Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[joelr]

of order here. So why you´re still and generally referring to Old Newton, I dont´know.

It´s only in the minds of some outdated scientists and proponents of gravity that "gravity tends to dominate at the cosmic scale"..
.

Find one actual physicist who believes EU is correct and there is no gravity.

Those videos you posted are of scientists who ALL believe in gravity, the standard model/4 forces.....did you even watch them?

Why do you keep posting sources that agree with the ideas you think are false?

 

[Native]

@joelr,
Whats the news in your last post?

I don´t ignore anything, but I simple reject some of the standard cosmology interpretations of cosmos because of the lack of natural logics and scientific consistency.

it's called a "model", in science they work with them and try to gain new knowledge and they make predictions and they test them and all sorts of stuff like that.
If something is seemingly on the right track why would they discard it?

Scientists also thought Newton to be on the right track in the galactic rotation, but this was contradicted by concrete observations several decades ago.

This was why "dark matter" was invented and this speculative nonsense have now spred out to presumingly count in the entire Universe. In a real cosmological model the hypothesis would have been seriously revised or simply discarded,

They definitely would not discard evidence just because it disagreed with their supernatural beliefs . . .

I´ve notised that as you can read of my reply above.

Otherwise why would you care? Why would you not encourage exploration? Even if it turned out to be wrong?

Do you really think I would participate in this actual 41 times 20 posts page topic of mine if I didn´t care?

You should try to be even a tiny bit open-minded.

So to think out of the squared standard cosmology boxes isn´t open minded enough to you?

 

[Native]

Those videos you posted are of scientists who ALL believe in gravity, the standard model/4 forces.....did you even watch them?
Why do you keep posting sources that agree with the ideas you think are false?

It´s because I´m open minded enough to post videos where the debaters discuss everything

Besides this, the debaters all have their specific approaches to the discussion content.

Note that the titel of one of the posted videos is "Why is gravity so illusive"? So the gravity consensus is based on illusive matters in general.

 

[Native]

Subject: Dark Matter´s not enough".

When cosmologists measures the mass in galaxies by estimating the luminosity (EM energy) of the galaxy, they are about 5 times short of "gravitational mass".

If they´ve measured the EM energetic motion in galaxies, they´ve problable been more correct , even with their explanations of the formative circuital motions in galaxies.

“Dark matter´s not enough” -
Part 1

Part 2 Q&A

Regarding gravity laws and “dark matter” timestamp 2:05

 

[joelr]

@joelr,
Whats the news in your last post?

I don´t ignore anything, but I simple reject some of the standard cosmology interpretations of cosmos because of the lack of natural logics and scientific consistency.

First why don't you define "natural logics" because that doesn't make sense as it stands.
You reject gravity which has been remarkably consistent. Not only does Newtonian gravity govern space travel, GR confirmed the reason for Mercury's orbit problem, expansion of the universe, gravitational lensing, gravity waves, space-time dillation (proven in satellite triangulation gps systems as well as many other areas).

You also reject quantum physics (which gravity is part of) all the forces besides EM and seem to feel EM should "change" and accomodate the strong force??
I can't begin to explain how well proved the strong force and EM are?

Scientists also thought Newton to be on the right track in the galactic rotation, but this was contradicted by concrete observations several decades ago.

So they are working on it? Modified Newtonian gravity is being explored and any other possibility. The avenue you think is correct can't even begin to produce a theory so there isn't anything there to explore.

[QUOTE="Native, post: 6089108, member: 32289"][B][USER=54426][/B]This was why "dark matter" was invented and this speculative nonsense have now spred out to presumingly count in the entire Universe. In a real cosmological model the hypothesis would have been seriously revised or simply discarded,[/QUOTE]


What happened is they keep finding evidence to support dark matter. As I explained a few lines of evidence which you completely ignore and simply carry on with this nonsense about how "speculative"DM is even though there are several areas that seem to be panning out.

