enough electrical current is passing through it? How can the solar wind keep on accelerating out past Jupiter and beyond the edge of the solar system where the standard explanation describes a mechanism far too weak to be responsible? Why are nebulae aligned with the centre on the galaxy as if there's a strong current moving through them? How can comets flare up at distances from the sun that preclude solar warming as an explanation as if they're discharging electrically as they move into areas of a different charge? Why do we see so many nebula like the red square nebula with shapes that can't be explained using gravitation? How can the solar system be stable despite the constant gravitational attraction between the planets if there's no electrical interaction to provide the need stability? Why are so many attribute of the sun include ones I haven't mentioned yet (like the solar cycle) unexplained in the nuclear model and exactly what would be expected from an electrically powered sun?

This is far more supporting evidence than any rejected scientific model should reasonably be able to provide. It's not ignored by most of mainstream science because of a lack of evidence. It's ignored because of what the implications would be, both personally for a scientist who speaks out in support of a model that would completely destroy the standard model and in general for mainstream science when it's shown how far down the wrong path it went based on nothing but a refusal to let go of models that have been repeatedly falsified.

More DISPROOF of the Eckeltrectric yoUnivarse:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronom ... icate.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronom ... acter.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronom ... enses.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronom ... ights.html

Another display of complete immaturity, two more links to lensing that can't possibly be caused by mass as GR describes because it doesn't happen whenever light passes close to a massive object, a link to a description of an oddly shaped galaxy that has nothing to do with the topic and a description of the auroras that a caused by charged particles from the sun moving through a magnetic field, which is impossible the absence of an electrical current and so proving the electrical connection between the Earth and the sun.

Maybe I can get Phil Plait to explain why EU is BAD ASTRONOMY.

You need to do something to strengthen your case because you haven't been able to provide anything of substance at all.

BB, your 'infallible" bible should have no problem specifying, with its vast and great knowledge of its ultimate creator of everything, what is a fish and what isn't.

How many more times do you need to be told that it can't possibly be wrong because it's simply a different system of classification before it finally sinks in? It's arbitrary! You can classify things any way you like. The word they used obviously meant thing that swims. It makes no sense to try arguing that they were wrong when they were using different system.

People who take the bible literally in order to attack it are every bit as bad as those who take it literally in order to live the lives by it, they're two sides of the same dirty coin. The bible isn't a scientific manuscript. It's like rejecting a scientific paper on the grounds that it lacks heart and poetic flare. This physics paper doesn't even rhyme!

To be honest, you're the only one that sounds like a religious fanatic Flesh... sorry >.<

It's because you might not know the difference between religion and Science.

Or maybe it's because your argument contain nothing of substance and instead consist of nothing but personal attacks, opinions based on misconceptions and outright stupidity?

Truth is truth, no matter which direction a discussion goes in.
It can be obscure, and hard to see, but it's always there.

But you seem completely unable to recognise it. Even when it's clearly demonstrated you just ignore it.

Learn critical thinking, and you will get better at perceiving it. You cannot ignore what evidence says just because you "like" the alternative. The Universe (which is NOT electric) is not here to be what someone *wants* it to be. It simply is one way, and humans have to work *very* hard to find out what that one way is.

You're having a laugh. You're the one who needs to learn critical thinking. Your arguments are either irrational or non existent. The evidence supporting the electrical model is overwhelming.

Maybe you should stop insulting everyone who knows enough to disagree with you and actually try making a case because you've yet to explain how countless observations that can only be described be electricity are possible in the absence of a current and you haven't given a single reason why electricity is an unsuitable explanation despite it being the only one known to science because it's the only one of the four forces capable of producing those observations. Gravity alone can't explain observations, electricity can. The universe is highly magnetised. If there were no other evidence that would be enough.

You're attempting to take the intellectual high ground but are in no position to because your belief that the EU model is false based entirely on faith that if it had merit then it would be acknowledged by mainstream physics but you don't understand how the system works and how long it takes for new model to be accepted if it means that the people who have spent their lives teaching that the universe works a certain way have to admit that they were mistaken. That's why no can provide zero counter evidence against the many examples of observations that can only be electrical and why the links you post don't have anything to do with the actual issues, because their are no links that provide evidence to support your position. Why you feel so compelled to attack people with more enlightened opinions than yourself is something you really should give some thought to. You obviously have some very deep issues you need to address before you continue to embarrass and make a complete twat of yourself.

[Big Bene]

There is no such thing as a fish:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/by/fish

That's brilliant!
I mean, the biological discovery is interesting, but the summary of the result is just great.
"There is no such thing as a fish".
Of course, this will not cause anyone (including biologists) to stop calling aquatic, vertebrate animals covered with scales "fishes", so strictly speaking, they will classify "fishes" by phenotype, not by genotype (as would be the scientific standard today). Is this "ignorant"?

