Merged Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

[Arthur Mann]

Strange...

I'm running out of polite ways to say you're full of beans, so I'll just pretend I don't see your comments from now on.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't think you know what you're talking about. I sure don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, it's true: you don't know what I'm talking about.

Which is kind of the point, since I'm talking about basic, freshman-level electromagnetism.

In any case, I'm not going to pursue this any further with you.

You can't counter my arguments, so you're walking away. Not exactly unexpected.

 

[Arthur Mann]

I'm talking about basic, freshman-level electromagnetism.

False.

You can't counter my arguments, so you're walking away. Not exactly unexpected.

I'm not inclined to keep repeating the same things over and over again. The facts aren't going to change, and your comments aren't going to ever change, so I'm going to pretend your posts don't exist. If you become persistently annoying I guess I'll have to literally use the ignore feature.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not inclined to keep repeating the same things over and over again.

Your posting history suggests otherwise.

The facts aren't going to change, and your comments aren't going to ever change

Because my posts are based on the facts. Neat how that works.

so I'm going to pretend your posts don't exist. If you become persistently annoying I guess I'll have to literally use the ignore feature.

It won't hurt my feelings at all, but that's pretty much an admission that you can't actually address my arguments, so you're going to run away.

 

[tusenfem]

Not everyone who acknowledges the electrical nature of the universe and the dominance of electromagnetic force is prepared to suggest (or accept) that "gravity" is just an unfortunate misunderstanding.

Excuse me, but Peratt is one of the GODS of the EU/ES/EC community and sits on the right hand of Alfven on Mount Epiphany, probably playing dominos with Birkeland.

I also note that you refrained on commenting on what Hannes Alfven wrote in Cosmical Electrodynamics and in Cosmic Plasmas, may I know why?

 

[Tubbythin]

My claim itself moots this objection, because it does not suggest electromagnetic force plus gravity, it suggests gravity is fictional and safely ignored.

You have presented 0 quantitative evidence for your claim.

 

[Tubbythin]

This argument isn't any less circular now than when it was first proposed, and no less erroneous, either.

I agree. It was never circular and never erroneous.

 

[Tubbythin]

Go do something else, then. I find this subject fascinating.

Me too. Its your constant resorting to the statement "false" without a shred of justification that is getting boring.

Actually the orbits are observed, not predicted. Predictions are made as to the future positions of planets, but the orbits are indeed observed. They are not predicted. They are not derived. They are observed.

Sigh. You don't understand the idea of a scientific model at all. In a scientific model some input parameters are fed into the model and used to predict some output parameters. In the case of bodies orbiting the Sun, if we know its coordinates and x and y velocities at a given time we can use that to predict:
x velocity at a different time
y velocity at a different time
position at a different time
eccentricity of orbit
the area swept out over any given time period
and countless other properties which were not input parameters. To say this is not predictive is to show a complete failure in understanding of what the word predictive means.

False.

Yet another failure to justify your argument quantitatively.

I meant the subject of the thread, I refer you to the OP if you've forgotten it.

The subject of the thread is Electric Sun theory. Your claim is that in electric sun theory gravity can be ignored. You have provided 0 quantiative evidence for this.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Your posting history suggests otherwise.

It's true I've bent over backwards trying to help people learn this information.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Excuse me, but Peratt is one of the GODS of the EU/ES/EC community and sits on the right hand of Alfven on Mount Epiphany, probably playing dominos with Birkeland.

False. Peratt is just a scientist, no better than you or me. Well, no better than me, let's say.

 

[Arthur Mann]

You have presented 0 quantitative evidence for your claim.

patches welcome

 

[Arthur Mann]

It was never circular and never erroneous.

False.

 

[Tubbythin]

I don't think you know what you're talking about. I sure don't know what you're talking about. In any case, I'm not going to pursue this any further with you.

I think he does. I don't think you know what you're talking about. You can't even use Coulomb's law, let alone Gauss'. To accuse other of a failure to understand electromagnetism is laughable and quite ironic.

 

[Tubbythin]

I'm running out of polite ways to say you're full of beans, so I'll just pretend I don't see your comments from now on.

Well, if you provided any quantitative evidence to show he was full of beans you wouldn't need to keep repeating that unsupported assertion.

 

[Tubbythin]

False.

Ok...

I'm not inclined to keep repeating the same things over and over again. The facts aren't going to change, and your comments aren't going to ever change, so I'm going to pretend your posts don't exist. If you become persistently annoying I guess I'll have to literally use the ignore feature.

Erm, yes you are. Look at the above response you made. It was "False". How many times have you made the unsupported assertion "False" in this thread? You know anybody can go and look back and count. So why even make such a ridiculous claims like "I'm not inclined to keep repeating the same things over and over again."

 

[Tubbythin]

False.

Yet another unsupported assertion with 0 evidence. You really aren't doing very well here at supporting your arguments.

 

[Tubbythin]

patches welcome

Pardon?

 

[Arthur Mann]

Its your constant resorting to the statement "false" without a shred of justification that is getting boring.

I'm under no obligation to justify anything I say to anyone. If I do so, consider it a courtesy.

You don't understand the idea of a scientific model at all.

False.

Your claim is based on what?

To say this is not predictive is to show a complete failure in understanding of what the word predictive means.

False.

I didn't say you couldn't predict the position of the planets over time using your favorite model. You can also accurately predict the positions of the planets over time using Ptolemy's epicycles. Is your model consistent with Ptolemy's model?

The orbits of the planets are not predicted, they are observed. We don't predict the shape of the orbits, we observe it. We don't predict how long it takes Jupiter to revolve around the sun, we observe it. We don't predict how long it takes the moon to revolve around the Earth, we observe it.

None of these things in any way support the notion that "gravity" models are predictive, particularly outside this thin shell around Earth where all known life exists. Outside this bubble, the universe as a whole largely ignores "gravity", obeying the rules of electromagnetic forces, because electromagnetic forces dominate the universe on every scale. The notion that "gravity" is a "force of nature" or some intrinsic property of matter is abjectly false, gravity is only metaphysically tied to real matter and breaks down outside this ostensibly "neutral" environment from sea level to mountaintops. Gravity is a stark misunderstanding that occasionally gives the right answer, not some underlying fundamental property in the universe. It's ptolemic epicycles all over again.

Yet another failure to justify your argument quantitatively.

False.

I'm not arguing, and I'm under no obligation to justify anything.

Your claim is that in electric sun theory gravity can be ignored.

False.

I claim we may safely ignore this idea that matter has some fundamental property that operates according to "gravity" rules. Well over 99% of the universe is observed blithely ignoring these "laws".

You have provided 0 quantiative evidence for this.

False.

 

[Arthur Mann]

You can't even use Coulomb's law, let alone Gauss'.

False.

Also irrelevant.

To accuse other of a failure to understand electromagnetism is laughable and quite ironic.

False.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Well, if you provided any quantitative evidence to show he was full of beans you wouldn't need to keep repeating that unsupported assertion.

False.

In this case it's just the premise that I haven't presented evidence that's false. It's true that I don't have to wait for other people to agree with me to stop discussing an issue.