What you are calling a "real cosmological model" is in fact a model based on ancient made-up human mythology and discarded if it doesn't fit that ancient man made fiction.
\That is not science. Science looks at evidence and goes from there. Science doesn't watch Lord of the Rings then make up a theory based on Elf magic and insist all others are garbage because they don't follow natural Middle-Earth logic.

Would science just discard a model that seems to be pointing in the right direction? will you ever look at the actual evidence that gives a reason to further study DM?
Or will you just keep pretending that there is no evidence to keep your misdirection argument going?


Other things DM explains are:
[B]Large-Scale Structure Formation

[B]Galactic Rotation Curves

[B]Galaxy Clusters

[B]The Cosmic Microwave Background[/B][/B][/B]

[B]Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, which explains the way light elements such as Helium were formed after the Big Bang, tells us abundance of baryonic matter doesn’t account for the total matter content of the Universe inferred from other observations, and dark matter does solve that issue.[/B][/B]


[QUOTE="Native, post: 6089108, member: 32289"][B][USER=54426][/B]Do you really think I would participate in this actual 41 times 20 posts page topic of mine if I didn´t care?[/QUOTE]

You are not really participating. Just stating the same thing over and over and ignoring the bulk of the facts put to you is not participating? Things that you cannot explain you fluff off. Explain why DM is for "ghostbusters" which means giving alternate explanations to the 5 things DM has explained. You don't produce any information, just DM is a ghost, that's the same as writing nothing.


You said gravitational lensing is light refraction. There are 2 main groups of lensing, neither of these explanations work for refraction?

Macro-In almost all work on gravitational lensing, the light is bent by an entire galaxy, not by a single star.

Micro- Micro-lensing MACHO studies were big for a while. There the light is generally bent by a isolated, low-mass body, so we have plenty of events of that kind to look at.



Another point, refraction is almost always chromatic but lensing is not.


"One point in addition to the other answers. Refraction is almost always chromatic (i.e., different wavelengths refract differently). Gravitational lensing is achromatic. Some studies of gravitational lensing, particularly the MACHO-like microlensing studies, look specifically for achromaticity to test that what they're seeing really is gravitational."

more info here"
[URL="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7250/gravitational-lensing-or-cloud-refraction"]Gravitational lensing or cloud refraction?[/URL]


In 2 posts you'll be back to "lensing is just refraction......"

[B][QUOTE="Native, post: 6089108, member: 32289"][B][USER=54426][/B]So to think out of the squared standard cosmology boxes isn´t open minded enough to you?[/QUOTE][/B]

To take standard cosmology with all of it's predictive power, tech, smart scientists and decide they are all wrong is the most closed minded ever. Then to move over to physics and say the standard model is completely off, no forces even exist but this EU thing which has no theory, predictions or anything else is definitely the correct thing is even more close minded than the last close minded.

Just because someone latches on to an idea that goes against a large part of physics and cosmology does not make them open minded. Someone open minded is willing to look at all evidence and make an informed decision. An open minded person would be open to the universe being not how they want it to be.
They would look at all evidence against their claim as well as positive evidence.
If I believed in EU and not in gravity I would want to know exactly what is happening in satellites for one, how many are used in determining the position, what equations are used, what relativities and in what fashion? Are there alternative ways to do it? Does it confirm the reality of general relativity without a doubt?
I would be on physicsforums. com asking many questions. Not trying to tell them what's right?[/user][/user][/user]

 

[joelr]

Subject: Dark Matter´s not enough".

When cosmologists measures the mass in galaxies by estimating the luminosity (EM energy) of the galaxy, they are about 5 times short of "gravitational mass".

If they´ve measured the EM energetic motion in galaxies, they´ve problable been more correct , even with their explanations of the formative circuital motions in galaxies.

“Dark matter´s not enough” -
Part 1

Part 2 Q&A

Regarding gravity laws and “dark matter” timestamp 2:05

Why don't you source a paper on EM energetic motion accounting for missing gravitational mass, being explored by some EU scientist? Or are there no EU scientists at all? Such a thing cannot be done, but let's see who tried. Or do you EU people believe stuff without seeing papers first?

