Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[Native]

I was making a point about what you said. Newton's theory of gravity was a good theory because it approximated very well to the world (it still does, and is more than adequate for many purposes). It also included an explanation. General relativity (and its revised explanation) is a better theory (it is more widely applicable).

It´s fine by me that you are satisfied with two kinds of gravitational explanations - In my mind there is just one and it´s not gravitational at all.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Don´t take an alternative approach and explanation to things as refusals in general

It definitely very strongly comes off as such when after so many pages you consistently refuse to adjust your position to acknowledge your confusions between Newton and Kepler, as well as repeated saying "how is it done?" after someone told you or gave you a link as to how.

 

[Native]

It definitely very strongly comes off as such when after so many pages you consistently refuse to adjust your position to acknowledge your confusions between Newton and Kepler, as well as repeated saying "how is it done?" after someone told you or gave you a link as to how.

I´m sorry, but my seemingly stubbornness is founded in all too many cosmo-logical facts to just discard for the benefit of the many loose ends in modern cosmology

 

[gnostic]

That there are other galaxies wasn't realized until the early 1900's.

Yes.

In 1919, to be more precise, by Edwin Hubble.

It was Hubble observing the newly constructed Hooker Telescope that he discovered Andromeda and Triangulum were nebulae inside of Milky Way, as pre-1919 astronomers thought they were, but separate galaxies in the Local Group.

Over the years, after this 1919’s discovery, Hubble and other astronomers many more galaxies were found that were further away than the Triangulum Galaxy.

During the 1920s, 3 astrophysicists would Albert Einstein’s field equations from General Relativity (as Hubble’s discovery of much larger universe), to independently postulate the expanding universe model, that would later be known as the Big Bang theory (coined in 1949):

1. Alexander Friedman, Russian, 1922
2. Howard Percy Robertson, American, 1924-25
3. Georges Lemaître, Dutch, 1927

The world would often referred to Lemaître as being the Father of the Big Bang theory, but that’s not true. He is one of the 3 pioneers of the 1920s.

It was Robertson (his papers in 1924-25) who would used the wavelengths (colours) of electromagnetism and predicted that the “redshift” that objects (eg galaxies) are moving away from one other, hence implying the universe is expanding. While galaxies moving towards each other, would be determine if observed EM spectrum in the blue, hence “blueshift”.

His prediction would be verified to be correct, by Hubble, in 1929, where he would galaxies to be moving away from each other, as “redshifted”. The discovery is the first observable evidence for the expanding universe model (EUM).

The next major contribution to EUM or the Big Bang, by another group of 3 astrophysicists, working collaboratively at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in 1948:

1. George Gamow, Russian, former student of Alexander Friedman.
2. Ralph Alpher, American (his father was a Belorussian Jew), and former student of Gamow.
3. Robert Herman, American.

Gamow, together with Alpher would put together a paper on Primordial Nucleosynthesis (also known as the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, BBN, or Cosmic Nucleosynthesis), which was very important explanation about how early matters formed in the young universe.

Alpher and Herman collaborated in paper (with Gamow’s assistance) that predicted the universe temperature changes when electrons bonded with ionized hydrogen and ionized helium atoms, to form neutral stable hydrogen and helium atoms. This coupling of particles would release of energy and cause photons to decouple from matters, known as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

CMBR would be accidentally discovered in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, when they were setting up their radio telescope. The 2nd most important evidence for the Big Bang theory. This evidence would turn and elevate the 1920s and 1948 EUM hypothesis into “scientific theory”. This discovery would also debunk Fred Hoyle’s 1949 competing hypothesis, the Steady State model.

 

[gnostic]

When it comes to cosmological understanding, modern scientists are just interpretating the observations and as long as there is NO universal consensus of cosmos, mine and yours guesses are just as good.

Sorry, but the ancient astronomers didn’t know what stars were let alone understanding what the Milky Way is.

The ancient didn’t even understand how the stars work, and they also didn’t realize that sun itself was a star.

