Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[ecco]

Again for the 117. time: I don´t deny the calculations themselves! Try to get it into your mind, please! I just claim these can be done without using the gravity terminology!

Here we finally have clarification. Native isn't saying there is no such thing as gravity. He just objects to calling it gravity. I guess we could call it "BigBodyMassAttraction" or BBMA.

 

[joelr]

@joelr,

Maybe if you removed the "gravitational blur filter" from your eyes, you´ll be able to make the logical dots between Electro-Magnetism as observed in the galayy in matter and the connection to an Electric Universe.

Or I could remove the "Jedi blur filter" from my eyes and I'll be able to make the logical connections between electromagnetism as observed in the galaxy and the connection to the The Force.

But I'm going to stick with the process we call science. At some point if you decide to actually investigate science rather than read only EU propaganda about science you might learn some of the answers to your questions.

First you'll have to get past the "ancient-man-mythology has secret and correct knowledge about the universe" then get past the EU scam.

Again, your claim that scientists ignore EU is false. Here we have an astrophysicist who read several EU books and wrote on them. He also engaged in 5 years of discussion back and forth with all sorts of EU proponents.

Why don't you study some of those answers? Why don't you learn something?
They come at him with all types of questions and issues.
I even read it and I know EU is crank. One would think you would be interested in furthering your knowledge and running some ideas by people who are not just looking to confirm EU?

I try to debunk every idea and theory I believe true.

 

[joelr]

<sarcasm>
Well, if there is *any* magnetic field, it must be the only thing there, right? It automatically supports EU simply by existing, right?
</sarcasm>

Seems to be his logic?

 

[joelr]

No, all the Egyptian words are for "science". It's just a different kind of science than we use.

Right, it's called not-science.

Modern science is a metaphysics we don't even bother to study (Feynman was virtually a mystic) based on observation > experiment and ancient science employed the logic and the metaphysics of language and was based on observation > logic. But "logic" was invisible to them.

Cool, so you're saying you're not at all familiar with Feynman's work or modern science but have formulated a bunch of ideas about it.
Ok?

 

[joelr]

Our metaphysics is based in euclidean geometry and newtonian physic as well as the calculus in turn based on euclidean math. Until we take another perspective we may be stuck in this rut while Egyptology is stuck in a deeper and older rut.

You might want to study modern science before your critique it?
Just for starters general relativity uses NON-euclidean geometry.

 

[joelr]

And "gravitation" is founded on the pressure of the weight of the gaseous atmosphere, so just change the skewed term of "gravity" to the logical one

I

What atmosphere? We were talking about Newtonian mechanics accounting for space travel, planetary motion, behavior of asteroids, things in space. There is no atmosphere?
And why do you keep saying it's logical to use EM to replace gravity when your only source is old myths and ideas that have no theory? That isn't what "logic" means?
Your using the word to mean the same thing fundamentalist Christians mean when they say they "know" Jesus is real.
Believing myths is not logic, it's faith.

Logic is science of reasoning, that's a definition. So anything using the scientific method could fit the word. Thinking ancient myths "sound right" to you does not make it logic.

You should consider trying out being a tiny bit open-minded about this stuff.

 

[Native]

@Polymath257,

Native said: ↑
And "gravitation" is founded on the pressure of the weight of the gaseous atmosphere, so just change the skewed term of "gravity" to the logical one

What??? I have *no* idea where you get that from.

The weight of air - You’ve got one tonne of air pressing down on you, the same as a small car | physics.org
"Even though they’re too tiny to see, all the molecules of air in the atmosphere above your head weigh something. And the combined weight of these molecules causes a pressure pressing down on your body of 10,000 kg per square metre. This means that the mass of the air above the 0.1 square metre cross section of your body is 1,000 kg, or a tonne".

This should certainly be sufficient enough to get a Newtonian apple to fall to the ground, don´t you think? An entire Cosmological Gravitaional Model is based on the Newtonian confusion of "matter atracting matter" and it is no surprise that the results would be lots of other confused assumptions, including "dark this or that mattter and energy" because the "gravity" premesis was all wrong from the very beginning.