Again, posting videos that support what we have been saying? You didn't respond to the last response where I pointed out the videos you posted support gravity and the standard model.

If you watch the video you posted this time and continue to 3:57 he says "we continue, for now, to stick to the things that are giving us evidence" meaning dark matter.
He does of course believe in gravity and forces and following where evidence leads.

The thunderbolts front page already has a lie:

"Einstein’s famous mathematical expression E=mc2, equating energy and mass is known by almost everyone. However, most textbooks go on to use the word “matter” in place of “mass.” But nowhere has it been shown that mass and matter are interchangeable. In fact, we are entirely ignorant of what constitutes the mass of an object. So it is inadmissible to imply that energy and matter are interchangeable. The ultimate expression of this idea led to the nonsense of the big bang."


That is a lie. Textbooks use "mass". Notice they don't give an example of what textbook? Matter is a more ambiguous less understood word and everyone knows that. But what constitutes mass - rest mass, binding energy, momentum, Higgs field, it's all known.
That is a sneaky lie - try and hang "mass" and "matter" as synonyms but then say they have never been shown to be equal then hit you with "mass is not understood" and now E=MC2 is wrong by extention and so is the big bang. Classic indoctrination through false lies set up to look like a conspiracy and that you're learning some great truth for the first time!
I thought they might save lies and mis-direction for the inner pages?

 

[joelr]

“Dark matter´s not enough” -
Part 1

Part 2 Q&A

Regarding gravity laws and “dark matter” timestamp 2:05

Why did you post this?
This guy totally believes in dark matter???

At 29:12 of the 2nd video he even explains what we have been saying, you make up a theory using maths then you test it against the real world.
This is ongoing now with dark matter.
This is not happening at all with EU, no maths, no predictions, no tests against the real world.


watch the videos in full.

 

[Native]

First why don't you define "natural logics" because that doesn't make sense as it stands.

You can define this for yourself. Just abandon most of the standing cosmology and start thinking for yourself.

What happened is they keep finding evidence to support dark matter. As I explained a few lines of evidence which you completely ignore and simply carry on with this nonsense about how "speculative"DM is even though there are several areas that seem to be panning out.

Of course they keep finding support to their skewed theory - and of course I completely ignore ideas made up from a false idea.

They would look at all evidence against their claim as well as positive evidence.

Rubbish! If so, they should have abandon the gravity ideas when this was contradicted in the galactic rotation curve.

Why did you post this?
This guy totally believes in dark matter???

At 29:12 of the 2nd video he even explains what we have been saying, you make up a theory using maths then you test it against the real world.
This is ongoing now with dark matter.

You completley misses the plot. They don´t know what "dark matter" is and they cannot explain what gravity is either and why it works differently in the Solar System and in the Milky Way galaxy of which the Solar System is an integrated part.

STILL they state their theories to be correct - according to their calculations. Unfortunately their cosmological calculations doesn´t fit the real world in cosmos - which is why they keep on with more and more unnatural and speculative ad hoc assumptions.

They are completely missing the sense of natural logics and keep on going astray in cosmos. And you just swallows it all.

 

[joelr]

You can define this for yourself. Just abandon most of the standing cosmology and start thinking for yourself.

You mean decide the universe should be formed from what "seems right" or by using "intuition"?
Using those methods people didn't figure out germs, or that the earth revolves around the sun, or that photons are particles, or some stars are actually other galaxies.
The human mind is constantly wrong with scientific intuition. What sets up right is empirical data, models, experiments and multiple confirmations.

Of course they keep finding support to their skewed theory - and of course I completely ignore ideas made up from a false idea.

Right, because you are completely close-minded. You think you are right and all science is wrong.
Please remove that false sig and admit you close-mindedly insist that EU is the only possible correct theory.
Even when evidence is slowly growing in favor of dark matter, nope, throw it away.
If the truth has nothing to do with your mythology then you don't want anything to do with it.

