Effect And Cause

[Village Idiot]

There are so many things that seem to have been botched up by reversal of cause-and-effect that it is wonder if we have figured anything out the right way.

 

For instance, I am sure they have sunspots backwards. I never met a vortex that didn't seem to fit right in. A deep running vortex on the sun ought to cause a sunspot because that would be a perfect way to perturb the usual regulation of the rate of fusion in stellar plasma. The consequential flares would jam immense electron flow up a conductor towering almost to the resonant frequency of direct current. (Hyperbole) The magnetic impact would be about the most conspicuous side-effect of the whole shebang.

 

So, here on Earth, the astute maneuver is to explain that sun spots are caused by mysterious magnetic plugs and leave us with one mystery: "How do sunspots always make those big vortexes spin?"

 

--------------------------------

 

For another instance, official explanations of atmospheric lightning assert that no one understands what makes it all happen. A big bunch of extra electrons on Earth is what does it so we elect as the best mind, that of a guy that expertly does not understand natural lightning. He is a person who insists that Earth has a zero net electrical charge. Highly charged surfaces of rain drops envelop electrically neutral water inside. Before exploding, frozen, electrified droplets are coated with liquid water down through some minus 40 degrees (C or F, your pleasure). (The mutual repulsion bucks the intermolecular gravity that it takes to solidify, so the best minds say the icy centers somehow create electricity by intercepting into super-cooled liquid water. Reams of paper print out scholastic discussions on what particle size of ice must strike the water. Those ice particles were part of those raindrops all of the way down. The inside of those drops froze at 32 degrees Fahrenheit. All of the charge has been on the outside surface.

 

---------------------

 

The accretion disk for a Super-Massive Black Hole expands into the orbiting matter surrounding it at the galactic central bulge. Hear tell the experts have an esoteric consensus too complicated for the uninitiated to approach, and we are obliged to follow the crowd to overtake them with the right answer to be formatted into their official nomenclature.

 

--------------------

 

Our negative earthly charge returns storm-driven electrons from the ground toward our electrosphere of electrons. The consequential minus-to-positive voltage drop of 100 Volts per meter of elevation has told our experts that such voltage measurements demonstrate a positive electrical charge to our atmosphere. Those electrons would not have been heading upward if it were not for the negative charge of the atmosphere. If you ask me, none of those scientists were taught much about electricity because some civil servant had decided that electricity has nothing to do with galactic infrastructure.

 

------------

 

And so on.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Heedless

[Pincho Paxton]

It's all because Newton said "Attraction." It caused all of the maths to be backwards. There is no such thing as attraction, only push, and bump forces exist.

[Village Idiot]

It's all because Newton said "Attraction." It caused all of the maths to be backwards. There is no such thing as attraction, only push, and bump forces exist.

That is because you said "There is no such thing". There is only "was". We all treat time as one of our dimensions, and as soon as "is" was it became a "was" and no future has ever happened in time to even become an "is".

[Pincho Paxton]

That is because you said "There is no such thing". There is only "was". We all treat time as one of our dimensions, and as soon as "is" was it became a "was" and no future has ever happened in time to even become an "is".

 

What's that got to do with your opening post?

[Village Idiot]

What's that got to do with your opening post?

 

With all due respect, I have been trying to make my responses to you a clue that I am on to you: You seek to confound us into believing your responses to be hiding some relevance beneath incomprehensible statements. If you are not actually simulating conversation then you have my apology.

[Pincho Paxton]

Simulating conversation? I think there is a language barrier. I don't understand what you type.

 

incomprehensible statements

 

It's very simple. Cause, and effect is backwards like you said in your opening post. It's because Newton said that the apple is 'pulled' to the Earth. It is pushed.

 

1/ Newton said 'Attraction'

2/ Einstein bends space time and calls it attraction, but his physics are a push force (he copied Newton).

3/ Einstein then doesn't understand Action At A Distance (because he used attraction, it's not attraction, it's a 'local' push force.)

4/ Then Einstein Gets the Cosmological Constant backwards (because of attraction)

5/ Einstein proposes a Big Bang which uses gravity to 'Pull' material together.