Saying it did not specify tacash as not being a fish is part of the whole paragraph, like point one. Taking a statement out of context and trying to demonstrate it's ridiculousness in order to defeat the entire argument is a high school trick -worthy of religionists- that will not work. I went on to show that your bible DOES think the whale = dolphin IS indeed a fish.

I'm sorry if I made you feel like I'm trying to do "highschool tricks" on you. This was not my intention.
You claimed that the bible falsely thinks that the dophin is a fish.
I showed that it doesn't do so.
There's one hebrew word in the bible that has a remote possiblity to it to mean "dolphin", namely the term "Tachash". This is used in the bible four times. Nowhere it is called a fish or used in a context that gives any hint at fishes. It is simply a source of fur or leather, listed among other materials for tents and clothing.
Then you resorted to the fact that the bible doesn't explecitely make clear that the "Tachash" is not a fish.
As an argument for your cause, this is obviousely illogical, which I pointed out.
I cannot see how putting it in the context of the paragraph would help it.
There's nothing before it.
After it, you stress the fact that it can be translated as "dolphin", (which of course is still possible). The next line of your post refers to the "big fish" that swallowed Jonah, which was often interpreted as a whale in medieval and later artistic depictions. Even if this would be an indication that the authors of this story meant whales to be fishes (which it is not), this would only be another example for a possible "scientific error" of the bible.
None of this makes the fact that the bible doesn't state that Tachash are not fishes equalling it saying the Tachash are fishes.
You could have written something like: "OK, so dophins were not called fishes, but see, whales were". It would still be false, because a later artistic interpretation says nothing about what the author meant. But what you actually wrote was that dolphins were called fishes because it was not made clear that they aren't. And that's just illogical.

BB, your 'infallible" bible should have no problem specifying, with its vast and great knowledge of its ultimate creator of everything, what is a fish and what isn't. (So, yes, knightcrawler, it WOULD be a lie if the writer of the bible is "god", as claimed by his proponents).

It's not "my infallible" bible, and I never claimed it was written by god.
Only some fundamentalistic evangelical American sects do so.
Most christians around the world are fully aware that the books of the bible were written by humans and that it were humans who collected and canonized them. This is also the official stand of the catholic, orthodox and lutherian churches. According to christian belief (that you don't need to share), the bible is the account of the interaction of god with men (from the human point of view, and therefor of course fallible) and it was recorded so we can learn something useful for ourselfes of it. This of course includes careful study and an understanding of the circumstances under which it was written.

Since you want to downplay the effect of witchhunts

I do not want to downplay anything. I try to do my research and accept the numbers that are most probable, given the historical sources.
I'm withthe majority of hisrorians with my estimation. I think this is the right thing to do. Exaggregating numbers is at least as disrespectful to the real victims as downplaying them. If you feel the need of having more victims to blame on the church, you actually downplay the very real thousands of victims there were and their very real suffering. When talking numbers (and it was you who first asked for numbers), the only thing we can do is keeping as close to the truth as possible. To get there, it's geneerally a good idea to go with the opinio communis of experts. You constantly tell Gold Bearer the same thing, referring to physics. So go with your own advise for history, too. As for me, I am a historian (sort of, at least I'm from a related faculty), and I did some research of my own before accepting the opinio communis.
You

Then I gave a reference to another specialist who says you are full of bull toodles in your estimation.

The author of the article, Greg Laden, is not a specialist. He is an anthropologist by training, which means he has studied the biological developent of the human species. This has next to nothing to do with history. Other than this, he claims himself a "science communicator", which means he makes money writing popular articles on a wide variety of scientific subjects. He can't possibly be a "specialist" in all these matters (and it shows).
In the blog article you are ciring he just states that the majority of historians (for wich he cites Wikipedia as the only source) is underestimating the number of victims of the witch hunts, because they do not include the Stedingers. These were a tribe in northern Germany wich were eraded by military force, because they challanged the authority of the prince-bishop - mainly, they didn't pay taxes. To get more backing for his campaign, the prince did accuse them of heresy and fortune-telling, and had this claim affirmed by the pope. This can be properly called a genocide. It was of course grounded in material interests, religion only serving as an exuse.
The crusade on the Stedingers is normally not defined as a witch hunt, being very different in all aspects from what we normally understand under this term.
If someone wants to make his own definition, that's OK. It's not OK to accuse other scholars of "downplaying" the numbers or to make a stance as if one had discovered something new or as if one had put thousands of victims in the right light that otherwise would have been forgotten by the world. That's just making a sensation (and money) at the cost of those victims. No historian has forgotten the Stedingers. They are just not normally filed under witches.

Galileo was really threatened with torture by the church. If you are shown instruments of torture, that is an implied threat.