This is exactly like the catholic church in the middle ages who refused to hear anything about the earth moving around the sun.
Their "natural logic" was that god made the earth as the center of the universe and it could not possibly revolve around the sun.

Rubbish! If so, they should have abandon the gravity ideas when this was contradicted in the galactic rotation curve.

Again, close minded, you throw out a theory when it's proven wrong. You have no such information. Why would you want scientists to practice ignorance?
Especially when EU has no working model at all? You want scientists to bury their head in the sand and ignore lines of exploration that are working out?
What's next? Book burnings? Maybe you could try to legislate science books as illegal and propaganda and start legislation that ancient Egyptian creation stories be taught as science along with evolution.

You completley misses the plot. They don´t know what "dark matter" is and they cannot explain what gravity is either and why it works differently in the Solar System and in the Milky Way galaxy of which the Solar System is an integrated part.

No, they don't know what dark matter is? They don't know what causes cancer either. Should you now insist that we stop working on cancer prevention?
Same pointless sentences every post. No responses to any facts.

STILL they state their theories to be correct - according to their calculations. Unfortunately their cosmological calculations doesn´t fit the real world in cosmos - which is why they keep on with more and more unnatural and speculative ad hoc assumptions.

What theory are you talking about? Scientists keep saying dark matter is a mystery.
So what theory exactly are you talking about?
Every post is some conspiracy rant not even related to the posts I make?

What theory is correct according to their calculations? Which theory doesn't fit the real world in the cosmos?
What are you even talking about???

This was your response to me explaining that the video you posted was of a scientist who also believes in gravity, fundamental forces and is working on dark matter solutions.

They are completely missing the sense of natural logics and keep on going astray in cosmos. And you just swallows it all.

Again, physics has continually, over and over, shown us things about reality that have defied our expectations about how things should be.
So if you knew the history of modern physics you would know that that statement is that of someone who has NO knowledge about the science and it's history.

and again, what do you mean by "natural logics"? What would seem to be logical by our mind was how the Greeks did physics. They decided everything was made of elements, air, fire, water, land. The earth was a flat circle and weather, disease, good/bad fortune came from gods who lived directly above us in the lower heavens.
Beyond that everything else is a surprise to our "logic" and a result of science. Nothing else made logical sense because human logic is designed to catch food, fight, make shelter and such.
The computer you are using was made from science that totally defied all human logic. Things you might grasp when you learn a laymans version of physics.

Each post you drift further and further away from reality.


All of the videos you posted helped prove our point?
You haven't responded to the clear facts that micro/macro lensing is not refraction, dealt with specifically in the articles I linked to.
Or all of the things that dark matter is giving better understanding to and why we would just stop working on an idea when it's producing good results?

You still haven't shown ONE phD scientist in physics who doesn't believe in gravity even though you said only outdated scientists still believe in gravity.
Show me one scientist who is an actual physicist who thinks gravity is not real and EU is correct.
One scientist.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
You can define this for yourself. Just abandon most of the standing cosmology and start thinking for yourself.

You mean decide the universe should be formed from what "seems right" or by using "intuition"?
Using those methods people didn't figure out germs, or that the earth revolves around the sun, or that photons are particles, or some stars are actually other galaxies.
The human mind is constantly wrong with scientific intuition. What sets up right is empirical data, models, experiments and multiple confirmations.

Yes imperical data is important. Without these thousands of years imperical observations, Newton wasn´t able to put celestial calculations on the motion of planets. Unfortunately he also added his "Apple-Pie gravity thesis" which was unneccesary and false. As it also was on the galactic scales.

As for the rest of your reply, this is just emotional outbursts and comments based on your own lack of scientific critical senses and mixed up with your religious bias.

 

[joelr]

Native said: ↑
You can define this for yourself. Just abandon most of the standing cosmology and start thinking for yourself.