I'm asking for more detail on this in this specific case. yes, I know what a plasma is. Bu tthe composition is still relevant. Does it have oxygen ions, for example? Or only hydrogen? Nitrogen? How ionized are the atoms? What is the temperature?

If we for instants take the plasmatic cosmic cloud of dust and gas which once constitutes the Solar System, you can calculate all these matters for yourself.

Remember: All atoms have electromagnetic (ionized) qualities and when assembled in a cosmic cloud, the electromagnetic potential force is emmense. (Just think of a thunderstorm cloud and the released lightnings) And in the Milky Way, the strong gamma rays jets coming out from the galactic "holes", surely is evidence of a huge electromagnetic force activity in the galactic center.

I said:
"Nothing is fasifiable as long as the assumed affective object isn´t found. And it doesn´t matter how many fantasies you have in your theory as long as the concrete evidence is totally missing".

But the effect *is* found. We don't know what dark matter is *made* from, but we do know it is there because it has been detected.

You confuse "evidence" for "found effects" which just are ad hoc assumptions inserted in a "gravity law", wich is discarded by GR regarding the cosmic realms.

I said:
"So you think it is a scientific explanation to describe a "black hole" as a flat 2 D singularity placed in a 3 D structure of a galaxy?".

WHAT? Give me an evidence of a black hole in galaxies wich states otherwise and differently"

Black holes are nor flat. If anything, they are spherical. That means they are NOT 2D. The *event horizon* is, of course. But that is not the whole of the black hole.

So when scientsts talks of "everything disappearing into a black hole" they really should explain this as a sphere which swallows everything never to be seen again?

Either ways, the standard model perception of "black holes" it is pure nonsens to me and it is an outright violation of the laws of conservation as well. The galactic "holes" are just natural funnels of formation where everything is formed and re-cycled eternally.

 

[Native]

@joelr,

Native said: ↑
And "gravitation" is founded on the pressure of the weight of the gaseous atmosphere, so just change the skewed term of "gravity" to the logical one

What atmosphere? We were talking about Newtonian mechanics accounting for space travel, planetary motion, behavior of asteroids, things in space. There is no atmosphere?

I know that very well. But I was reffering to the very reasons which constituted the "gravity laws" in the first place, namely Newtons "Apple Pie" perception wich really just is the pressure weight of gases in the Earth atmosphere.

And why do you keep saying it's logical to use EM to replace gravity when your only source is old myths and ideas that have no theory? That isn't what "logic" means?
Your using the word to mean the same thing fundamentalist Christians mean when they say they "know" Jesus is real.
Believing myths is not logic, it's faith.

I otherwise thought it would be very easy for you to believe in myths since you´re having no toubles believing in all kinds of "dark this and that" ghosts which haven´t been found.

Your using the word to mean the same thing fundamentalist Christians mean when they say they "know" Jesus is real.
Believing myths is not logic, it's faith.

You can keep your emotional projection here for yourself and take these as a result of your own confusions and narrow minded perceptions.

Thinking ancient myths "sound right" to you does not make it logic.

I very well know by know that you are complete novice regarding the mytho-cosmological realms. STILL you´re trying to play a judgemental expert in something you know nothing about.

With your own words:

You should consider trying out being a tiny bit open-minded about this stuff.

 

[Native]

Again, your claim that scientists ignore EU is false. Here we have an astrophysicist who read several EU books and wrote on them. He also engaged in 5 years of discussion back and forth with all sorts of EU proponents.

And that person would be you, I presume?

First: There is NO specific EU model at the present, but several ideas which eventually will lead to an Universal Electric Universe model.

Secondly: If you are an astrophysical expert, why are you having troubles understanding an EU model at all? Don´t you even know that ALL ATOMS in the Universe have EM qualities which can constitute an EU model?