You are again talking New Age rubbish.

 

[gnostic]

How can you tell? You are obviously NOT an expert in Ancient Mythology and therefore completely untrustworthy as a witness in such matters.

Modern cosmological science has lots of cosmic images, calculations and measurements, but they have no OVERALL concensus ideas of how to interpret these and how humans participates in this.

When you study Comparative Mythology and Religion from all cultures, there is an amazing likeness in all Stories of Creation of which the most specific speaks of the very principles of creation as well of the cyclical and eternal processes of formation.

There is much more natural logics in these ancient tellings than the actual modern and highly speculative approach ever will be able to gain.

Comparative myths provide no calculations and no measurements, hence they have no evidences.

Vague description in largely symbolic (and in vague) language used in myths are not scientific explanation.

The ancient Egyptians described the “sky” as a cow or naked woman, Nut, with stars drawn on her body, isn’t accurate description of the Milky Way, let alone the universe.

The description of the Milky Way as a cosmic river is also inaccurate, vague and ignorant as to what the Milky Way is and how it work.

I know of perverted fascination with myths, and don’t get me, I actually do love myths, but I don’t see myths as being superior description of the solar system or the Milky Way than of modern astronomy.

As to your assumption that there being no evidences for gravity being one of the major forces in cosmology, this level of reinterpretation and ignorance bordered on stupidity.

I would agree with you about there are no gravitational forces IF you can show that the sun, stars, planets, galaxies and universe have no masses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I´m not specifically speaking of neither Newton nor Kepler here. I´m speaking of ancient cultures which knew of the celestial motions and rhythms of the closest planets.

And Newton did NOT explain WHY the planets moves. He just guessed why with his "apple-pie" laws which is contradicted in the overall cosmic realms.

Newtonian gravity is very very accurate for our solar system. You have nothing, no theory, no explanation only wild hand waving. That is why, even as bad as you think gravity is, it beats your WAG every day of the week.

 

[gnostic]

Yes and? Does a Sun God represent the Sun or what? Has the Sun electromagnetic proporties or what?

It´s because you don´t understand the ancient mythical language. To you it is just ancient fairy tales.

Besides this, your image doesn´t represent the Sun but the central light of creation in the Milky Way. Heliopolis has nothing to do with the Sun in our Solar System. Read more here - Ancient Egyptian creation myths - Wikipedia

We have this argument before, Native.

There sun disk crowned on Ra’s head is the symbol of the sun, not the Milky Way. Plus, the hieroglyphs in the tomb of Unas (5th dynasty, Old Kingdom period) at Saqqara frequently associated Ra with the sun. And succeeding 6th dynasty, other writings in pyramids have also connected the sun to Ra.

Hence the Pyramid Texts, was largely resurrection texts that the worship of Ra would ensure the king’s place on Ra’s barque in the afterlife.

Often building the pyramids in the 3rd to 6th dynasties, they would also adjacent mortuary temples to the kings, but associated the kings with Ra himself. This temple and the architectural design of pyramid’s entrance would face the eastern horizon, hence facing the sunrise, that and letting the sun shine into the pyramid.

The Pyramid Texts also describe the shapes of the pyramids is liken to either ladder or stairs, in which Horus and Seth would assist the newly risen king to ascend to the sky (Nut) and get onboard the solar barque as one of Ra’s crew members.

This was all before Osiris became the preeminent lord of the Underworld, but the myth of Ra still persisted to the New Kingdom period.

In the tomb of Tutankhamun (18th dynasty), there is even myth (Destruction of Mankind and the Book of Heavenly Cow) described the aging Ra riding on a cow (sky goddess Nut), instead of riding a barque. This myth probably originated in the Middle Kingdom period, since it is written in Middle Egyptian.

All of these connect the pyramid tombs and religious customs to the sun.

