@MikeB
Quote:

Ancient abrahamic texts reffer to Orion as Nimrod. And talks about "evil Nimrod vs. the righteous Abraham",

Not Guilty

Religion is all about power. Disagreeing with a priest is heresy.
Science is about the advancement of knowledge, improving life for all, not just the "chosen" few.

Nimrod was a man who refused to kowtow to a priest, but was too strong to be bullied.
Obviously the author of the Abrahamic texts was not very fond of him.

Last edited by Nimrod on 02-May-2011 at 01:45 PM.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: The moon doesn't spin (from our perspective) for the same reason a compass always points north. Thanks. It's a good idea ensure your statements have the proper frame of reference. That is clearer. Now the problem of the compass always pointing north? There are two problems here and both have to do with a frame of refernce... *North is South! In magnetics opposite attract. The North of a compass is the actual north of the needle within the compass. Which means the compass doesn't point to magnetic north pole but really what is the magnetic south pole. And this is of course in what we call the northern hemisphere.. Which brings us to * Southern hemisphere. The needle of the compass always points to the closet pole because it's got the dominant attraction. The compass in the southern hemisphere points to the north magnetic pole which is between Antarctica and Australia. ... In summary, (backwards to the points) a compass does not always point north. The compass will point to the closet pole so this depends upon in which hemisphere the compass is located. The other issue is where you live in the northern hemisphere the compass points to the South pole which is in the Arctic ocean by Canada. Now what I find interesting is the suns magnetic poles flip and they do so in a manner that's far more frequent than the planets flip. Why is this interesting? If the Lou/Mike swag of 'it's all magnetics' is true then there should be some major orbital problems with our planet when the North pole swings to our equator and then opposite of where it pointed before. It doesn't appear to make a difference. In addition we have our planet and one other whose match our magnetic pole alignment. We have 2 planets where the alignment is inverted, compared to ours. We have 2 planets whose alignment is horizontal where ours is more vertical. Which I think is data against magnetism being the current driving force for planets orbiting planets.

Once again you overcomplicate the situation.
Magnetic field of the earth runs along the poles. Attraction will always be perpendicular towards the earth's core. Hence the same side of the moon will always face in towards the earth regardless of which pole the moon is closer to. Infact, the moon's apparent non-rotation is what proves magnetism and not the mythical gravity. If the moon had a geodynamo then it would actually be free to rotate.

Last edited by Lou on 02-May-2011 at 02:39 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: Nostradamus: " 'Mabus' then will soon die, there will come Of people and beasts a horrible rout: Then suddenly one will see vengeance, Hundred, hand, thirst, hunger when the comet will run." Is oba-MABUS-h dead?

*shivers*

And if a bus had fallen from the ma nahattan bridge today you could#ve even used the same quote.

*shivers*

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@Lou

Quote:

Once again you overcomplicate the situation.

BrianK just explained to you, with the simple example of a compass needle, why the moon could not possibly owe its rotational characteristics to magnetism.

You are overcomplicating the issue, since your theory requires us to completely dismiss the entire body of physics and all its observations and verified predictions before we could accept it.

Why are we not willing to dismiss the existing physics to fit your religion? Because you and your magnetics friends still haven't explained to us why, if we're so wrong, it is that we can put probes out beyond the heliopause using the equations of Einstein. Where are your better predictions? They don't exist!

Or why it is that we choose to put rockets into orbit using expensive chemical thrust, rather than cheap electromagnets.

Or why the non-magnetic planets still orbit the Sun.

Or why Pluto's orbit is so different from those of the planets.

Or why it is that all of Jupiter's moons stay in orbit, while only Ganymede has a magnetic field.



Actually, speaking of Ganymede, you say this about the moon:

Quote:

Magnetic field of the earth runs along the poles. Attraction will always be perpendicular towards the earth's core. Hence the same side of the moon will always face in towards the earth regardless of which pole the moon is closer to. Infact, the moon's apparent non-rotation is what proves magnetism and not the mythical gravity. If the moon had a geodynamo then it would actually be free to rotate.

So, you think that moons with geomagnetic fields are free to rotate?

So why then does Ganymede not rotate? It has a magnetic field! It should be, by your logic, free to rotate.

Instead it is 'tidally locked' with Jupiter, just as the Moon is with Earth. Because of Gravity.

Last edited by T-J on 02-May-2011 at 03:17 PM.