So science-fiction and wishful thinking is how you determine what's true about the universe? cool, good luck with that.

Yes imperical data is important. Without these thousands of years imperical observations, Newton wasn´t able to put celestial calculations on the motion of planets. Unfortunately he also added his "Apple-Pie gravity thesis" which was unneccesary and false. As it also was on the galactic scales.

Once again, blanket statements, no proof, no alternate model, nothing. Just a closed mind clinging to one website of ideas that science has proven wrong.

As for the rest of your reply, this is just emotional outbursts and comments based on your own lack of scientific critical senses and mixed up with your religious bias.

Cool so let's get back to scientific critical senses then.

You said gravitational lensing was refraction.
But one problem is:
Refraction is almost always chromatic (i.e., different wavelengths refract differently). Gravitational lensing is achromatic. Some studies of gravitational lensing, particularly the MACHO-like microlensing studies, look specifically for achromaticity to test that what they're seeing really is gravitational.

Also in macro lensing - almost all work on gravitational lensing, the light is bent by an entire galaxy, not by a single star. What refraction can be shown using a galaxy??

Micro- Micro-lensing MACHO studies were big for a while. There the light is generally bent by a isolated, low-mass body, so we have plenty of events of that kind to look at. So we have effects far different that refraction.

Lensing also duplicates and enhances images and the detailed information on lensing covered here could never be duplicated by refraction. Remember, if one star passes in front of another, theory predicts that the background source should become brighter. Can you show refraction doing this? No. Please explain how EU deals with these issues. So far it's just been to bury your head in the sand.

Gravitational Microlensing: Searches and Results



These things are giving reason to believe dark matter is on the right track. I guess you've debunked all of them since you are still so sure you're correct so explain!

When we put dark matter into super computer models of the universe it accounts for:

Large-Scale Structure Formation

Galactic Rotation Curves

Galaxy Clusters

The Cosmic Microwave Background


There are many other reasons why DM seems to be a good fit. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, which explains the way light elements such as Helium were formed after the Big Bang, tells us abundance of baryonic matter doesn’t account for the total matter content of the Universe inferred from other observations, and dark matter does solve that issue.

 

[joelr]

As for the rest of your reply, this is just emotional outbursts and comments based on your own lack of scientific critical senses and mixed up with your religious bias.

So my "lack of scientific critical senses" is that I don't believe ancient myths created by people in the stone age is reliable science. That's generally called common sense.

My "religious bias" is....well I'm not religious so are you sure you're talking to the right person? Are you confused?
I know you try to ad-hom and strawman arguments when you can't answer stuff but at least try to make some sense?


Oh yeah, since the modern theory of gravity is "followed only in the minds of some outdated scientists and proponents of gravity" then there must be hundreds of scientists who disbelieve gravity and hundreds who follow EU.
Please list one PhD physicist or PhD Cosmologist who doesn't believe in gravity.



Why do you keep posting videos of lectures by scientists who support the standard model, gravity, the 4 forces?

 

[Native]

Cool so let's get back to scientific critical senses then.

You said gravitational lensing was refraction.
But one problem is:
Refraction is almost always chromatic (i.e., different wavelengths refract differently). Gravitational lensing is achromatic. Some studies of gravitational lensing, particularly the MACHO-like microlensing studies, look specifically for achromaticity to test that what they're seeing really is gravitational.

I don´t care if you blindly believe in metaphysical superstitious dark ghosts assumptions everwhere in the Universe. Find the damn thing first before you take it seriously and claim it to be real.

 

[joelr]

I don´t care if you blindly believe in metaphysical superstitious dark ghosts assumptions everwhere in the Universe. Find the damn thing first before you take it seriously and claim it to be real.

What the heck are you talking about? Such a strawman argument. I never said dark matter was real, why do you keep putting words in my mouth? Oh I know why, so you have something to debate. Because what I'm saying is rational and makes sense so you need to change my words so you can argue them.

Pretty lame.