And as I have told in the past, the ancient astronomers have no way of seeing the centre of the Milky Way, because clouds of gases and dust from the Carina-Sagittarius, Crux-Scutum and the Norma arms, all block direct line of sight to the centre. Without correct filters used on the optical telescopes and without radio telescopes, there are no way to observe the galactic centre or the bulge of MW.

The light we actually see of MW from the direction of centre, is observing the lights from the many stars that filtered through gases and dust; stars that are on Carina-Sagittarius arm, and less so on Crux-Scutum arm.

No Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks and Mayans ever saw the centre.

 

[Native]

There sun disk crowned on Ra’s head is the symbol of the sun, not the Milky Way. Plus, the hieroglyphs in the tomb of Unas (5th dynasty, Old Kingdom period) at Saqqara frequently associated Ra with the sun. And succeeding 6th dynasty, other writings in pyramids have also connected the sun to Ra.

So WHY is it that the Egyptian goddess Hathor, who represents the Milky Way, is closely connected to Ra?

In the Egyptian story of creation, the Ogdoad, Ra is the first entity to be created. Is the Sun the first to be created when we speak of a Milky Way connection and it´s formation?

You have to grasp the full mythological/cosmological context before you can make your conclusions.

 

[gnostic]

So WHY is it that the Egyptian goddess Hathor, who represents the Milky Way, is closely connected to Ra?

Of course, there is relation between Hathor and Ra.

There are myths that connect them together, but that doesn’t that that they don’t have their own identities, their own attributes, and their own personalities.

Since you have studied myths, you should know this better than anyone else here.

But what I see here, is you over-complicating Ra, by giving him characteristics and attributes that belonged to another deity, in this case, from Hathor.

There are so many evidences that connect Ra to the sun - literary evidences (eg stories found in papyri, stelae, on the walls or coffins of tombs, temples, etc) and objects (eg statues, paintings on walls and pottery, etc) that were found at the sites (including temples, palaces, tombs).

But you are telling us, to ignore these evidences, because you have interpreted myths and art works differently.

You have to grasp the full mythological/cosmological context before you can make your conclusions.

Now I may not have as many years of experiences as you have with myths, but I have done enough research on myths to know when someone is trying to rewrite myths with their own personal interpretations and think they should be treated as “fact”. I have come across so-called experts that write conspiracy theory, which have the tendencies to over analyse the myths or trying to push modern contexts into ancient texts (conspiracy theorists).

And that exactly what I see you are doing with your interpretations of ancient myths regarding to the Milky Way.

That’s not the worse of it.

You are not just trying to manipulate the myths, Native. You are trying to manipulate science, in this case: gravity, sun, Milky Way, etc.

There are a number of people who understand science behind these gravity and astronomy, so to tell them they are wrong, and claiming the ancient myths are right, just because of “your interpretations” without evidences and without understanding the physics, know one here are really taking you seriously.

 

[Native]

Of course, there is relation between Hathor and Ra.

There are myths that connect them together, but that doesn’t that that they don’t have their own identities, their own attributes, and their own personalities.

"Personalities"? What personality has the Sun, then? And what personality has the Milky Way, then?

Now I may not have as many years of experiences as you have with myths, but I have done enough research on myths to know when someone is trying to rewrite myths with their own personal interpretations and think they should be treated as “fact”.

Do you see the contradiction here? You admit (correctly) a lesser study of the myths and still you think you are able to judge whether a myth is correctly interpreted!?

But what I see here, is you over-complicating Ra, by giving him characteristics and attributes that belonged to another deity, in this case, from Hathor.

No, it´s just you who are under-complicating Ra because you cannot connect the dots between Ra and Hathor.

In the Ogdoad creation myth, Ra is the first entity to be created. This creation takes place "in the beginning" BEFORE even the Sun was created. So logically, Ra cannot represent the Sun and the other possible LIGHT in this connection must logically be the central LIGHT in the Milky Way - and here you have the Ra connection to the Milky Way goddess, Hathor.

You are not just trying to manipulate the myths, Native.