In a way, it is a threat, as part of the standarized precedure of every juridical trial of the time.
You just staded that he was threatened, making it sound as if he was threatened with actual torture as a punishment for promoting the helicentric model. I just put it in the correct historical context.

Copernicus gave mathematical proof of Heliocentrism which Galileo added support to by use of his telescope; discovering phases of Venus and of the Galilean satellites.

Copernicus only gave a mathematical description of how the plantets would move in his version of the heliocetric model.
The Phases of the Venus and the moons Galileo discovered were still possible to explain in the geocentric model (as described by Tycho Brahe). It just became more complicated, making the helicentric model more probable. The astronomical research of the time, not only by Galileo, eventually lead to the heliocentric model becoming widely accepted. It was just not prooven.

If Bruno supported Copernicus, how could he be described as NOT Scientific? Copernicus never said "thou shalt BELIEVE", but instead gave observational data as PROOF of his odel

Bruno did not support Copernicus because of the observational data. He did believe, even if Copernicus not had called for belivers. Bruno rejected the geocentric system because of his faith that the human world was only an "accident" of some unversal living substance.

[el_flesh]

BovineWaste Bearer: I have linked several proofs. You are the believer who has faith despite counter evidence AND the Science community backing it as the best way to chart reality. YOU are the one who gets charted on the crackpot index, because it was made for people like YOU. Crackpots. Who can't prove the standard model wrong, and who have a basic misunderstanding of the standard model, and a demonstrated ignorance of physics.
I also don't give a *lemony goodness* what you BELIEVE and DECLARE about my personal life and what I've achieved.
You're not worth my time.
Good luck vs the world, eediot!

BB: I have linked several proofs that say otherwise than what you claim. While a tachash *might* not be a dolphin or a whale, the other cases are correct; focusing on one *possible* misconception doesn't disprove the premise that the entire book is rife with outright bovine waste, errors and hatred. I think Carl Sagan arrived at an even greater number of women killed due to religion in ISBN 0345409469.
I have much more confidence in the estimates of Scientists than I do in historians.
You have indeed downplayed the human suffering; it is there to see in your earlier posts; especially with your allusions to "occasional" burnings. If a government claims that killing people is due to their being witches, you don't get to reassign the reason as you see fit. Whether or not the leader believed it, his minions that carried out his orders did.
Galileo WAS threatened with actual torture as a punishment for promoting the helicentric model. That is where the "threat" is derived from seeing actual instruments of torture that could be used on you. Seriously - are you going to drop down to BWB's level of intelligence on this one? You don't get to claim how much of a threat Galileo did or did not feel.

The equations work out, and describe reality? Then it is a proof. You don't get to declare what is a description and what is a proof; Science and Mathematics will do that.
The Geocentric model was a load of bovine waste for its time; there were many observations that had to be ignored or chalked up to 'god works in mysterious ways'. The phases of Venus and the Galilean Satellites, plus the proof of moon being made of rock and stone and NOT ethereal were proofs of the Heliocentric model, not proofs of a Geocentric one. You demonstrate a lack of knowledge of geometry and astronomy to claim that. The Geocentric model was insisted on by the church because it appears in the bible. Over and over. The observations worked out, and describe reality? Then it is a proof. You don't get to declare what is a description and what is a proof; Science and Astronomy will do that.
Bruno read Copernicus. In Copernicus' book there are the data and proofs. How would you know if he understood them or ignored them? Whether he saw them as proof of what he already thought, or whether he advanced his ideas based upon Copernicus's proofs, he was burned alive for his ideas. You don't get to declare what Bruno believed or didn't believe; the things he wrote about it might declare that, might not. I sure as hell won't take what the lying, weaseling church claimed he said at face value!

You've been downplaying the bloodshed of the christians and the errors about, oh, reality in the bible.

[whitebeard]

This one keeps coming up, so I think it is worth pointing out how wrong it is:

Why is the solar system stable for billions of years when the gravitational interaction between the planets should cause chaos in a matter of centuries.

The amount of gravitational influence that the planets have on each other is tiny in comparison to the Sun (which contains 99.8% of the entire mass of the solar system). Planets would have to pass significantly closer to do more than slightly nudge the orbit of each other. It's a fairly common astrophysics programming exercise to create a model of the solar system using the equations for gravity.

The gravitational influence of the planets on each other isn't in any way weakened by the sun, that's completely absurd! The attraction the planets exert on each other is no different than it would be in the absence of the suns gravity, other than the fact that they move them closer to and further way from each other as they orbit around the sun. They are always exerting a gravitational pull on each other as if they are the only two objects in the system and this would be a cumulative effect if they weren't some other force counteracting it and keeping the whole thing stable. The only force that could be doing this is electromagnetism. Any simulation of the solar system that shows it to be stable for thousands of years is ignoring the gravitational influence of the planets on each other.