I've been saying all along, we don't know what dark matter is, we just follow evidence and see what happens. Maybe it will prove to be something we think it is or maybe evidence will make it all go away. That's how science is done.

The irony is it's you who blindly believe in metaphysical superstitious dark ghosts and assumptions because your trying desperately to make ancient myths be a part of science. Starting with a premise and trying to prove it correct is the worst way to do science. It's how creationism started.
I don't care what happens to dark matter. Nor do I "believe in it" because no one knows what "it" is? Right now it seems to be some type of mass producing gravitational effects and it's producing evidence based on the models. The models give predictions and we test to see if they are correct. If that changes or something better comes up that will take over. No one cares, everyone just wants to find the truth.
In science at least.

In religion the main goal is to make sure your religious beliefs are not challenged so certain science that doesn't work with the religious beliefs has to be challenged. Like creationism and now this Egyptian creation myth.


I didn't see any answers to several of my questions?

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
I don´t care if you blindly believe in metaphysical superstitious dark ghosts assumptions everwhere in the Universe. Find the damn thing first before you take it seriously and claim it to be real.

What the heck are you talking about? Such a strawman argument. I never said dark matter was real, why do you keep putting words in my mouth? Oh I know why, so you have something to debate. Because what I'm saying is rational and makes sense so you need to change my words so you can argue them.

No I didn´t post any strawmen as I even take "gravity" to count as a metaphysical invention which is closely connected to the other dark ghosts in modern cosmology.

I've been saying all along, we don't know what dark matter is, we just follow evidence and see what happens. Maybe it will prove to be something we think it is or maybe evidence will make it all go away. That's how science is done.

You even don´t know what "gravity" is! It´s all just based on the Newtonian Apple-Pie assumptions which is contradicted on the large scales in cosmos and therefor is generally discarded as a thrustworthy explanation everywhere.

The irony is it's you who blindly believe in metaphysical superstitious dark ghosts and assumptions because your trying desperately to make ancient myths be a part of science.

As said several times by now, I don´t take you as an expert on mythical issues. Again, your bias against mythical/religious explanations is just your own mental and intellectual restriction.

I don't care what happens to dark matter. Nor do I "believe in it" because no one knows what "it" is? Right now it seems to be some type of mass producing gravitational effects and it's producing evidence based on the models.

Yes "it seems to be" and as such this is - also - just assumptions based om unseen ghosts and ascribed to "gravity" from circumstantial conditions which isn´t understood too.

If that changes or something better comes up that will take over. No one cares, everyone just wants to find the truth.
In science at least.

This scientific method didn´t take place when gravity was contradicted in galaxies and when the prime dark ghost of "dark matter" was invented. So "gravity" and "dark matter" IS cosmologically connected.

In religion the main goal is to make sure your religious beliefs are not challenged so certain science that doesn't work with the religious beliefs has to be challenged. Like creationism and now this Egyptian creation myth.

As said several times by now, I don´t take you as an expert on mythical issues. Again, your bias against mythical/religious explanations is just your own mental and intellectual restriction.

Connecting dogmatic religious beliefs with the cultural Stories of Creation is a huge intellectual mistake. The stories of creation is very much based on astronomical observations as well of natural observations of the "circle of life" in general. This is why ancient cultures took everything to be eternal and circuital of nature and not as a linear development of the Universe, which is cosmological nonsense.

I didn't see any answers to several of my questions?

Why should I? I don´t count on convensus gravity or other dark ghosts and if you sincerely are interested in alternative explanations, study the EM laws of formation and motions for yourselves. This will provide the natural explanations on everything without adding lots of dark ghosts.

 

[Native]

Subject: "Celestial motions and Solar System formation models".

The Kepler and Newton gravity model versus the EU Solar System model(s) in the ThunderboltsProject theory.