Her you go again with your lesser studies of the myths judging the correctness of the interpretions. You simply don´t have the expertise so just forget it and learn.

 

[ecco]

You are again talking New Age rubbish.

You (Native) are again still talking New Age rubbish.

 

[gnostic]

You (Native) are again still talking New Age rubbish.

Yes, “still”.

 

[gnostic]

"Personalities"? What personality has the Sun, then? And what personality has the Milky Way, then?

You were talking about Hathor and Ra, hence the Egyptians have endowed these 2 characters with personalities. I was talking about Ra and Hathor having personalities, not the sun and Milky Way.

Did you really think I was actually talking about the sun and the Milky Way?

You are the one who actually believe in myths and in superstition, not me. I have always been fascinated of ancient stories but it doesn’t mean that I have to believe they are true.

It is only myth that Hathor is symbolic representation of the Milky Way (as well as that of sky, love, fertility, cow), and Ra is a symbolic representation of the sun (as well as being a creator god and during the Old Kingdom period, god of the afterlife).

But Hathor is no more the Milky Way than Zeus is lightning. Symbolic representations were never meant to be taken as literals or as real.

Do you see the contradiction here? You admit (correctly) a lesser study of the myths and still you think you are able to judge whether a myth is correctly interpreted!?

You’re the one to talk.

I am not the one treating myths as if they were science, or worse still better than science.

No one knew back then, the ancient Egyptians or the Babylonians or Greeks knew what the Milky Way really is, so they equated with the Egyptian Hathor or Nut, or the Greek-Roman breast milk of Hera/Juno.

You are the one who keep yammering about The Milky Way being a river and even more absurd that the Flood occurred in heaven, hence the Milky Way.

This interpretation is what called silly “superstition” by even a sillier man.

 

[gnostic]

No, it´s just you who are under-complicating Ra because you cannot connect the dots between Ra and Hathor.

In the Ogdoad creation myth, Ra is the first entity to be created. This creation takes place "in the beginning" BEFORE even the Sun was created. So logically, Ra cannot represent the Sun and the other possible LIGHT in this connection must logically be the central LIGHT in the Milky Way - and here you have the Ra connection to the Milky Way goddess, Hathor.

The Ogdoad may well be as old or even older than the late Old Kingdom Pyramid Texts, but in term of literary evidences, in the Old, Middle and New kingdoms (from 3rd to the end of 2nd millennium BCE), there are only some scatter and obscure references here and there.

Some of the Ogdoad may be mentioned in the Pyramid Texts and Coffin Texts, they provided very in little in details of their nature and in their myths.

There are “no complete” myth of the Ogdoad in the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE.

There are more better sources from the Late Period to the Ptolemaic dynasty, but by then Egyptian religions have been tainted by foreign religious concepts.

There creation myth of Khemenu (or Hermopolis) is nothing more than reconstruction myths made popular in the 1st millennium BCE.

Anyone who think there is a whole creation of Ogdoad predating the Pyramid Texts, are either pseudo-historians or deluded myth-reconstructionists.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
"Personalities"? What personality has the Sun, then? And what personality has the Milky Way, then?

You were talking about Hathor and Ra, hence the Egyptians have endowed these 2 characters with personalities. I was talking about Ra and Hathor having personalities, not the sun and Milky Way.

This is really funny and highly inconsistent indeed! Ra represents a Ligth (Sun or Milky Way Light) in the Sky and Hathor represents the nocturnal outlook of Milky Way, so HOW ON EARTH can these have personalities?

This is just "possible" when you don´t connect the factual and actual myths to real cosmological objects and their cosmological qualities.

But to you, myths are just personal fairy tales because you don´t connects all the cosmological dots in the ancient stories.

My initial questions were an attempt to get you pondering over your own approach to the mytho-cosmological textual and symbolic meanings - and if you don´t grasp this, just don´t bother me with further of your inconsistent fairy tale replies.