Thirdly: You cannot judge a possible EU model as long as you´re stuck in Newtons grave "Apple Pie" confusions and all it´s ad hoc assumptions.

 

[Polymath257]

@Polymath257,

Native said: ↑
And "gravitation" is founded on the pressure of the weight of the gaseous atmosphere, so just change the skewed term of "gravity" to the logical one

The weight of air - You’ve got one tonne of air pressing down on you, the same as a small car | physics.org
"Even though they’re too tiny to see, all the molecules of air in the atmosphere above your head weigh something. And the combined weight of these molecules causes a pressure pressing down on your body of 10,000 kg per square metre. This means that the mass of the air above the 0.1 square metre cross section of your body is 1,000 kg, or a tonne".

This should certainly be sufficient enough to get a Newtonian apple to fall to the ground, don´t you think? An entire Cosmological Gravitaional Model is based on the Newtonian confusion of "matter atracting matter" and it is no surprise that the results would be lots of other confused assumptions, including "dark this or that mattter and energy" because the "gravity" premesis was all wrong from the very beginning.

OK, this is far worse than I thought. No, air pressure doesn't explain the falling of objects.

1. Air pressure is about 14 pounds of pressure per square inch. But it is on *all* surfaces of the body: above, below, and all sides. It is a *pressure*.

2. The only reason the air gets to that pressure is because of the force of gravity. If not for that, the air wouldn't stay near the Earth.

3. This fails to explain why things fall on the moon, where there is no air. Or that they fall as fast as they do on Mars, where the air pressure is very low.

4. This also fails to explain the motion of the probes after they get above the atmosphere.

5. When air is removed from a container, the objects inside the container fall *faster*.

If we for instants take the plasmatic cosmic cloud of dust and gas which once constitutes the Solar System, you can calculate all these matters for yourself.

Please show me how.

Remember: All atoms have electromagnetic (ionized) qualities and when assembled in a cosmic cloud, the electromagnetic potential force is emmense. (Just think of a thunderstorm cloud and the released lightnings) And in the Milky Way, the strong gamma rays jets coming out from the galactic "holes", surely is evidence of a huge electromagnetic force activity in the galactic center.

How does the density of the plasma in space compare to that of a storm cloud? Could you give a few details?

I said:
"Nothing is fasifiable as long as the assumed affective object isn´t found. And it doesn´t matter how many fantasies you have in your theory as long as the concrete evidence is totally missing".

You confuse "evidence" for "found effects" which just are ad hoc assumptions inserted in a "gravity law", wich is discarded by GR regarding the cosmic realms.

Yes, evidence *is* found effects. Evidence is what we gain thorugh observation: the effects of whatever we are finding evidence for.

I said:
"So you think it is a scientific explanation to describe a "black hole" as a flat 2 D singularity placed in a 3 D structure of a galaxy?".

WHAT? Give me an evidence of a black hole in galaxies wich states otherwise and differently"

So when scientsts talks of "everything disappearing into a black hole" they really should explain this as a sphere which swallows everything never to be seen again?

I think they tend to be pretty clear about that.

Either ways, the standard model perception of "black holes" it is pure nonsens to me and it is an outright violation of the laws of conservation as well. The galactic "holes" are just natural funnels of formation where everything is formed and re-cycled eternally.

No violation of conservation laws. The mass of the black hole increases and that balances the conservation of energy. Black holes can also have charge and that balances the conservation of charge. Which conservation law do you think is violated?

 

[Polymath257]

And that person would be you, I presume?

First: There is NO specific EU model at the present, but several ideas which eventually will lead to an Universal Electric Universe model.

Well, the *claim* is that they could. Nobody has done it yet. Until it is done, the claims will be ignored.

Secondly: If you are an astrophysical expert, why are you having troubles understanding an EU model at all? Don´t you even know that ALL ATOMS in the Universe have EM qualities which can constitute an EU model?

And all atoms have mass that subjects them to gravity.