7 April:

Quote:

An interesting riddle poem from Nostradamus: "During the appearance of The Bearded Star, the three great princes will be made enemies. The shaky peace on earth will be struck by fire from the skies. Po, The winding Tiber, a serpent placed on the shore." C2 Q4 MABUS will soon die, Then will come a horrible slaughter of people and animals At once vengance revealed coming from a hundred hands "Thirst and Famine when The Comet shall pass C2 Q72 "After a great misery for mankind, an ever greater approaches The great cycle of the centuries renewed, it will rain blood, milk, famine, war disease In the sky will be seen a great fire dragging a trail of sparks." C2 Q 46 Maybe Nostradamus performed some ancient shaman rituels to be able to use his third eye to talk to other dimensional beings under influence of DMT. It's said to be very spiritual experience, a life changing experience, but most stuff is quickly forgotten afterwards.

Quote:

Quote: Nostradamus: " 'Mabus' then will soon die, there will come Of people and beasts a horrible rout: Then suddenly one will see vengeance, Hundred, hand, thirst, hunger when the comet will run." Is oba-MABUS-h dead? *shivers* And if a bus had fallen from the ma nahattan bridge today you could#ve even used the same quote. *shivers*

BTW, the three great princes is probably Orion in this riddle.

Quote:

Quote: They won't bother watching those videos. Also watch the 2nd video. Basically the scientist wonders what was of so great significance with regard to Orion to which the piramids are aligned and pointing to (The Sphinx pointing to the rising sun while the great piramids point towards Orion). You can easily find Orion due to the 3 bright stars at about equal distance from each other in an almost straight line, perpendicular to the middle of Orion's belt is Betelgeuse, a star which is one the verge of going supernova (in galactic terms). I think the answer is likely the orbittal path of Nibiru and the Piramids signify the biggest hint towards Nibiru here on earth. This is (or was) likely the direction of where Nibiru would be located as viewed from earth. The Egyptions believed it points to the kingdom of Osiris. Also known as the "king of the underworld" and "judge of the dead". The Sphinx points to Ra's rising point (Lord of Sky and Life). Ancient abrahamic texts reffer to Orion as Nimrod. And talks about "evil Nimrod vs. the righteous Abraham", cataclysmic collision between good and evil and monotheism against polytheism. Nimrod has been indentified as Marduk (according to the summerians Nibiru is Marduk's star). Nimrod also symbolizes the foundation of Freemasonry.

And don't forget in relation to Orion:

The Washington Post,
31-Dec-1983,
Front Page Article

Quote:

Mystery Heavenly Body Discovered! A heavenly body possibly as large as the giant planet Jupiter and possibly so close to Earth that it would be part of this solar system has been found in the direction of the constellation Orion by an orbiting telescope aboard the U.S. infrared astronomical satellite. So mysterious is the object that astronomers do not know if it is a planet, a giant comet, a nearby "protostar" that never got hot enough to become a star, a distant galaxy so young that it is still in the process of forming its first stars or a galaxy so shrouded in dust that none of the light cast by its stars ever gets through. "All I can tell you is that we don't know what it is," Dr. Gerry Neugebauer, IRAS chief scientist for California's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and director of the Palomar Observatory for the California Institute of Technology said in an interview. The most fascinating explanation of this mystery body, which is so cold it casts no light and has never been seen by optical telescopes on Earth or in space, is that it is a giant gaseous planet, as large as Jupiter and as close to Earth as 50 billion miles. While that may seem like a great distance in earthbound terms, it is a stone's throw in cosmological terms, so close in fact that it would be the nearest heavenly body to Earth beyond the outermost planet Pluto. "If it is really that close, it would be a part of our solar system," said Dr. James Houck of Cornell University's Center for Radio Physics and Space Research and a member of the IRAS science team. "If it is that close, I don't know how the world's planetary scientists would even begin to classify it." The mystery body was seen twice by the infrared satellite as it scanned the northern sky from last January to November, when the satellite ran out of the super cold helium that allowed its telescope to see the coldest bodies in the heavens. The second observation took place six months after the first and suggested the mystery body had not moved from its spot in the sky near the western edge of the constellation Orion in that time. "This suggests it's not a comet because a comet would not be as large as the one we've observed and a comet would probably have moved," Houck said. "A planet may have moved if it were as close as 50 billion miles but it could still be a more distant planet and not have moved in six months time. Whatever it is, Houck said, the mystery body is so cold its temperature is no more than 40 degrees above "absolute" zero, which is 459 degrees Fahrenheit below zero. The telescope aboard IRAS is cooled so low and is so sensitive it can "see" objects in the heavens that are only 20 degrees above absolute zero. When IRAS scientists first saw the mystery body and calculated that it could be as close as 50 billion miles, there was some speculation that it might be moving toward Earth. "It's not incoming mail," Cal Tech's Neugebauer said. "I want to douse that idea with as much cold water as I can." Then what is it? What if it is as large as Jupiter and so close to the sun it would be part of the solar system? Conceivably, it could be the 10th planet astronomers have searched for in vain. It also might be a Jupiter-like star that started out to become a star eons ago but never got hot enough like the sun to become a star. While they cannot disprove that notion, Neugebauer and Houck are so bedeviled by it that they do not want to accept it. Neugebauer and Houck "hope" the mystery body is a distant galaxy either so young that its stars have not begun to shine or so surrounded by dust that its starlight cannot penetrate the shroud. "I believe it's one of these dark, young galaxies that we have never been able to observe before," Neugebauer said. "If it is, then it is a major step forward in our understanding of the size of the universe, how the universe formed and how it continues to form as time goes on." The next step in pinpointing what the mystery body is, Neugebauer said, is to search for it with the world's largest optical telescopes. Already, the 100-inch diameter telescope at Cerro del Tololo in Chile has begun its search and the 200-inch telescope at Palomar Mountain in California has ear-marked several nights next year to look for it. If the body is close enough and emits even a hint of light, the Palomar telescope should find it since the infrared satellite has pinpointed its position.