I´m not here just to entertain you or others but to re-introduce the ancient knowledge in the Stories of Creation.

 

[joelr]

It´s fine by me that you are satisfied with two kinds of gravitational explanations - In my mind there is just one and it´s not gravitational at all.

In your mind, yes, in science, no.
Any force can be given by a geometrical description. There are geometrical solutions for EM as well:



some examples:

"The geometric interpretation comes from the similarity of the covariant derivatives between general relativity and quantum field theory -- ∇μ−∂μ" style="position: relative;" tabindex="0" id="MathJax-Element-19-Frame" class="MathJax">∇−∂ in general relativity gives you the Christoffel symbol (although it contracts in an actual operation), which is the gravitational field strength. Similarly in QED, ∇μ−∂μ=igsAμ" style="position: relative;" tabindex="0" id="MathJax-Element-20-Frame" class="MathJax">∇−∂=

, which measures the electromagnetic field strength.

This gives rise to the geometric interpretation of electromagnetism in which it is the curvature on the U(1)" style="position: relative;" tabindex="0" id="MathJax-Element-21-Frame" class="MathJax">(1)

bundle (and in general for a gauge theory, the gauge force is a curvature on its corresponding gauge group's bundle)."

theories:
1. Kaluza-Klein theory. This is similar to General Relativity, but instead of three space dimensions plus time, there are four space dimensions plus time. The fourth dimension is cyclic, and satisfies some symmetry conditions. The electromagnetic potential appears as the components of the metric in the fourth space dimension. It is usually rejected on the grounds that we can't see the fourth space dimension, or that it is made too small to be seen. In fact, the symmetry conditions along this dimension make it indistinguishable, and moving along it is equivalent to a gauge transformation. So, this is the only evidence predicted by the theory, no matter how large we make the cyclic dimension. Which leads us to

2. Gauge theory. As mentioned by DImension10 Abhimanyu PS, electromagnetism can be described by a gauge theory whose gauge group is U(1)" style="position: relative;" tabindex="0" id="MathJax-Element-15-Frame" class="MathJax">(1)

; the electromagnetic potential becomes a connection, and the electromagnetic field the curvature associated to the connection. It is in fact the symmetry group of the fourth dimension in Kaluza-Klein theory. For mathematicians, a gauge theory is described in terms of principal bundles, which, if the gauge group is U(1)" style="position: relative;" tabindex="0" id="MathJax-Element-16-Frame" class="MathJax">(1)
, are in fact 4+1 dimensional spaces, satisfying symmetry conditions like in the Kaluza-Klein theory. So, mathematically, they are equivalent, although there are variations of the Kaluza-Klein theory which cannot be described by a standard gauge theory.

3. Rainich-Misner-Wheeler theory. There is a way to obtain electromagnetism from geometry, in the 4d spacetime of General Relativity. Rainich was able to give in 1925 necessary and suficient conditions that spacetime is curved in a way which corresponds to the electromagnetic field. By Einstein's equation, the spacetime curvature is related to the field. So, Rainich decided to see if one can obtain the electromagnetic field from the curvature, using Einstein's equation. He found some necessary and sufficient conditions for the Ricci tensor, which are of algebraic and differential nature. This works for source free electromagnetism. There is an ambiguity, given by the Hodge duality between the electric and the magnetic fields, for the source free Maxwell equations. So, basically, the field is recovered up to a phase factor called complexion. The idea was rediscovered by Misner and Wheeler three decades later, who combined it with the wormholes of Einstein and Rosen. They interpreted the ends of the wormholes as pairs of electrically charged particles-antiparticles. The electromagnetic field, in this view, doesn't need a source, since the field lines go through the wormhole. While this idea may seem bizarre, it allowed to obtain "charge without charge", and to fix the undetermined phase factor."


It just so happens the geometric explanation for gravity works incredibly well, it makes predictions that have all been tested and shown to be incredibly accurate.

EU people generally have no idea how general relativity even works.