The only force that could be doing this is electromagnetism. Any simulation of the solar system that shows it to be stable for thousands of years is ignoring the gravitational influence of the planets on each other.

No.

While in grad school I came across a well written article (not a journal paper) which stated that "the stability of the solar system is an open question." I found this intruiging and began to look into it a bit more. Ultimately I took what I learned back to conventional terrestrial dynamic system simulation and more recently I won some funding from the US Army to put it into practice.

Stability is a tricky topic. Stability is effectively defined as "not unstable" and absolute proofs of stability are difficult unless the dynamic system is simplified incredibly and even then there are systems which are observed as stable which have no mathematically rigorous proof. Most dynamic systems are unstable in one way or another. You basically need damping and potential energy well (a rock rolls into a valley or a free pendulum in air) to have stability. But within an unstable system, certain aspects of the motion can be stable. The suspension of your car is stable, but the car may roll forward a bit on flat ground and will not return, so the model of the whole car is absolutely unstable.

When it is stated that the planetary motions of our solar system are "unstable" with a Lyapunov Time of 2 - 230 million years (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_of_the_Solar_System which has LOTS of references). What they mean is that the tiniest change (perturbation) in the initial value in your system (and therefore simulation) will result in the planets potentially being located 180 degrees out of phase from where the non perturbed model predicts. Okay, so the planets are not where you expect them to be on a star chart. But they are still almost exactly the same orbital distance from the sun after this amount of time. If you update your planetary motions on your star chart every few thousand years by the very tiny bit you observe them to be wrong, you will be good to go.

So we know the solar system is "unstable". The open question is, "is it catastrophically unstable?" Could a planet be ejected? Or could a planet even change (significanty) the energy level of it's orbit? To do this (without an extenal disturbance) you need a resonance. You need to move energy regularly (periodically) from one or more obiting bodies to another one, so that it can change its orbit.

To look for energy exchanges (nonlinear resonances) you take the full nonlinear equation of motion and assume an equilibrium point for your orbital distance and eccentricity. Then you replace the nonlinearities by your favorite analytiaclly convergent series expansion (I like Taylor Series). Then you equate terms at each order of epsilon and verify that the solution is periodic (and not exponential). These methods have identified several resonances which exist in the solar system (and other systems) and explains several key features of the positioning of the planets. That is to say that the strongest resonances have already played themselves out and there is no stuff in the solar system where it should not be. In engineering, we call this validation, and the gravity model is validated as applied to the solar system. As you continue expanding to higher order terms, resonances which are found will take billions of years (GB actually) to evolve (and only if the conditions happen to be perfect) and may never come to pass before the planets are consumed by the sun. Even then, we are generally talking about changes in eccentricity which are unlikely to result in the ejection of anything.

Numerical simulations which take the dominant features of the solar system into account have been simulated forwards and backwards for many GB years and no such catastrophic event transpires ["Long-term integrations and stability of planetary orbits in our Solar system", Takashi Ito and Kiyotaka Tanikawa, 2002]. Personally I find Ito and Tanikawa's simulations to be silly because every 230 million years they could have randomly generated the planet locations (remember the Lyapunov Time?). So there really is no point in having a single consistent simulation from now to +-8Gb years. They could have "borrowed" 1000 CPUs on campus every night and completed the simulation (and much more) in a single week. But "seeing" the actual trajectories still gives a lot of scientists and engineers a "warm fuzzy". I was briefly working on breaking down that wall...

In short, whatever numerical simulations you are reading about, you have either misunderstood the results. Or they are wrong.

"Did you want to talk about stability, or were you just making chit-chat?"

[Big Bene]

BB: I have linked several proofs that say otherwise than what you claim.

Where?
You gave four links in total (of course not counting the trillions you posted in reference to the EU vs. Standard model discussion). If I have overlooked one, please correct me:

• http://www.landoverbaptist.org - A clearly satirical site with no claim on seriousnes whatsoever. I actually like it and find it absolutely hilarious. It's very obviousely targeted at fundamentailsts - expecially the small fundamentalist evangelical self-proclaimed "churches" that are so abundant in the US. The whole style of the website, the speech, and of course the topics, are clearly mimicing this kind of "christians".
  They are a great source of many things you can do wrong whith misconcepted religion, e.g. when reading the bible literally as a explantation of nature.
  In no way does it "proof" that the bible calls a dolphin a fish.
• Thomas Figart, who claims a "doctorate": While this is not really a link, you may call it "citing a source", of wich we have only the statement you cite:
  "The Hebrew word used here is tachash, which has been defined in a number of ways, including the seal, dolphin, badger, porpoise or manatee".
  This only tells that a Tachash can possibly be a dolphin, which I never denied. It does not say that the bible calls it a "fish".
• http://www.catholictradition.org/Saints/signs1.htm: not a theological, historian or otherwise professional site, but just a reference collection of chrstian symbols, from which you cite "Often the dolphin is used to depict the whale of Jonah". The animal in queston is just called a "big fish" (dag gadol) in the book of Jonah, the term "whale" is a false translation by Luther and others. In any case, the medieval artistic renderings of this animal as an oversized version of a dolphin have of course nothing to do with the question if the bible called dolphins fishes.
• http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/12/02/how-many-people-were-killed-as-witches-in-europe-from-1200-to-the-present/: refers to witches, not to dolphins. I already did review this article above.

