Philosophy Discussion Forums

Jacob10 wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 3:06 pm

Atla wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 12:28 pm

Jacob10 wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 3:42 am The direction of the electromagnetic field flow through a bar magnet clearly produces 2 different forces in nature that when interacting produce different results.

How do you imagine this? There are 2 directions in a 1-dimensional universe, but we live in an at least 3-dimensional universe. Shouldn't then there be as many EM forces, as there are 3D directions?

There are two different magnetic forces in the universe created by electromagnetic fields.The universe is saturated with electromagnetic fields.Things spin in the universe at both macro and micro levels and this spin is caused by the electromagnetic fields.They don’t spin as a result of nonsense theories that secular scientists have dreamt up.

What "nonsense theories"? Can you name any of these theories and coherently describe why it's wrong?

The gravity theory which is just a made up theory that came about as a result of scientists believing that natures logic is 0=1 and 1=0.They still haven’t got a clue what this gravity force is and they are the ones who invented it….lol

In other words believing that the elephants leg is identical in every respect to its trunk.

The 2 electromagnetic forces in nature are different and have been separated.

Just like black and white are different.

The single Big Bang theory…another nonsense theory.

Matter is entering and exiting many many holes in the universe.So how could it have all entered from a single point and how can it all exit from a single point for goodness sake.

Observations are confirming the universe is not expanding uniformly and the reason is we have expansions and contractions happening all over the universe.

Jacob10 wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 3:42 am …..and I am struggling to understand scientist logic that makes them think that the 2 forces in nature are the same in every single aspect when clearly they are not………

The direction of the electromagnetic field flow through a bar magnet clearly produces 2 different forces in nature that when interacting produce different results.

The electromagnetic field is the common denominator for these differing forces yes.

Explain why the 4 magnetic interactions are not identical if there is just one common force.

This is a fundamental point that dictates the whole of scientific philosophy.

In what way do you think scientists think they are "the same in every single aspect?" When physicists solve problems with bar magnets, do you think they're getting incorrect answers for more than a century?

Are you saying that physicists treat north poles as south poles and south poles as north poles? What exactly is it that you're saying physicists are doing wrong? What exactly? Can you articulate it?

Can you explain why physicists and engineers are able to build electronics if they're getting something as simple as bar magnets wrong?

Astro Cat wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 4:40 pm

Jacob10 wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 3:42 am …..and I am struggling to understand scientist logic that makes them think that the 2 forces in nature are the same in every single aspect when clearly they are not………

The direction of the electromagnetic field flow through a bar magnet clearly produces 2 different forces in nature that when interacting produce different results.

The electromagnetic field is the common denominator for these differing forces yes.

Explain why the 4 magnetic interactions are not identical if there is just one common force.

This is a fundamental point that dictates the whole of scientific philosophy.

In what way do you think scientists think they are "the same in every single aspect?" When physicists solve problems with bar magnets, do you think they're getting incorrect answers for more than a century?

Are you saying that physicists treat north poles as south poles and south poles as north poles? What exactly is it that you're saying physicists are doing wrong? What exactly? Can you articulate it?

Can you explain why physicists and engineers are able to build electronics if they're getting something as simple as bar magnets wrong?

They are getting everything wrong because the 2 forces of nature are equal but opposite so not identical.As they are opposite then you can’t bring two N poles together because the electromagnetic field directions are opposite.The same with 2 S poles.

If the magnetic field directions are the same you get attractions .

These repulsion/attraction interactions are happening all the time in the universe because planets/stars and sub atomic particles are spinning electromagnets.

You can’t have a theory that only recognises attractions and completely ignores repulsions when it is obvious that the universe has both electromagnetic force attraction and repulsion’s occurring all the time at both the macro and micro levels.

Jacob10 wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 5:08 pm They are getting everything wrong because the 2 forces of nature are equal but opposite so not identical.As they are opposite then you can’t bring two N poles together because the electromagnetic field directions are opposite.The same with 2 S poles.

If the magnetic field directions are the same you get attractions .

These repulsion/attraction interactions are happening all the time in the universe because planets/stars and sub atomic particles are spinning electromagnets.

You can’t have a theory that only recognises attractions and completely ignores repulsions when it is obvious that the universe has both electromagnetic force attraction and repulsion’s occurring all the time at both the macro and micro levels.

You didn't answer my question: if scientists are getting magnetism so wrong, then how are they correctly solving magnetism related problems?

For instance, there are a ton of magnets in electronics, and electronics seem to work fine.

How do you propose engineers are building electronics correctly if scientists supposedly understand magnetism wrong?

Astro Cat wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 6:13 pm

Jacob10 wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 5:08 pm They are getting everything wrong because the 2 forces of nature are equal but opposite so not identical.As they are opposite then you can’t bring two N poles together because the electromagnetic field directions are opposite.The same with 2 S poles.