Thirdly: You cannot judge a possible EU model as long as you´re stuck in Newtons grave "Apple Pie" confusions and all it´s ad hoc assumptions.

No, it isn't possible to judge EU until there is a theory of EU (meaning, a model). But *everything* that has been said about it has been garbage, so it doens't look hopeful.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
And "gravitation" is founded on the pressure of the weight of the gaseous atmosphere, so just change the skewed term of "gravity" to the logical one

The weight of air - You’ve got one tonne of air pressing down on you, the same as a small car | physics.org
"Even though they’re too tiny to see, all the molecules of air in the atmosphere above your head weigh something. And the combined weight of these molecules causes a pressure pressing down on your body of 10,000 kg per square metre. This means that the mass of the air above the 0.1 square metre cross section of your body is 1,000 kg, or a tonne".

This should certainly be sufficient enough to get a Newtonian apple to fall to the ground, don´t you think? An entire Cosmological Gravitaional Model is based on the Newtonian confusion of "matter atracting matter" and it is no surprise that the results would be lots of other confused assumptions, including "dark this or that mattter and energy" because the "gravity" premesis was all wrong from the very beginning.

OK, this is far worse than I thought. No, air pressure doesn't explain the falling of objects.

Yes, isn´t it bad indeed? How could Newton get this natural weight wrong making his "spooky attraction at distances"?

1. Air pressure is about 14 pounds of pressure per square inch. But it is on *all* surfaces of the body: above, below, and all sides. It is a *pressure*.

Re-Quote:
"This means that the mass of the air above the 0.1 square metre cross section of your body is 1,000 kg, or a tonne".

How can a weight above you make a "pressure below you"?

I said:
"Nothing is fasifiable as long as the assumed affective object isn´t found. And it doesn´t matter how many fantasies you have in your theory as long as the concrete evidence is totally missing".

You confuse "evidence" for "found effects" which just are ad hoc assumptions inserted in a "gravity law", wich is discarded by GR regarding the cosmic realms.

Yes, evidence *is* found effects. Evidence is what we gain thorugh observation: the effects of whatever we are finding evidence for.

Effects is connected to causal explanations of an object and force and you can´t explain the causality of an object i.e. "dark matter" which isn´t found.

Yes you can assume anything which you BELIEVE is connected - and this is the normal practice in modern cosmology, a method which is called "speculative ad hoc assumptions based on unfound objects".

I said:
"Either ways, the standard model perception of "black holes" it is pure nonsens to me and it is an outright violation of the laws of conservation as well. The galactic "holes" are just natural funnels of formation where everything is formed and re-cycled eternally".

No violation of conservation laws. The mass of the black hole increases and that balances the conservation of energy. Black holes can also have charge and that balances the conservation of charge. Which conservation law do you think is violated?

This is just a gravity assumption and you should know by now that Newton is out of order when it comes to galactic scenarios.

The kind of conservation violation comes as you cannot explain logically and causally what happens with the assumed "gained black hole mass" - wich is why, all scientific theories and calculations brakes down in this stage.

And remember: The Newtonian laws of celestial motions is directly contradicted by factual observations in the galactic realms as well.

The standard cosmology scientists are completly lost in space here because they excludes the natural explanations from the fundamental EM forces and qualities, which can explain the circuital motions in galaxies and everywhere else.

 

[Native]

Polymath257,

My reply was adressed to joelr, but OK.

Native said: ↑
And that person would be you, I presume?

First: There is NO specific EU model at the present, but several ideas which eventually will lead to an Universal Electric Universe model.

Well, the *claim* is that they could. Nobody has done it yet. Until it is done, the claims will be ignored.

And even WHEN somebody comes up with a common EU theory, I know of lots of persons who STILL would deny it just because they can´t change their old school doctrines.

I said:
Secondly: If you are an astrophysical expert, why are you having troubles understanding an EU model at all? Don´t you even know that ALL ATOMS in the Universe have EM qualities which can constitute an EU model?