While a tachash *might* not be a dolphin or a whale, the other cases are correct; focusing on one *possible* misconception doesn't disprove the premise that the entire book is rife with outright bovine waste, errors and hatred. I think Carl Sagan arrived at an even greater number of women killed due to religion in ISBN 0345409469.

It's not so much the point if the Tachash is a dolphin. Probably not, but the possibility remains. The point is that the bible doesn't call it a fish.
But you (and probably many others, since you didn't came up with it yourself, but took it from a source) make a stance that "the bible thinks dolphins are fishes". When someone points out this error and gives a more detailed explantation of the sources in question, you just can't sit back and learn, but give a list of other "scientific errors of the bible", which were totally out of question.
Yes, I'm focusing on one very real misconception (actually two, don't forget the bats), because this was what we were talking about.
You wrote something false. I wanted to correct it.
You gave the dolphins and bats that the bible allegedly calls fishes and birds respectively as an example that: things aren't always what they look like, not as an example for the supposed bovinewastenes of the bible. It could have been a minor issue.
You widened the scope of the discussion, first listing other (unrelated) "scientific errors" of the bible, then trying a broadside attack on religion in general, up to the witch hunts. While I tried to answer to all that - or most of it, as my time allowed, I will not let you distract from the original subject.

At the moment, I have neither the money to buy nor the time to read the book you referenced, although I hope I will at some time, as I normally like Carl Sagan. According to Wiki, the book mainly deals with misuse of science and pseudoscience. As I didn't read it, I really can't know what exactly you mean. Does he refer to witch hunts? Does he blame them on religion alone? What numbers does he give actually? What are his sources? In any case, it has still nothing to do with the dolphin problem or other "scientific errors" of the bible, though you cite it in the same paragraph.

I have much more confidence in the estimates of Scientists than I do in historians.

Both scientists and historians have sources to work with and methods to interprete these sources. The result is a model that comes as close to reality as the sources allow, this means as close as we can get. I have confidence in the estimates of a biologist on biology, of a physicist on phisics, and of a historian on history. A scientist dilettating in history has no more credibility to him than a baker holding lectures in astrophysics.

If a government claims that killing people is due to their being witches, you don't get to reassign the reason as you see fit. Whether or not the leader believed it, his minions that carried out his orders did.

I did not do such a thing. I just presented some historic detail.
You linked an article as source whose author wanted to make a claim that standard history downplays the number of victims. Do back this up, he included the Stedingers into his account of the witch-hunts. Other people may read your post without actually following the link or proof-read the article, so I gave some information, so everyone can make his own judgement based on facts. I did not downplay the suffering of the Stedingers or justified the actions of the authorities. In fact, I remember calling it "genocide". I did say that religion here rather was used as an excuse for material interests, which you can hardly deny, and wich is part of the context of the events. The "minions believing it" is naturally a part of this excuse working.
By the way, the Stedingers were not called "witches" by the government. This is of course nick-picking, and I hate how you make me nick-picking by making an irrelevant, but false claim in a subordinate close. The main accusation was "heresy", not "witchcraft". "Fortune telling" was only an addition, and was not, legally or theologically, equalled with witchcraft, as "modern" people may think.

Galileo WAS threatened with actual torture as a punishment for promoting the helicentric model. That is where the "threat" is derived from seeing actual instruments of torture that could be used on you. Seriously - are you going to drop down to BWB's level of intelligence on this one? You don't get to claim how much of a threat Galileo did or did not feel.

Neither do you. You just stated that he was threatened with torture, I put in context. I don't say it was not threatening at all. But knowing that showing the instruments is just a part of the official procedure is still another thing than being personally and explecitely threatened with torture.
How much the difference was in the mind of Galileo, we can't know. But to get an idea, it's better to know the details and circumstances.

The equations work out, and describe reality? Then it is a proof. You don't get to declare what is a description and what is a proof; Science and Mathematics will do that.