If the magnetic field directions are the same you get attractions .

These repulsion/attraction interactions are happening all the time in the universe because planets/stars and sub atomic particles are spinning electromagnets.

You can’t have a theory that only recognises attractions and completely ignores repulsions when it is obvious that the universe has both electromagnetic force attraction and repulsion’s occurring all the time at both the macro and micro levels.

You didn't answer my question: if scientists are getting magnetism so wrong, then how are they correctly solving magnetism related problems?

For instance, there are a ton of magnets in electronics, and electronics seem to work fine.

How do you propose engineers are building electronics correctly if scientists supposedly understand magnetism wrong?

Cat, we can safely ignore Jacob. We have given him every chance to explain himself but he keeps just talking smack at us, sprinkled with non sequiturs. One positive is that his claims had me searching for info on huge magnetic fields in the universe, which was interesting - a silk purse from pig's ear posts :)

More relevantly, he failed to offer any reasonable explanations to justify his beliefs. I have been checking with theists online for years now. I always wanted them to be right about God existing and I just needed some indication that they could offer more than tribalism, dogma, naive claims, charm, insults and complaints - the latter usually comes after someone protests about their insults.

I looked into NDEs, thinking that this may give a clue as to something "extra" (dimensions?) in reality. However, Susan Blackmore already did that (she also hoped that it was real). After some time studying NDEs, all the evidence pointed to the experiences being brain activity, not supernatural. So many NDE accounts are coloured by people's conscious and unconscious religious beliefs - being the lens through which many patients interpreted their experiences. It's deeply subjective and, of course, when your body is dead and your brain is on its last few minutes of oxygen, subjectivity is rather important!

Mostly, when quizzing theists, I look for signs of spiritual advancement, with unusually high levels of maturity, honesty, humility, goodwill, perceptiveness and a sense of inner peace. If those qualities are not manifest, then we are dealing with someone with no special knowledge to offer, just dogma.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 9:01 pm One positive is that his claims had me searching for info on huge magnetic fields in the universe, which was interesting - a silk purse from pig's ear posts

I read that Quanta (love that zine, btw) article you posted somewhere (I think it was just a few posts up). I actually haven't heard of this work, and it's funny to me how specialized science is to the point that even within the same field the left hand sometimes doesn't know what the right is doing. I have some people in my department that I'm gonna talk to and see if they know anything about primordial magnetic fields because that's pretty interesting if there's something to it.

At first I thought it would be about polarization in the CMB, but it turned out to be way more interesting!

Sy Borg wrote:Mostly, when quizzing theists, I look for signs of spiritual advancement, with unusually high levels of maturity, honesty, humility, goodwill, perceptiveness and a sense of inner peace. If those qualities are not manifest, then we are dealing with someone with no special knowledge to offer, just dogma.

100% with you there. These are good things to look for in any discussion partner to learn new things.

Astro Cat wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 9:25 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 9:01 pm One positive is that his claims had me searching for info on huge magnetic fields in the universe, which was interesting - a silk purse from pig's ear posts :)

I read that Quanta (love that zine, btw) article you posted somewhere (I think it was just a few posts up). I actually haven't heard of this work, and it's funny to me how specialized science is to the point that even within the same field the left hand sometimes doesn't know what the right is doing. I have some people in my department that I'm gonna talk to and see if they know anything about primordial magnetic fields because that's pretty interesting if there's something to it.

At first I thought it would be about polarization in the CMB, but it turned out to be way more interesting!

Sy Borg wrote:Mostly, when quizzing theists, I look for signs of spiritual advancement, with unusually high levels of maturity, honesty, humility, goodwill, perceptiveness and a sense of inner peace. If those qualities are not manifest, then we are dealing with someone with no special knowledge to offer, just dogma.

100% with you there. These are good things to look for in any discussion partner to learn new things.

I have had odd thoughts about the forces too, including the idea that there are only two forces - those that attract and those that repel. However, the Standard Model has gotten so many things right that it at least has to be a hint as to the ontology of it all, that the noumena is at least approaching the phenomena. How far we are from the actual reality, no one knows, but I suspect that SM has enough issues to be supplanted in the next hundred years by a better model. We are overdue for another Einstein.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 9:38 pm I have had odd thoughts about the forces too, including the idea that there are only two forces - those that attract and those that repel. However, the Standard Model has gotten so many things right that it at least has to be a hint as to the ontology of it all, that the noumena is at least approaching the phenomena. How far we are from the actual reality, no one knows, but I suspect that SM has enough issues to be supplanted in the next hundred years by a better model. We are overdue for another Einstein.