6/ Then Quantum Physics ends up with wave/particle duality (because nobody added the push material which is the space-time grain structure)

7/ Then Dark Matter is proposed (because nobody added the push forces)

 

... and the list goes on. The physics are all backwards because of the word 'attraction', and everything from Newton onwards just copied those physics.

 

That's simple not incomprehensible.

Edited August 18, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[Village Idiot]

Simulating conversation? I think there is a language barrier. I don't understand what you type.

 

 

 

It's very simple. Cause, and effect is backwards like you said in your opening post. It's because Newton said that the apple is 'pulled' to the Earth. It is pushed.

 

1/ Newton said 'Attraction'

2/ Einstein bends space time and calls it attraction, but his physics are a push force (he copied Newton).

3/ Einstein then doesn't understand Action At A Distance (because he used attraction, it's not attraction, it's a 'local' push force.)

4/ Then Einstein Gets the Cosmological Constant backwards (because of attraction)

5/ Einstein proposes a Big Bang which uses gravity to 'Pull' material together.

6/ Then Quantum Physics ends up with wave/particle duality (because nobody added the push material which is the space-time grain structure)

7/ Then Dark Matter is proposed (because nobody added the push forces)

 

... and the list goes on. The physics are all backwards because of the word 'attraction', and everything from Newton onwards just copied those physics.

 

That's simple not incomprehensible.

 

OK. I Googled push theory of gravity and respect anyone's indulgence of theory outside the mundane scope of consensus. Of course, neither must I subscribe to such a theory. I do disagree that we can attribute the folly of mistaking an effect as a cause as being rooted solely in push gravity and am a loss to account for the singular determination that you propose. We easily correlate mysteries that appear together in such a fashion. It does seem stupidly stubborn for those who balk at reexamination of such relationships. Possibly that is due to the Green Tail-feather Effect in the vicarious aspects of education. To borrow a Dr. C's excellent summation; folks rally around celebrity authorities in disdain for innovative contributions.

 

My intended contribution was to encourage defensive attention to a common threat to discovery of truth. For instance, graupel has been listed as possible cause for lightning. I think it is surely the result of instantaneous freezing of super-cooled water at the very moment of lightning discharge when electrostatic repulsion is gone from the remaining molecules.

 

I continue to reach for reasons for so many scholars to screw up so badly that a run-of-the-mill slob can outclass them with just common sense.

[Pincho Paxton]

My intended contribution was to encourage defensive attention to a common threat to discovery of truth. For instance, graupel has been listed as possible cause for lightning. I think it is surely the result of instantaneous freezing of super-cooled water at the very moment of lightning discharge when electrostatic repulsion is gone from the remaining molecules.

 

You accidentally get things right when you reverse them, that's the problem you are having here. Lightening forks downwards, and you can't fork something backwards, because forks are created by a blockage of energy. So even lightening physics are backwards as well. Lightening travels towards the ground. The discharge from the Earth is not the lightening. There are two sets of physics happening at the same time, and the wrong one is being called lightening.

[Village Idiot]

You accidentally get things right when you reverse them, that's the problem you are having here. Lightening forks downwards, and you can't fork something backwards, because forks are created by a blockage of energy. So even lightening physics are backwards as well. Lightening travels towards the ground. The discharge from the Earth is not the lightening. There are two sets of physics happening at the same time, and the wrong one is being called lightening.

 

I do not get this stuff wrong. I need not care if you say that thunder travels from my ear to that flash of light. Go ahead if you wish. The sparks propagate either way, and it does not matter. A child learns about sparks with a wool rug in a dry-air environment, then grows up to be a distinguished professor without learning the difference when it comes to lightning. Our atmosphere is just lousy with extra electrons. They act like little springs that almost never bottom out. Nature stores electrical energy by squeezing them together. That is it! No dam fools need to noodle out how nature separates positive charges from negative charges. If that had to happen, you would have to go all ways at once to pull them farther apart. How is that going to intensify energy into little bitty places? It would not, but there they all go taking tax dollars to discover charge separation!

