Energy

[Scrub]

How do you explain the fundamental forces such as electromagnetism and the nuclear forces which we see observe, see and use in everyday life? This is of course taking into account all (I saw) in your model is aether, dust, and friction.

Now remember the very satellites used to create GPS, the internet you currently use, and other things, were all created and launched and maintain functionality because of RE theories such as general relativity and gravity.

[JRowe]

I saw no reason to elaborate on aspects of science shared between models. Why would electromagnetism and nuclear forces fail?

You cannot simply assume satellites are in space as evidence, when this is explicitly denied by the model. They don't work as you propose.

[Scrub]

Jan 11, 2016 10:24:06 GMT JRowe said:

I saw no reason to elaborate on aspects of science shared between models. Why would electromagnetism and nuclear forces fail?

You cannot simply assume satellites are in space as evidence, when this is explicitly denied by the model. They don't work as you propose.

How can they be shared when your model claims stars don't run on nuclear fusion? (We've seen the effects of both fusion and fission energy in the forms of nuclear weapons, and reactor meltdowns, PET scans, etc)

Unless you would be so bold as to claim the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Fukushima meltdown, and Chernobyl never happened.
Secondly all heavier elements including the cosmic dust (from physics) is created by the fusion of hydrogen and helium in stars. In your model this cosmic dust just seems to exist. Where does it originate?

Third electromagnetism is a force generated by electric charge (F(electric)= KQ1Q2/r) in your model if even the basic particles that generate fusion in stars do not exist (hydrogen-1 proton, 1 electron, 1 neutron) how can there be electromagnetic fields?

This is all disregarding the satellites even. We need to underline the basics before we get that far.

[JRowe]

The stars under the DE model not running under nuclear fusion does not mean nuclear fusion is impossible. The stars are far smaller and far closer than the stars under the RE model, there is no reason for them to run under the same process. I don't understand your logic for claiming that the forces wouldn't exist. Where on earth are you getting the idea that hydrogen doesn't exist, or that protons and electrons and neutrons don't?

I don't know the ultimate origin of matter, just as I'm sure you don't. I assume it's in existence, because it is reasonable to. There is no reason that, for example, the RE model of the big bang couldn't have occurred, produced elements, and that's the dust referred to in the model. Again, that's just one possibility. The fact is, we know the necessary elements could exist, and the DE model relies on no special arrangements or facts beyond "They exist."
I'm not interested in speculating on those details, suffice to say we know it's possible.

Once more, I have no idea where you could possibly be getting this notion that nuclear forces or electromagnetic forces don't apply to DET.
The stars under the DE model form under completely different circumstances to the RE, and in a different location, with a different mass and make-up. I have no idea whatsoever why you would expect nuclear fusion to even be possible under those circumstances, in either DET or RET.
Please address what DET actually states, rather than a completely inexplicable straw man. At no point have I claimed anything even approaching "the basic particles that generate fusion in stars do not exist." That's nonsense.
The fact is, stars form under different circumstances under DET, as the model makes abundantly clear. Why are you complaining that they aren't identical to the RE model? That just seems circular.

If you are just trolling, I will delete this thread. I've had to deal with enough trolls, who were only interested in misrepresenting the model, trusting that REers wouldn't bother to fact-check.