When I was finishing undergrad and having to decide on how to specialize, the only thing that stopped me from doing more particle stuff was the lack of a quantum chromodynamics course anywhere but on the coasts (and while I try not to pinpoint where I am on the map, I guess that's safely broad to say that I don't live on the coasts).

I wonder what I'd be researching now if I went that route?

Astro Cat wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 9:43 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 9:38 pm I have had odd thoughts about the forces too, including the idea that there are only two forces - those that attract and those that repel. However, the Standard Model has gotten so many things right that it at least has to be a hint as to the ontology of it all, that the noumena is at least approaching the phenomena. How far we are from the actual reality, no one knows, but I suspect that SM has enough issues to be supplanted in the next hundred years by a better model. We are overdue for another Einstein.

When I was finishing undergrad and having to decide on how to specialize, the only thing that stopped me from doing more particle stuff was the lack of a quantum chromodynamics course anywhere but on the coasts (and while I try not to pinpoint where I am on the map, I guess that's safely broad to say that I don't live on the coasts).

I wonder what I'd be researching now if I went that route?

It would be interesting. Quarks are incredibly bizarre. Tiny fragments of the very early universe when it was all denser than a neutron star, that MUST hang out in threes. If you break the bond, new quarks come into being and it's back to three. And they are whizzing around each other at a significant proportion of light speed.

It's interesting, though logical enough due to habituation, that the smaller we go or the larger we go, the more mysterious and bizarre everything seems. Dawkins referred to this as "middle world" because we are only slightly more large than the smallest things than we are small compared to the largest things.

Jacob10 wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 3:42 am
...and I am struggling to understand scientist logic

That has to be the winner as the most sensible statement you have posted so far.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 9:38 pm

Astro Cat wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 9:25 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑June 21st, 2022, 9:01 pm One positive is that his claims had me searching for info on huge magnetic fields in the universe, which was interesting - a silk purse from pig's ear posts

I read that Quanta (love that zine, btw) article you posted somewhere (I think it was just a few posts up). I actually haven't heard of this work, and it's funny to me how specialized science is to the point that even within the same field the left hand sometimes doesn't know what the right is doing. I have some people in my department that I'm gonna talk to and see if they know anything about primordial magnetic fields because that's pretty interesting if there's something to it.

At first I thought it would be about polarization in the CMB, but it turned out to be way more interesting!

Sy Borg wrote:Mostly, when quizzing theists, I look for signs of spiritual advancement, with unusually high levels of maturity, honesty, humility, goodwill, perceptiveness and a sense of inner peace. If those qualities are not manifest, then we are dealing with someone with no special knowledge to offer, just dogma.

100% with you there. These are good things to look for in any discussion partner to learn new things.

I have had odd thoughts about the forces too, including the idea that there are only two forces - those that attract and those that repel. However, the Standard Model has gotten so many things right that it at least has to be a hint as to the ontology of it all, that the noumena is at least approaching the phenomena. How far we are from the actual reality, no one knows, but I suspect that SM has enough issues to be supplanted in the next hundred years by a better model. We are overdue for another Einstein.

Have you heard of common sense? There are two forces in the universe that are equal but opposite and therefore different.The 4 magnetic force interactions confirm this.The 4 combination interactions do not give the same result.Explain why not.You can’t,so you just dismiss it as irrelevant and in a nutshell that sums up secular science and why the gravity theory is an illusionary flowery math theory that nobody has a clue about.

The universe is saturated with electromagnetic fields that create big bangs and big crunches all the time so the single Big Bang theory is a load of nonsense and observations are confirming it.

To get electromagnetic fields you need spin to get the electrical input to get the electrical input you need electromagnetic fields.Things are spinning in the universe at the macro and micro levels i.e. stars,planets,sub atomic particles creating electromagnets that create electromagnetic forces that interact in the 4 possible ways i.e. 2 attractions and 2 repulsion’s which is all you need for push/pull force interactions which incidentally is what holds matter together and not glue as secular scientists speculate about.Glue?….really? funny.

Secondly,if your science makes no connection whatsoever to psychology and the workings of the brain/mind…..trash it…it ain’t worth the paper it is written on.Secular scientific theories make no connection in that respect.The issue science has is that it has no understanding of consciousness and it’s relevance to scientific theories.

The reason why science exists is because commonsense is unreliable.

Commonsense does not necessarily apply to the very large, the very small, the very transient or the very long-lived. It applies to that which is common to humans at human scales. Most of reality has nothing to do with humans, though. Consider Sagan's "pale blue dot" speech:

Sy Borg wrote: ↑June 22nd, 2022, 1:02 am The reason why science exists is because commonsense is unreliable.

Commonsense does not necessarily apply to the very large, the very small, the very transient or the very long-lived. It applies to that which is common to humans at human scales. Most of reality has nothing to do with humans, though. Consider Sagan's "pale blue dot" speech:

In your mixed up mind that might be the case.