Video by Physicist Eugene Bagashov

Timestamps: (TBP = ThunderboltsProject)
1) 4:44 The accumulation of planetary aphelias.
2) 6:05 The TBP EU ideas of planetary capturing.
3) 9:22 The Solar System and the Birkeland electric currents in the galaxy.
4) 11:16 The planetary orbital angles and the Interstellar wind direction in our galaxy.
5) 12:44 Solar System formation connection with the interstellar environment.

My comments:
ad 1: Indicates a common formation system of the planets.
ad 2: This is pure nonsense based on the TBP Immanuel Velikovsky/David Talbott interpretations of ancient Myths of Creation.
ad 3: This Birkeland twisting electric current is Universal.
ad 4: The "interstellar wind" direction is connected to the expulsive formation process in your Milky Way galaxy - with reference to the observed galactic rotation curve.
ad 5: As our solar system is an integrated part of the galactic rotation, it is also an integrated part of the galactic formation.

The explanation:

This astronomical datum line points directly towards (January) and away (July) from the center of our Milky Way and it mirrors the formation process of the Solar System which, in my opinion, was formed in the Milky Way center, initially as a huge pre-solar sphere from where the planets divided when the pre-sun was molten hot.

This division took place soon after the solar sphere left the galactic center on its way out in the galactic bars and this initially outgoing motion really represents the direction of the "interstellar wind".

MY summary:
Both the Newtonian and Einsteinian ideas of gravity is insufficient and wrong.

The Standard Model nebular explanation of the Solar System needs to be connected with the overall (and outwards going) formation in our Milky Way galaxy.

The TBP/EU is wrong regarding "the electric capturing of planets". The ancient Myths of Creation are misunderstood and used in this idea. (Otherwise the ancient myths are generally very cosmological precise)

Physicist Eugene Bagashov is on the correct track regarding the commonly planetary orbital plane and angles of motion and formation - and regarding his assumptions of that "interstellar wind", i.e. the galactic motion, has a significant role to play.

 

[joelr]

Native said: ↑
I don´t care if you blindly believe in metaphysical superstitious dark ghosts assumptions everwhere in the Universe. Find the damn thing first before you take it seriously and claim it to be real.

Again, strawman, I never said it was real? Never?

No I didn´t post any strawmen as I even take "gravity" to count as a metaphysical invention which is closely connected to the other dark ghosts in modern cosmology.

Of course you did, your strawman is to claim that I say dark matter is real, then you point out all the flaws in that line of thinking.
Except I NEVER said it was real? You build up an argument I never made then argue against it.
That is exactly what a strawman is.

You even don´t know what "gravity" is! It´s all just based on the Newtonian Apple-Pie assumptions which is contradicted on the large scales in cosmos and therefor is generally discarded as a thrustworthy explanation everywhere.

What? "Newton apple pie assumptions"???? Uh, no it's based on a gigantic theory with craploads of tensor equations and makes several real world predictions that all came true.

It also accurately predicts gravitational lensing which as I provided the link is completely different from refraction in several ways. We will get back to all those specifics and why you think refraction could possibly account for them (it can't).

But here you are 3 posts later still asserting things that are completely wrong and have been shown to be wrong just 3 posts ago. Lensing does not account for micro or macro lensing for several reasons.
But then we also have triangulation in GPS satellites which you haven't dealt with, or explained how GR explained the small deviation in Mercury's orbit?
Among all those things and more (prediction of black holes, prediction of gravity waves, universal expansion) you still keep saying gravity is just an assumption?

As said several times by now, I don´t take you as an expert on mythical issues. Again, your bias against mythical/religious explanations is just your own mental and intellectual restriction.

No but Joseph Campbell is the worlds expert on myth and I am a fan of him.
Joe and anyone else can tell you myths contain stories that are metaphors, parables, life lessons but not scientific facts. The only intellectual restriction here would be someone trying to make myths dictate actual science.
Like the flat Earthers or the "space isn't real" people. Takes all types I guess.

Yes "it seems to be" and as such this is - also - just assumptions based om unseen ghosts and ascribed to "gravity" from circumstantial conditions which isn´t understood too.