And all atoms have mass that subjects them to gravity.

Here you go again, conflicting EM qualities i atoms with "newtonian particle gravity".

But then again: At least you now equalizes "gravity" with the EM qualities in all atoms. You then just have to chose the most logical explanation of attraction and repulsion.

I said:
Thirdly: You cannot judge a possible EU model as long as you´re stuck in Newtons grave "Apple Pie" confusions and all it´s ad hoc assumptions.

No, it isn't possible to judge EU until there is a theory of EU (meaning, a model). But *everything* that has been said about it has been garbage, so it doens't look hopeful.

"Garbage"? Being emotional now are you?

Several times I´ve read of such rejective EU arguments and they all refers to investigations and calculations which includes the use of the very standard cosmology "laws of gravity" - and then they claim th EU to be out of order.

They STIIL don´t understand that most of the EU ideas directly rejects the over 300 year old gravitational ideas, and of course they NEWER will understand the EU theories as long as they keep onto the weakest 1/4 part of the fundamental forces which just is a human invention.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
And "gravitation" is founded on the pressure of the weight of the gaseous atmosphere, so just change the skewed term of "gravity" to the logical one

The weight of air - You’ve got one tonne of air pressing down on you, the same as a small car | physics.org
"Even though they’re too tiny to see, all the molecules of air in the atmosphere above your head weigh something. And the combined weight of these molecules causes a pressure pressing down on your body of 10,000 kg per square metre. This means that the mass of the air above the 0.1 square metre cross section of your body is 1,000 kg, or a tonne".

This should certainly be sufficient enough to get a Newtonian apple to fall to the ground, don´t you think? An entire Cosmological Gravitaional Model is based on the Newtonian confusion of "matter atracting matter" and it is no surprise that the results would be lots of other confused assumptions, including "dark this or that mattter and energy" because the "gravity" premesis was all wrong from the very beginning.

Wow. So far wrong I don't know where to start.

1. No. Air pressing down does *not* explain how things fall. For example, why, given this, does a large object that weighs less fall at the same rate as a small one that weighs more? The large one would have more air pressing on it *and* have a smaller mass to move, so it should fall much faster according to your model. But it doesn't.

2. This fails to explain why things fall on the moon. There is no air there, after all.

3. This fails to explain why things fall *faster* when air is removed from a container.

4. This fails to explain how satellites can remain in orbit (using the Newtonian equations for gravity).

Yes, isn´t it bad indeed? How could Newton get this natural weight wrong making his "spooky attraction at distances"?

Re-Quote:
"This means that the mass of the air above the 0.1 square metre cross section of your body is 1,000 kg, or a tonne".

How can a weight above you make a "pressure below you"?

That's what happens with both liquids and gases. If you go under the water, the pressure is all around you. The same is true for being in the air. Both liquids and gases move until the pressure is the same in all directions.

The badness is just how little you seem to understand about *any* physics at all. I'm going to leave you with your fantasies now. If this is typical of EU believers, then they deserve to be a laughing stock.

 

[Polymath257]

Polymath257,

My reply was adressed to joelr, but OK.

Native said: ↑
And that person would be you, I presume?

First: There is NO specific EU model at the present, but several ideas which eventually will lead to an Universal Electric Universe model.

And even WHEN somebody comes up with a common EU theory, I know of lots of persons who STILL would deny it just because they can´t change their old school doctrines.

Well, coming up with a model is the *first* step. The second is to verify that it makes accurate predictions. But why worry about the second step now when the first step hasn't been taken?

I said:
Secondly: If you are an astrophysical expert, why are you having troubles understanding an EU model at all? Don´t you even know that ALL ATOMS in the Universe have EM qualities which can constitute an EU model?

Exactly how do those 'constitute an EU model'? Yes, all atoms have EM qualities. They have, in fact, protons and electrons, which are charged. That gives the atoms electric and magnetic fields. And yes, the bonding of atoms to form molecules is largely due to the EM forces.