[Pincho Paxton]

I do not get this stuff wrong. I need not care if you say that thunder travels from my ear to that flash of light. Go ahead if you wish. The sparks propagate either way, and it does not matter. A child learns about sparks with a wool rug in a dry-air environment, then grows up to be a distinguished professor without learning the difference when it comes to lightning. Our atmosphere is just lousy with extra electrons. They act like little springs that almost never bottom out. Nature stores electrical energy by squeezing them together. That is it! No dam fools need to noodle out how nature separates positive charges from negative charges. If that had to happen, you would have to go all ways at once to pull them farther apart. How is that going to intensify energy into little bitty places? It would not, but there they all go taking tax dollars to discover charge separation!

 

Electrons are backwards as well. The child is growing up with science as their knowledge base. So they automatically get this backwards, and by doing so agree with science. Cause and Effect is once again backwards because of Newton. To get a push gravity electrons have to be negative mass, and currently they have a positive mass (backwards again). The child is the evolution of Newton's mistake.

Edited August 18, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[Village Idiot]

Electrons are backwards as well. The child is growing up with science as their knowledge base. So they automatically get this backwards, and by doing so agree with science. Cause and Effect is once again backwards because of Newton. To get a push gravity electrons have to be negative mass, and currently they have a positive mass (backwards again). The child is the evolution of Newton's mistake.

 

Does anyone but you think that is so? It would take a lot of authentication to establish any of that in my mind. So far, that is in short supply. Got evidence? Got proof? Got any believers?

[Pincho Paxton]

Does anyone but you think that is so? It would take a lot of authentication to establish any of that in my mind. So far, that is in short supply. Got evidence? Got proof? Got any believers?

 

I have some believers, people even make songs about me. To test the mass of an electron a particle was fired towards the electron, and the curve of that particle dictated its mass...

 

...however... If you look at a plughole in your sink, or a whirlpool, or Niagara Falls, particles spin around holes. A hole is missing mass, therefore a curvature around a body is created by negative mass. Electrons are holes, the Earth is full of electrons, an asteroid curves around the Earth because of negative mass, not positive mass. The curvature is a push force. Put a paper boat in your sink, and pull out the plug. The boat curves around the hole, the force is the water. The water is not at a distance from the boat, it is local to the boat. There is no attraction to the plughole, there is a push force from the water. You literally cannot pull anything. Try to pull up your trousers, and your fingers are behind atoms. You are pushing up your trousers. There exist no pull forces.

[CraigD]

Lightening forks downwards, and you can't fork something backwards, because forks are created by a blockage of energy. So even lightening physics are backwards as well.

This is simply wrong, and is shown so by many photographs.

 

The bright, brief shapes in the sky we call lightning sometimes begin in clouds and spread downward to the ground, sometimes go from cloud to cloud, and sometimes begin on the ground (usually high points, such as towers) and spread upward, sometimes with many, sometimes with few or no visible forks in either direction.

 

(sources [http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/faq/faq_ltg.php]NSSL Frequently Asked Questions[/url], this and this and stormchaser/photographer’s webpages)

 

:naughty: Pincho, you must research your claims before making them, and back them up with links and reference. This isn’t just a request from Heedless and me, it’s a site rule!

[Pincho Paxton]

The bright, brief shapes in the sky we call lightning sometimes begin in clouds and spread downward to the ground, sometimes go from cloud to cloud, and sometimes begin on the ground (usually high points, such as towers) and spread upward, sometimes with many, sometimes with few or no visible forks in either direction.

 

However, you miss the point. The angle of the forks for up, is up. The angle of the forks for down is down. I said that the angle is dictated by the flow. Science says that lightening goes up from the ground. I was correcting that statement. So the images prove what I said.

[Buffy]

... Science says that lightening goes up from the ground. I was correcting that statement.

Because it actually does, even when it goes down. When a strike comes from the clouds--and to agree with your other point, does fork that direction--it will find an initial contact point, which will release large amounts of built up charge imbalance from the ground, sending that balance UP. The following image demonstrates this:

 

But Tuesday's just as bad, :phones:

Buffy

[Village Idiot]

Put a paper boat in your sink, and pull out the plug.

 

OK, here goes: I pulled the plug!

 

 

There exist no pull forces.

 

Then what is this plug doing in my hand?