Last edited by MikeB on 04-May-2011 at 01:42 AM.
Last edited by MikeB on 02-May-2011 at 05:15 PM.

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote: @Lou Quote: Once again you overcomplicate the situation. BrianK just explained to you, with the simple example of a compass needle, why the moon could not possibly owe its rotational characteristics to magnetism. You are overcomplicating the issue, since your theory requires us to completely dismiss the entire body of physics and all its observations and verified predictions before we could accept it. Why are we not willing to dismiss the existing physics to fit your religion? Because you and your magnetics friends still haven't explained to us why, if we're so wrong, it is that we can put probes out beyond the heliopause using the equations of Einstein. Where are your better predictions? They don't exist! Or why it is that we choose to put rockets into orbit using expensive chemical thrust, rather than cheap electromagnets. Or why the non-magnetic planets still orbit the Sun. Or why Pluto's orbit is so different from those of the planets. Or why it is that all of Jupiter's moons stay in orbit, while only Ganymede has a magnetic field. Actually, speaking of Ganymede, you say this about the moon: Quote: Magnetic field of the earth runs along the poles. Attraction will always be perpendicular towards the earth's core. Hence the same side of the moon will always face in towards the earth regardless of which pole the moon is closer to. Infact, the moon's apparent non-rotation is what proves magnetism and not the mythical gravity. If the moon had a geodynamo then it would actually be free to rotate. So, you think that moons with geomagnetic fields are free to rotate? So why then does Ganymede not rotate? It has a magnetic field! It should be, by your logic, free to rotate. Instead it is 'tidally locked' with Jupiter, just as the Moon is with Earth. Because of Gravity.

You like to put words in people's mouths.
You also fail to draw conclusions based on postings I make that went over your heads.
You even answered your own stupid questions but aren't bright enough to realize it.
The meager magnetosphere is buried within Jupiter's much larger magnetic field and connected to it through open field lines. Ganymede doesn't have a geodynamo, it contains lots of iron which SUPRISE is magnetic.

FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field_of_the_Moon

In any simulation of gravity, objects spiral into each other at exponentially increasing speed unless you introduce another constant force. Gravity is like teaching children that the stork delivers babies.

Further more there's no such thing as a non-magnetic planet because nothing is 100% pure. You are generallizing. Because Venus lost it's geodynamo, it has a weak magnetic field and it's orbit is the most circular and that is probably what disrupted it's rotation. So you see magnetism explains more things than gravity.
A polarized geodynamo like the earth has is what causes the eliptical orbits thanks to the attraction and repulsion properties of whichever pole is closest to the sun. The earth's rotation keeps our tilt stable as it does all other bodies in space.