Kopernikus did give a mathematical description of a simplified version of the orbits of the then known planets around the sun. As it was based on observation, it was clear that it worked out and described reality. It did not predict anything back then and it did not explain how and why the planets would move according to these mathematical rules, i.e. he could not provide a set of underlying rules that were simpler than just a complete description of the observated events, and that would lead to these events. Newton's gravity model did provide such rules. Only after this one could really say that the Heliocentric model explains the observations "simpler" or with "fewer assumptions" than the geocentric one. This is of course only referring to the movement of the planets in principle, not to details that were not known to Kopernikus, but discovered before Newton, like the Venus phases.
As I already said, there was vivid research and discussion in this matter, agents of the church taking part on both sides, and we all know it lead eventually to the general acceptance of the heliocentric system. On this path, the Venus phases and the Galilean moons were strong indices for the heliocentric model, but not proofs, as they still could be explained (and were explained, by scientists, not by the church) by a modified version of the geocentric model, the one presented by Tycho Brahe beeing the most popular. To call it a load of whatever-fecal-word-you-prefer is way over the top.

You demonstrate a lack of knowledge of geometry and astronomy to claim that [the obove mentioned observations are proofs of the geocentric model].

Where did I make such a claim?

The Geocentric model was insisted on by the church because it appears in the bible.

Other than referring to the visible path of the sun in phrases as "the sun goes up/down" or "the sun moves through the sky", as we still use today, the bible does not make any statement about the relative movement of sun or earth. Some people, agents of the church and others, interpreted this as a support of the geocentric model, others didn't. The church did not insist on the geocentric model. In fact, it accepted the heliocentric one as a means of calender calculations long before academical researchers did. Some books supporting it were found inappropriate and put on the index, but not all of them and not for this reason alone.

Bruno read Copernicus. In Copernicus' book there are the data and proofs. How would you know if he understood them or ignored them? Whether he saw them as proof of what he already thought, or whether he advanced his ideas based upon Copernicus's proofs, he was burned alive for his ideas. You don't get to declare what Bruno believed or didn't believe; the things he wrote about it might declare that, might not. I sure as hell won't take what the lying, weaseling church claimed he said at face value!

I don't have to, I can read his own works. And while I can't look into his head, I can make a fair guess on his reasoning about the heliocentric model when I put it in context of his worldview, for wich I only have -oops, his own word.
Of course, you can't look into his head, either. But still, you mentioned him in the first place, trying to make him a matyr of science.
Well, we can't really know for sure. We have to work with the sources we have. And those sources, by his own hand, point heavily in the direction of him not being really interested in astronomy, but accepting the heliocentric system just because it fits his theology.

Well, I've wasted too much time on this again.
I officiall will restrict myself on only looking into this thread twice a week from now on.

[StratosVX]

BB, your 'infallible" bible should have no problem specifying, with its vast and great knowledge of its ultimate creator of everything, what is a fish and what isn't.

I keep seeing you refer to the bible as 'infallible' and yet you are the only one that keeps referring to it this way. KK even said he is an atheist, meaning he doesn't believe the writing in the bible. Nobody else has said it's infallible, only you. Personally, I don't believe in what's in that book either, but here's where your argument holds no water - the bible, the original one, was supposed to be written by God, just as you have said yourself. The ones we have today were translated by man and originally done in a period when very few people could read to begin with. You base your arguments off of MAN's words. Flawed man. Unless you can go back and translate the original book yourself, you are basing your infallible comments off of very flawed mankind.

If you have been trained in Science yet you defend religion as being 'within reason', as you have done for burning at the stake, that makes you an apologetic: someone who downplays the role religion had in atrocities and crimes against humanity.

Point us to where BB said religion was 'within reason.' I've looked. Never happened. All he did was challenge your representation of facts. Truth be told, he even states that this is about facts and yet you keep going back to a perception you have about what he believes.

Since you want to downplay the effect of witchhunts, I challenge you to specify what constitutes the 'occasional' immolation of a live human being. You make it sound acceptable. I say even ONE wrong murder is unacceptable. Then I gave a reference to another specialist who says you are full of bull toodles in your estimation. And once again, I will take the statements of specialists in the field over yours - unless you can prove otherwise, as cornixt did.

Nobody has downplayed anything here. You are twisting what was actually said. In fact, the statement that started the whole "downplay" argument was this from Big Bene: "What you call "documented past" is partly correct, partly blatantly false (agents of the Catholic Church occasionally did burn people at the stake, but never for "disagreeing with what was written")." A statement where he was focusing on making sure facts were straight. Now, the article you linked to starts off with the comment "Please pay attention to the comments at the end of this post. Historians of the era tend to deeply disagree with what I say here." Historians (plural. Also, the definition of historian: an expert in or student of history, esp. that of a particular period, geographical region, or social phenomenon) disagree with the anthropologist (singular. Also, the definition of anthropology: the study of humankind) One man who studies humankind vs a group of people that study the era he's referring to... I'd go with the historians myself. Also, your comment to KK was "I will take the statements of specialists in the field over yours." Except that you didn't take the statement of the specialists, you took the statement of one guy that disagreed with them. Also, you said specialists. That's plural, not one guy. Again, fact twisting. In fact, the author of that article goes on to say that his estimate is probably very high. Another issue: the article is about how many people were killed in witch hunts from the 1200's to today. You failed to take into account the total population of the people from the 1200's to today when you are factoring in the "occasional" comment you keep repeating. Now, since the total population of Europe is a little over 700 million as of 2013, and we are looking at a period of over 800 years, so let's say a very conservative 2 billion people in that time. Do the math on the ratio and yes, that number will constitute the "occasionally" comment you keep throwing out there for emphasis as it is well below 1%.