That site you linked to had zero theories or models to even make a prediction never mind test it?

 

[Native]

Any force can be given by a geometrical description. There are geometrical solutions for EM as well:

some examples:

"The geometric interpretation comes from the similarity of the covariant derivatives between general relativity and quantum field theory -- ∇μ−∂μ" style="position: relative;" tabindex="0" id="MathJax-Element-19-Frame" class="MathJax">∇−∂ in general relativity gives you the Christoffel symbol (although it contracts in an actual operation), which is the gravitational field strength. Similarly in QED, ∇μ−∂μ=igsAμ" style="position: relative;" tabindex="0" id="MathJax-Element-20-Frame" class="MathJax">∇−∂=

, which measures the electromagnetic field strength.

This gives rise to the geometric interpretation of electromagnetism in which it is the curvature on the U(1)" style="position: relative;" tabindex="0" id="MathJax-Element-21-Frame" class="MathJax">(1)

bundle (and in general for a gauge theory, the gauge force is a curvature on its corresponding gauge group's bundle)."

theories:
1. Kaluza-Klein theory. This is similar to General Relativity, but instead of three space dimensions plus time, there are four space dimensions plus time. The fourth dimension is cyclic, and satisfies some symmetry conditions. The electromagnetic potential appears as the components of the metric in the fourth space dimension. It is usually rejected on the grounds that we can't see the fourth space dimension, or that it is made too small to be seen. In fact, the symmetry conditions along this dimension make it indistinguishable, and moving along it is equivalent to a gauge transformation. So, this is the only evidence predicted by the theory, no matter how large we make the cyclic dimension. Which leads us to

2. Gauge theory. As mentioned by DImension10 Abhimanyu PS, electromagnetism can be described by a gauge theory whose gauge group is U(1)" style="position: relative;" tabindex="0" id="MathJax-Element-15-Frame" class="MathJax">(1)

; the electromagnetic potential becomes a connection, and the electromagnetic field the curvature associated to the connection. It is in fact the symmetry group of the fourth dimension in Kaluza-Klein theory. For mathematicians, a gauge theory is described in terms of principal bundles, which, if the gauge group is U(1)" style="position: relative;" tabindex="0" id="MathJax-Element-16-Frame" class="MathJax">(1)
, are in fact 4+1 dimensional spaces, satisfying symmetry conditions like in the Kaluza-Klein theory. So, mathematically, they are equivalent, although there are variations of the Kaluza-Klein theory which cannot be described by a standard gauge theory.

3. Rainich-Misner-Wheeler theory. There is a way to obtain electromagnetism from geometry, in the 4d spacetime of General Relativity. Rainich was able to give in 1925 necessary and suficient conditions that spacetime is curved in a way which corresponds to the electromagnetic field. By Einstein's equation, the spacetime curvature is related to the field. So, Rainich decided to see if one can obtain the electromagnetic field from the curvature, using Einstein's equation. He found some necessary and sufficient conditions for the Ricci tensor, which are of algebraic and differential nature. This works for source free electromagnetism. There is an ambiguity, given by the Hodge duality between the electric and the magnetic fields, for the source free Maxwell equations. So, basically, the field is recovered up to a phase factor called complexion. The idea was rediscovered by Misner and Wheeler three decades later, who combined it with the wormholes of Einstein and Rosen. They interpreted the ends of the wormholes as pairs of electrically charged particles-antiparticles. The electromagnetic field, in this view, doesn't need a source, since the field lines go through the wormhole. While this idea may seem bizarre, it allowed to obtain "charge without charge", and to fix the undetermined phase factor."

Much of these examples and contents can be watched in this video which I´ve also posted in the other thread of "The Scientific Math of the Milky Way"

In this video Prof. Joel Primack, Theoretical Physicist from UC Santa Cruz, accept and states that "the EM forces descibes everything very nicely, but there is no room for gravity and dark matter in these EM theories" (timestamp 46:20)

This is indeed very strange and even funny on the tragicomic level Highly academic and university educated scientists can´t get themselves to discard the over three hundred years ancient ghost of gravity and all it´s "dark this and that" even when having "a nice EM explanation which nicely describes everything".