Last edited by Lou on 02-May-2011 at 05:56 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

You like to put words in people's mouths. You also fail to draw conclusions based on postings I make that went over your heads. You even answered your own stupid questions but aren't bright enough to realize it.

I have not quoted you out of context. Every stupid statement I've attributed to you in quotes has been made by you, in that context.

I have drawn conclusions based on the overwhelming body of science. You have failed to provide any evidence to support your idea, therefore I have no obligation to draw conclusions based on your opinion. The evidence does not support you.

You have also made no points that have gone over anyone's head. You have made some points that have been so far from correct that they're not even wrong, but that's not the same thing, is it?

Quote:

You even answered your own stupid questions but aren't bright enough to realize it. The meager magnetosphere is buried within Jupiter's much larger magnetic field and connected to it through open field lines. Ganymede doesn't have a geodynamo, it contains lots of iron which SUPRISE is magnetic.

Wrong.

Ganymede has a metallic core which is kept liquid by tidal heating. A geo-dynamo then generates the magnetic field. According to your stupid theory this should allow it to rotate.

This does not happen, therefore your theory is wrong regarding Ganymede.

Therefore with absolutely zero evidence supporting its application to the Moon, we should also reject it there.

Quote:

The earth's rotation keeps our tilt stable as it does all other bodies in space.

What a shame that the Earth's orbit actually varies according to the laws of gravitational motion.

And what a great shame that the Earth (and the other planets) have not responded in any way to the halving of the Sun's magnetic field strength over the past 22 years.

If they don't react to its halving, it is impossible to rationally stick to the belief that it is the driving force keeping them where they are.

Quote:

In any simulation of gravity, objects spiral into each other at exponentially increasing speed unless you introduce another constant force. Gravity is like teaching children that the stork delivers babies.

Point to one peer-reviewed simulation of gravity that shows this!

And teaching children what you believe with absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever would be tantamount to teaching Intelligent Design in the science classroom.

Last edited by T-J on 02-May-2011 at 06:04 PM.
Last edited by T-J on 02-May-2011 at 06:01 PM.
Last edited by T-J on 02-May-2011 at 05:54 PM.

@T-J

Still haven't done the math I see... What's the problem? I handed you the numbers to work with... What more do you need?

BTW, the NASA first theorized Tyche could have a 26 million year orbit around the Sun and now theorizes it can be a 1.8 million year orbit around the sun. However they haven't changed the name for their theory. Hence IMO if Tyche only has an orbit of a few thousands years it should thus be called Nibiru instead.

Both Tyche and Nibiru regards a Brown Dwarf Star (equals a massy Jupiter-like planet).

@Kronos

Quote:

The later is a boring object very far away of unknown quality

The second largest object in our solar system is IMO under no circumstances boring.

Last edited by MikeB on 02-May-2011 at 07:06 PM.

Washington post (1983):

Quote:

as large as Jupiter and as close to Earth as 50 billion miles

That's only about 534 AU (so much closer than Tyche is theorized to be). Or 0,008 lightyears.

Last edited by MikeB on 02-May-2011 at 07:43 PM.

Let's assume:

12/31 1983 => 50 billion miles away or about 80 billion kilometers.
9/11 2011=> Closest point to the sun.

10,116 Days or 1,445 Weeks and 1 Days or about 27,7 years.

Theoretical speed of this Brown Dwarf star: 91 km/s.

Earh's orbit speed: 29.783 km/s

IMO now we're talking about a reaslistic orbit speed!

Last edited by MikeB on 02-May-2011 at 08:14 PM.

@MikeB

All those numbers put that object outside Pluto's orbit (== Tycho) while your Nibiru is supposed to travel between Earth and Sun.

On a such low orbit it would need to travel at very high speed, while a 4000 year orbit would make that an extremly eliptic orbit.

Probraly still wouldn't work out without it reaching escape velocity at one point of it's orbit (which of course means it was never an orbit to start with).

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@Kronos

First it's Tyche and second Pluto isn't Tyche. It's a very small planet and NASA isn't looking for Pluto.

Quote:

while your Nibiru is supposed to travel between Earth and Sun

Of course, like many 'comets' do. They enter the solar system, go away and it often takes thousands of years for them to return.

Quote:

an extremly eliptic orbit

Of course, some comets take up over 10,000 years to return home. Actually this has been stated several times. The orbit of Pluto is only slightly more similar to that of Nibiru compared to the other planets directly orbitting the sun.