Of course there have been witch hunts, and of course there are proofs for this fact, but I can't see what they have to do with the subject at hand. Witches were accused of cooking babies, using magic to make people sick or destroy the harvest, of laying with the devil and many other bizarre "crimes", but definitely not of something like "explaining nature in a form not in line with the bible".

Very true. The topic of this thread is not "Bible errors" or "Witch hunts" or anything else of that nature. And yet it was KK that got the nickname of "The Derailer"...

Copernicus never said "thou shalt BELIEVE", but instead gave observational data as PROOF of his model. So, once again, you DON'T get to label a victim of burning by the church as being reasonable for the time it happened in.

Never was it said that it was reasonable. Go back and quote where this was said, otherwise drop it and stop twisting words.

I typically give people the benefit of the doubt when I read these things and try to see things from their point of view. The only thing I see from your viewpoint is spite. You keep pointing out that Gold Bearer dropped out of high school as if that means he is stupid. You know another group that drops out? Kids that are above the intellectual level of their grade because they become incredibly bored with the material that doesn't challenge them. One can take online courses free of charge (as I believe you said yourself) and they do not require that you have a high school education. One can buy books full of knowledge. Again, no high school education required. In fact, one can go buy the text books used in the universities for their higher level classes, and you don't even have to be a student of the university to do so! So stop bringing up the high school dropout thing like it actually means something. And stop twisting people's words. You think you're getting the upper hand but all you're doing is damaging your case.

[Gold Bearer]

BovineWaste Bearer: I have linked several proofs.

El_twat: No you haven't.

You are the believer who has faith despite counter evidence AND the Science community backing it as the best way to chart reality.

And that right there proves my point. You're basing your assumptions that the universe is not electrical in nature (despite all the observations showing that it obviously is) on nothing more than your belief that the mainstream scientific communities stance is the correct one and not on any level of understanding what you try to argue. Do you even understand that magnetism is completely impossible in the absence of electricity? In fact the two are interchangeable depending on the observer's frame of reference. You have failed to provide any counter evidence.

YOU are the one who gets charted on the crackpot index, because it was made for people like YOU. Crackpots.

You accused me of being a crackpot and posted an index to measure it in which your scored much higher than I did so it was clearly made for people like you. You don't get to accuse somebody of something that clearly applies more to you than it does to them and then claim that it doesn't apply to you. Do you process any capacity for logical thinking at all?

Who can't prove the standard model wrong, and who have a basic misunderstanding of the standard model, and a demonstrated ignorance of physics.

You're just outright lying again. The standard model includes GR which is very easy to prove wrong as I've shown. What basic misunderstanding of the standard model and ignorance of physics do you believe I have demonstrated, specifically?

I also don't give a *lemony goodness* what you BELIEVE and DECLARE about my personal life and what I've achieved.

It's clear that you've achieved nothing that you've claimed to and feel the need to go online pretending that you have. That's a very pathetic thing for you to do. If you care enough about these things to pretend you are accomplished in them then I suggest you actually try to achieve the things you've lied about so you don't continue to get shown up in public as the dishonest piece of clueless *lemony goodness* that you really are.

You're not worth my time.

You mean you don't have a leg to stand on. This is a thread I started about the electric universe. If you've given up trying to come up with a coherent argument to support your position and would rather just engage in a pointless bible argument then you can fraggle off to another thread to do it!

Good luck vs the world, eediot!

If I'm the idiot then why are the one who has such trouble grasping very simple concepts despite them being explained to you clearly and repeatedly? It's hardly me against the world. It's got a huge amount of support now and it's reedit growing. It's not my model and I have no vested interest. All I have to do as somebody who has a deep interest in the universe and wants this part of it to be known because of where it leads is sit back and watch it become established science. It's already happening. Most physicists know the universe is electrical and they know they can't ignore electrical effects for much longer, they're now in damage control mode. There are now peer reviewed papers containing electrical effects in space showing up in journals. It's only in very limited cases but it's a start and as the evidence keeps coming in there'll be more and more showing up until it reaches a tipping point when it becomes acceptable to interpret otherwise inexplicable results as electrical and then the floodgates will open and the so called dark matter and dark energy that make up over 95% of the standard model (yes, it really can only explain less than 5%) will disappear and be replaced by an actual physical process rather than the huge gaping hole of nothing that exists in the standard model now.