Here you go again, conflicting EM qualities i atoms with "newtonian particle gravity".

Not conflicting. I'm pointing out that both exist.

But then again: At least you now equalizes "gravity" with the EM qualities in all atoms. You then just have to chose the most logical explanation of attraction and repulsion.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

I said:
Thirdly: You cannot judge a possible EU model as long as you´re stuck in Newtons grave "Apple Pie" confusions and all it´s ad hoc assumptions.

Garbage. It is easy enough to judge a model by seeing if it is clearly formed (the EU model isn't), whether it makes testable predictions (the EU model doesn't), and whether it can give detailed descriptions of known phenomena (the EU model doesn't).

"Garbage"? Being emotional now are you?

Nope. Simply descriptive. The EU is, as far as I can see from what you have given, only worthy of the trash basket.

Several times I´ve read of such rejective EU arguments and they all refers to investigations and calculations which includes the use of the very standard cosmology "laws of gravity" - and then they claim th EU to be out of order.

So give the correct calculations based on EU. Describe, for example, the motion of the solar system using EU *in detail*. Describe, for example, the motion of the stars close to the center of the galaxy using EU *in detail*.

They STIIL don´t understand that most of the EU ideas directly rejects the over 300 year old gravitational ideas, and of course they NEWER will understand the EU theories as long as they keep onto the weakest 1/4 part of the fundamental forces which just is a human invention.

Yes, I understand that is what EU does. I understand what EU claims. But it simply doens't deliver on its claims. As such, it isn't science. It is pure nonsense.

 

[Native]

Well, coming up with a model is the *first* step. The second is to verify that it makes accurate predictions. But why worry about the second step now when the first step hasn't been taken?

It´s of course your choise whether you´ll prepare you now or get a sudden intellectual chock when it irrefutably shows up

Exactly how do those 'constitute an EU model'? Yes, all atoms have EM qualities. They have, in fact, protons and electrons, which are charged. That gives the atoms electric and magnetic fields. And yes, the bonding of atoms to form molecules is largely due to the EM forces.

Well just think bigger (as in cosmic clouds) and stronger (as in the strong gamma rays in galaxies) and you´ll have an excellent EU model because the EM governs it all.

I said:
But then again: At least you now equalizes "gravity" with the EM qualities in all atoms. You then just have to chose the most logical explanation of attraction and repulsion.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

You see? Even when you and your "fellow gravitationists" accept this fact, you/they STILL can´t grasp the reversed connectedness and which fundamental forces REALLY are at work when atoms grows to larger structures via the EM attraction, thus gaining weight growing to bigger shapes.

As for the rest of your reply, try to think bigger and stronger as recommended above and you´ll possibly begin to see the light

 

[Polymath257]

I said:
But then again: At least you now equalizes "gravity" with the EM qualities in all atoms. You then just have to chose the most logical explanation of attraction and repulsion.

OK, try saying it in English this time. For example, what does the phrase 'At least you now equalized 'gravity' with EM qualities in all atoms' mean?

NOBODY claims that gravity is as strong as EM inside of atoms.

You see? Even when you and your "fellow gravitationists" accept this fact, you/they STILL can´t grasp the reversed connectedness and which fundamental forces REALLY are at work when atoms grows to larger structures via the EM attraction, thus gaining weight growing to bigger shapes.

As far as i can see, this betrays a great deal of misunderstanding of how EM works.

 

[ecco]

EM
Ancient Egyptians seeing the center of the galaxy
Air Pressure

I'm just waiting for references to a flat earth.

 

[joelr]

@Polymath257,


This should certainly be sufficient enough to get a Newtonian apple to fall to the ground, don´t you think? An entire Cosmological Gravitaional Model is based on the Newtonian confusion of "matter atracting matter" and it is no surprise that the results would be lots of other confused assumptions, including "dark this or that mattter and energy" because the "gravity" premesis was all wrong from the very beginning.

.