Good grief! No wonders modern cosmology has become so specualtive in all areas! Scientists refuse to make the obvious scientific methodical changes even when the correct solution is starring them right in their faces.

It just so happens the geometric explanation for gravity works incredibly well, it makes predictions that have all been tested and shown to be incredibly accurate.

Yes, the specific Keplerian geometrics worked and works very nicely - until Newton came up with his non explained gravity of celestial motions.

Of course also the Newtonian calclations can be used as they just was embedded on the correct celestial and empirical observed motions made by Kepler. The key point here is that Newton got this non explained invention to count for his strange gravtation ideas, which have distorted all natural cosmological perceptions into nothing at all but pure speculations and ad hoc assumed guessworks.

EU people generally have no idea how general relativity even works.

Oh yes "we" have. "We" just ascribes the correct force (and binns the bad one) to the correct observations and this "fits very nicely according to the video contents posted above" same timestamp.

That site you linked to had zero theories or models to even make a prediction never mind test it?

For the moment I´ve forgotten that link and I don´t bother looking for it, but just use the posted video here - where a honest Theorethical Physicist (First name also Joel ) frequently admits and states this:

"We don´t know"

An admittion and statement which all conventional and consensus debaters in cosmology here should bear in mind.

 

[Native]

Scientific "Correctness" vs. Scientific Progress

Here´s an excellent video of how the standing science works and how it´s not working as it is meant to.

- Before any debaters are shouting up about that it is posted by "the Cranks" in the ThunderboltsProject society, I just will mention that I´m not more a member of this society because of the strange ideas of EM working in the Solar System with "ligthning scarring of planets" and the even more strange ideas of once "another position of some planets assumingly hovering in a line over the Earth´northern celestial pole". A totally skewed idea based on misconceptions of the ancient cultural Myths of Creation.

But the very contents in the video is fine and it will be ever actual and relevant in a long time to come.

It´s even relevant to my profile signature below here . . .

 

[Subduction Zone]

Much of these examples and contents can be watched in this video which I´ve also posted in the other thread of "The Scientific Math of the Milky Way"

In this video Prof. Joel Primack, Theoretical Physicist from UC Santa Cruz, accept and states that "the EM forces descibes everything very nicely, but there is no room for gravity and dark matter in these EM theories" (timestamp 46:20)

This is indeed very sttrange and even funny on the tragicomic level Highly academic and university educated scientists can´t get themselves to discard the over three hundred years ancient ghost of gravity and all it´s "dark this and that" even when having "a nice EM explanation which nicely describes everything".

Good grief! No wonders modern cosmology has become so specualtive in all areas! Scientists refuse to make the obvious scientific methodical changes even when the correct solution is starring them right in their faces.

Yes, the specific Keplerian geometrics worked and works very nicely - until Newton came up with his non explained gravity of celestial motions.

Of course also the Newtonian calclations can be used as they just was embedded on the correct celestial and empirical observed motions made by Kepler. The key point here is that Newton got this non explained invention to count for his strange gravtation ideas, which have distorted all natural cosmological perceptions into nothing at all but pure speculations and ad hoc assumed guessworks.

Oh yes "we" have. "We" just ascribes the correct force (and binns the bad one) to the correct observations and this "fits very nicely according to the video contents posted above" same timestamp.

For the moment I´ve forgotten that link and I don´t bother looking for it, but just use the posted video here - where a honest Theorethical Physicist (First name also Joel ) frequently admits and states this:

"We don´t know"

An admittion and statement which all conventional and consensus debaters in cosmology here should bear in mind.

Since the EU has no predictive power it is worse than useless. It is only wild hand waving by those that do not understand the scientific method. There is no refutation of it since in reality there is nothing to refute.