The equations work out, and describe reality? Then it is a proof.

No it isn't. It still hasn't sunk in has it. It's impossible to prove a model correct. The Newtonian model can be proved by measuring the planets and it's still wrong and it's replacement, general relativity can measure even more without giving bad results and predictions but it's still wrong.

If Bruno supported Copernicus, how could he be described as NOT Scientific?

I didn't notice this before. He agrees with a scientist on one issue so he must have been scientifically minded? Have you ever even had a rational thought or is this all you can do?

Stuff.

The point went right over your head, you've completely misunderstood. The planets are each feeling the force of gravity caused by the mass of the other planets in the solar system. It's a purely attractive force between the bodies just as it would be if you were to arrange them in a straight line at rest relative to each other and with no sun to orbit. The presence of the sun and the orbit of the planets around it in no way diminishes this attractive force. This means that their orbital distances from the sun (other than the fact that their elliptical path do alter their distances slightly but in a way that is stable) would be changed over time if there were no force counteracting the gravitational attraction. A model that shows an unstable solar system within centuries isn't an accurate depiction of the system, and that's the whole point.

There has to be another force that not only acts on them but does it dynamically in a way that the force grows and wanes in response to changes in the orbital distances of the planets and always in a way that counteracts the gravitational attraction rather than adding to it. This can only be electricity and that's also why the planets are so regularly spaced. The same thing happens with the planets that have multiple moons. You can't have a stable system with more than one orbiting body without electrical interacting to counteract and balance their gravitational pull on each other. Any system that shows the solar system to be stable for thousands of years is one that ignores the gravitational influence of the planets on each other.

"Did you want to talk about stability, or were you just making chit-chat?"

Who are you quoting?

You gave four links in total (of course not counting the trillions you posted in reference to the EU vs. Standard model discussion).

All of which except one (one about solar wind acceleration) have nothing to do with the point.

[whitebeard]

Stuff.

The point went right over your head, you've completely misunderstood.

“Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are too fast, I would catch it.”

The planets are each feeling the force of gravity caused by the mass of the other planets in the solar system. It's a purely attractive force between the bodies just as it would be if you were to arrange them in a straight line at rest relative to each other and with no sun to orbit. The presence of the sun and the orbit of the planets around it in no way diminishes this attractive force. This means that their orbital distances from the sun (other than the fact that their elliptical path do alter their distances slightly but in a way that is stable) would be changed over time if there were no force counteracting the gravitational attraction. A model that shows an unstable solar system within centuries isn't an accurate depiction of the system, and that's the whole point.

There has to be another force that not only acts on them but does it dynamically in a way that the force grows and wanes in response to changes in the orbital distances of the planets and always in a way that counteracts the gravitational attraction rather than adding to it. This can only be electricity and that's also why the planets are so regularly spaced. The same thing happens with the planets that have multiple moons. You can't have a stable system with more than one orbiting body without electrical interacting to counteract and balance their gravitational pull on each other. Any system that shows the solar system to be stable for thousands of years is one that ignores the gravitational influence of the planets on each other.

No. No additional forces are needed. Your thought experiment has failed you. If you remove the sun and stop all motion, then yes, this model you have created is unstable. The solar system is stable because the rotational motion AND the large central body causes the gravitational interactions of the planets to have weak influence on the motion and makes the system "stable".

All numerical simulations of the solar system consider gravity acting on all bodies. If you don't do this, then you can solve the equations analytically in closed form (think Issac Newton using a pen and paper) and the solution for the exact location of a planet for all time is a matter of plugging the value "time" into a formula. Nobody would waste thier time numerically simulating this as there is absolutely nothing to simulate. When they say they use a "simplified model", they mean they are ignoring moons, tidal forcees, planetary rotations (days/night type), etc. The gravity betweeen all bodies must be included in full and that's quite easy. Nothing iteresting can happen if you don't include this. You are very much misinformed if you think we model the solar system this way in scientific research.

When you do include gravity (yes on all bodies acting on eachother) it is referred to as the "N-body problem". The N-body problem for the solar system appears "stable" for billions of years. This is math, not science, so it is fact. If the model is wrong, that's a science problem. But we agree that the model to be used here is gravity, and yet we disagree on the result? How can that even be possible?

Answer: You simplified your model and never ran a full simulation with the model we agreed on. "It was over your head."

It is a long road for anyone to learn how to use the numerical tools to create your own solar system simulations. However there are several open source N-body problem solar system models out there that you can open up and look at the formulation for yourself. I would recommend learning to use Octave (a MATLAB clone) and grabbing a good MATLAB exmaple of the N-body problem / solar system pre-configured.

"Did you want to talk about stability, or were you just making chit-chat?"

Who are you quoting?

Ground Hog Day (Hint: substitute "stability" for "the weather").