"all debaters shall be openminded and avoid any demeaning comments whether something is "crank" and fully understood or not."

Then why do you consistently keep calling gravity "confused"?
Besides it's beyond well tested and actually has a theory, But there are areas of extreme gravity that can't yet be understood. So it's not fully understood and your sig tells people to avoid demeaning comments on such theories.

Yet you can't mention gravity, which is just a theory you think is wrong, without adding demeaning remarks like "confused"? Why be so hypocritical?

Why assume (when you have no evidence) that gravity is wrong because of the dark matter issue when gravity is already proven to work. SO there are extremely good odds that whatever is causing dark matter is not a problem with gravity.

You can't provide a theory to compete with gravity so you stoop to demeaning it which says nothing except that you can't seem to follow simple suggestions in your own sig????


You can't have atmospheric pressure without gravity. Air would float weightless and drift into space.
Now you need to produce a model/theory that accounts for atmospheric pressure without gravity.

 

[joelr]

Native said: ↑
And "gravitation" is founded on the pressure of the weight of the gaseous atmosphere, so just change the skewed term of "gravity" to the logical one

I know that very well. But I was reffering to the very reasons which constituted the "gravity laws" in the first place, namely Newtons "Apple Pie" perception wich really just is the pressure weight of gases in the Earth atmosphere.

Right but why is there gravity in space? Why do spaceships use gravitational slingshots explained to a minute degree with Newtonian gravity? As well as the path of asteroids and all aspects of work with space ships and operations on the space station?
Why does the space station use Newtonian gravity to remain exactly in stable orbit, calculating the exact speed they need to go to continually fall over the curve of the earth?

I otherwise thought it would be very easy for you to believe in myths since you´re having no toubles believing in all kinds of "dark this and that" ghosts which haven´t been found.

Now you're making things up. I never said I "believed" in dark matter, I said what scientists are saying - we don't know what it is. But so far experiments to understand it have taken in data and we make models based on this data.
So far data is pointing to some type of mass. No one is married to the idea?

We have been saying this all along, what about this is hard for you to understand?

So again, dark matter is something we don't yet understand. Myths are stories people make up to pass on philosophical truths. They do not contain any reliable science beyond lucky guesses. I do not use myths to find science facts.
I do not yet know what dark matter is and I do not care what Lord of the Rings has to say about it.

What your biggest problem seems to be (religious people often have this same issue) is you won't accept people saying "I don't know", it's not in your worldview where the EU people teach you science thinks they know everything.

So if someone does actual science and says "not enough data yet" that seems to frustrate you because science isn't supposed to be open minded.

You can keep your emotional projection here for yourself and take these as a result of your own confusions and narrow minded perceptions.

I know, when you get called out on something and you can't defend your position you call the persons post an "emotional outburst" and "narrow minded", I get it.
It's how you deflect something you can't defend. Your using the word "know" in the same way religious people say they have "faith".
You have no other proof to show your "knowing" has evidence. Humans have always been wrong about the scientific nature of the universe, science has shown this beyond a doubt.
Back up your statements with science or your just appealing to emotion yourself. And using demeaning comments, more hypocritical behavior.

Old myths are full of bad and incorrect science. Your rebuttal is just meaningless ad-hom that shows you can't defend your position.w

I very well know by know that you are complete novice regarding the mytho-cosmological realms. STILL you´re trying to play a judgemental expert in something you know nothing about.

No one needs to be an expert in ancient mythology to know there is no revelant modern science facts contained in them. You know why? Because they are ANCIENT MYTHOLOGY?
The modern science will be found in modern science.
Wow they knew there was light and dark. They knew there were cycles. Wow, let's base all our science on them!!
So lightning really is from Zeus then?

With your own words:

You can play that name game all you want. The fact remains that you have put forth the most closed minded position I have ever heard on this or any other forum.

- All modern cosmologists and physicists are wrong!!!
Your source - stories of Zeus and Ra!!!
Classic.