Last edited by MikeB on 02-May-2011 at 08:25 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Still haven't done the math I see... What's the problem? I handed you the numbers to work with... What more do you need?

Here's the polite version:

That's rich coming from you, who won't do a single sum or equation when the results contradict your precious magnets theory.

Since you and Sitchin and all the other cranks you assign such undeserved credibility to are allowed to just make crap up to fill any role they need, and since you're allowed to reference works of fiction like Nostradamus' Prophecies or Sitchin's translations, I could simply assert based on the work of Douglas Adams that the answer is 42 and that's my strongly held faith on the matter.

But, being a scientist, one must do the maths.

The hypothetical force between the Sun and proposed object Tyche would be approximately 4.529 x10 ^25 newtons.

Calculated in about two minutes using F = G*(m1*m2)/r², also known as Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, used because I simply can't be bothered to spend time applying relativity to this. You and Lou may not believe in it, but here's your big problem you still haven't been able to explain away - it works.

Cue yet another fallacious argument about magnets, I suppose.

Last edited by T-J on 02-May-2011 at 10:22 PM.
Last edited by T-J on 02-May-2011 at 10:21 PM.
Last edited by T-J on 02-May-2011 at 10:18 PM.

@T-J

Quote:

But, being a scientist, one must do the maths.

And you miscalculated. It's much less actually (or did you use other figures than I provided?). Just re-calculate, it's unlikely you'll make the same mistake twice.

With you being a scientists and all, how close do you think such an object would come to the sun? At its furthest point (point of return to the sun) is this force aimed directly at the sun? Will it miss the sun you think (as repulsion does not exist) and why? What happens if this body is hit by another smaller object on its path (like in the Oort Cloud) before returning home?

Last edited by MikeB on 02-May-2011 at 11:14 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

And you miscalculated.

Did I really? And how, pray tell, did I do so? Perhaps you'll see fit to enlighten us by doing the maths yourself as we keep asking?

Force = Gravitational Constant * (mass of object 1 * mass of object 2) / distance between the objects squared.

F = G*(m1*m2)/r²

F = 6.674×10^-11 * (2 x10^30 * 7.6 x10^27)/149597870000^2.

= 4.5 x 10 ^25 newtons.

Quote:

With you being a scientists and all, how close do you think such an object would come to the sun?

Unlike you, I don't claim to know everything. Without knowing the orbital characteristics of this Tyche, I couldn't say.

Quote:

At its furthest point (point of return to the sun) is this force aimed directly at the sun? Will it miss the sun you think (as repulsion does not exist) and why? What happens if this body is hit by another smaller object on its path (like in the Oort Cloud) before returning home?

Of course gravitational attraction to the sun is pointed at the sun. And of course an orbiting planet misses the sun. Because of the conservation of angular momentum. And if it crashes into another object? Of course it'll be perturbed. By a small amount that we can predict with physics. No need to invent magical repulsion forces, the system will simply re-equilibriate to a new mass and energy state.



Now, please don't bother proposing the Nibiru orbit. We've already established that there is not a brown dwarf that passes through the inner solar system at a 3600 year periodicity.

Last edited by T-J on 03-May-2011 at 12:07 AM.
Last edited by T-J on 03-May-2011 at 12:06 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

The scientific establishment tends to reject, suppress or ignore evidence that conflicts with accepted theories, while denigrating or persecuting the messenger.

There's little doubt that people are people and as such get political. If you follow the history of science and view paradigm shifts you will indeed see infighting supressions and ignoring of evidence. Though what you'll also find is that in the end the Theory with the most evidence and best predictability wins. But, again this is still better than belief. As belief is acceptance without proof and doesn't change.

Quote:

Par for the course here...

The system itself can be hard to flip but it does. Through this process it hardens the best theories and ensure's the compliance to greater evidence and greater predictability. Though note just because and idea is put upon in no way gives it validation. The only way to gain validation is to be better, more accurate, and more predictable.

http://www.space.com/448-problem-gravity-mission-probe-strange-puzzle.html
OMG! You mean gravity calculations were wrong?

Quote:

If the bodies in question have spatial extent (rather than being theoretical point masses), then the gravitational force between them is calculated by summing the contributions of the notional point masses which constitute the bodies. In the limit, as the component point masses become "infinitely small", this entails integrating the force (in vector form, see below) over the extents of the two bodies.

Now what's interesting about that quote is we know gravity is useless on tiny point masses... What is useful is electomagnetic forces. So you see what is perceived as gravity is actually the sum of a magnetic field map of every point mass of an object.

Quote:

There is no immediate prospect of identifying the mediator of gravity. Attempts by physicists to identify the relationship between the gravitational force and other known fundamental forces are not yet resolved, although considerable headway has been made over the last 50 years (See: Theory of everything and Standard Model). Newton himself felt that the concept of an inexplicable action at a distance was unsatisfactory (see "Newton's reservations" below), but that there was nothing more that he could do at the time. Newton's Theory of Gravitation requires that the gravitational force be transmitted instantaneously. Given the classical assumptions of the nature of space and time before the development of General Relativity, a significant propagation delay in gravity leads to unstable planetary and stellar orbits. Newton's Theory does not fully explain the precession of the perihelion of the orbits of the planets, especially of planet Mercury, which was detected long after the life of Newton.[33] There is a 43 arcsecond per century discrepancy between the Newtonian calculation, which arises only from the gravitational attractions from the other planets, and the observed precession, made with advanced telescopes during the 19th Century. The predicted angular deflection of light rays by gravity that is calculated by using Newton's Theory is only one-half of the deflection that is actually observed by astronomers. Calculations using General Relativity are in much closer agreement with the astronomical observations.

So if you want to admit to using completely flawed formulas and restricting your brain to limited possibilities, please continue to do so.

Eliptical orbits can only be explained by attraction and repulsion of objects with tilted rotation and a polarized magnetic field.

Venus with it's extremely low magnetic field is closer to a circular orbit. Once again, magnetism prevails in proving itself by virtue of observing it's effect when reduced.

In highly eliptical orbits, if gravity was a real and prevailing force, each orbit would pull the orbitting object closer and closer eventually to the point of contact. This is a fact that anyone can reproduce with simple coding even on a Commodore 64.

What cracks me up is that the flaws in the concept of gravity are explained away with the invention of dark matter.

@Lou

Quote:

http://www.space.com/448-problem-gravity-mission-probe-strange-puzzle.html OMG! You mean gravity calculations were wrong?

Great question Lou! This article was from 2004 and while it does mention gravity it also mentions other causes. Be careful not to assign fault until they identify the cause. Fast forward to 2011 and there is a new hypothesis where the numbers seem to add up very well. Phong shading of radiation in a model of the spacecraft verifed one of the previous hypothesis. Other scientists are working on validation.


Quote:

So you see what is perceived as gravity is actually the sum of a magnetic field map of every point mass of an object.

Again we see conjecture with no conclusive evidence. Here's some evidence you can use to fact check this statement. Our earth is .5 Gauss. Jupiter is a bit over 318x more massive and up to 14 Gauss. The sun is 330,000x more massive than earth and is 1 Gauss. Jumping back a bit to Jupiter the field is 4 Gauss at the equator and 14 Gauss at the poles.

The field is clearly not a sum of every point of mass within an object. Knowing this we have two choices. Either your guess is wrong as the evidence clearly does not support that statement. Or magnetometers are wrong and we have to go back and rebuild what a magnetic field is and how we measure it. Your choice is?

@MikeB

Quote:

Quote: Respect is the admiration of others due to their abilities or achievements. To respect someone rights means more like: "to show regard or consideration for".

We simply have a different depth of respect. What I see you saying, and I agree, is that anyobody's idea should be given consideration. However you stop at acceptance and fail to consider. I go one step further and request that if the person says X is true the idea must standup to evidence and give insight. I, and science, truly consider and give regard to the depth and understanding of the idea the person is profession. I see this as even more respectful because it's fully considering the idea and all evidences for the idea.

Now, undoubtably, people will bring different ideas to the table. These ideas will come in conflict in such a way that both cannot be true at the same time. It's with consideration that we figure out which idea better represents reality and which idea is useful.

Switching back to magnets vs gravity. We've given magnetism consideration. We asked for observations, most, if not all, of yours failed to live up to testing and/or failed to scale. We've asked for mathematical equations so we can make predictions of orbits and those haven't come forward. At the present time gravity more consistently matches observations in the planetary. It makes better predictions on the planet scale, launches space exploration, and discovers planets 17,000 light years away. NONE of this you've been able to demonstrate magnetism being able to do. So either it can't (in it's current state) or you don't have the evidence to display.