Normally I could answer that but you're the guy who thinks mythology must be correct science and now you're talking about "circumstantial conditions" and "assumptions based om unseen ghosts"...that's hilarious. And hypocritical. So I'm not going to bother.

This scientific method didn´t take place when gravity was contradicted in galaxies and when the prime dark ghost of "dark matter" was invented. So "gravity" and "dark matter" IS cosmologically connected.

Yes the current model of dark matter is that it has gravitational attraction.

Why do you keep calling dark matter a "ghost" as if that's a put-down?
We already know you believe all sorts of ridiculous mythological nonsense so labeling something a "ghost" to demean it is just making you look silly.
You literally believe in ghosts? So that's just one huge fail.

As said several times by now, I don´t take you as an expert on mythical issues. Again, your bias against mythical/religious explanations is just your own mental and intellectual restriction.

Do you need to be an expert in mythology to know that Thor was just a myth? Do you really think he battles an Earth sized world-serpent and then died?
Do you need a PhD in mythology to know that lightning isn't actually being thrown by Zeus each time it strikes?
Myths are myths. They tell stories and are metaphors, the end.

Connecting dogmatic religious beliefs with the cultural Stories of Creation is a huge intellectual mistake. The stories of creation is very much based on astronomical observations as well of natural observations of the "circle of life" in general. This is why ancient cultures took everything to be eternal and circuital of nature and not as a linear development of the Universe, which is cosmological nonsense.

And ancient cultures didn't know about space and thought the heavens were in the lower firmament in the upper atmosphere.
Science and nature do not conform to human ideas even if they seem to make sense.

Weird how you keep saying I'm not an expert on myth and you're not talking about it anymore and you keep going on and on?

Why should I? I don´t count on convensus gravity or other dark ghosts and if you sincerely are interested in alternative explanations, study the EM laws of formation and motions for yourselves. This will provide the natural explanations on everything without adding lots of dark ghosts.

Why should you? Because you freaking JUST SAID GRAVITY LENSING IS REALLY REFRACTION????? YOU SAID THAT? You stated gravity is fiction, I said "what about gravitational lensing?"
You said it's refraction.
So I proved it wasn't in several ways, provided all the equations and methods we study refraction and lensing and I said can you offer any counter proof?

You are making proclamations and when proven wrong you're just going silent.

Another thing, I DID STUDY THE LAWS OF EM and they did NOT PROVIDE NATURAL EXPLANATIONS ON EVERYTHING???
SO I ask for the 5th time, the laws of EM are not strong enough to hold protons together in the nucleus, this is just the first of a looooong line of issues we will have to deal with when "simply" using the laws of EM to formulate the motions of galaxies.
Many many more problems.



Again with the "ghost" thing? It holds no weight coming from someone who thinks ancient bronze age people understood cosmology better than modern astro- physicists.
And your sig says to be open minded about ALL theories and you can't stop being completely close-minded about the dark matter theory.
I'm embarrased for you.

 

[joelr]

Subject: "Celestial motions and Solar System formation models".

The Kepler and Newton gravity model versus the EU Solar System model(s) in the ThunderboltsProject theory.

Video by Physicist Eugene Bagashov

MY summary:
Both the Newtonian and Einsteinian ideas of gravity is insufficient and wrong.

The Standard Model nebular explanation of the Solar System needs to be connected with the overall (and outwards going) formation in our Milky Way galaxy.

The TBP/EU is wrong regarding "the electric capturing of planets". The ancient Myths of Creation are misunderstood and used in this idea. (Otherwise the ancient myths are generally very cosmological precise)

Physicist Eugene Bagashov is on the correct track regarding the commonly planetary orbital plane and angles of motion and formation - and regarding his assumptions of that "interstellar wind", i.e. the galactic motion, has a significant role to play.

OMG, you did it again.
The physicist in the video 100% believes in gravity.
There is not one shred of evidence for gravity being false in your video.
Yet your "summary" was that gravity is wrong?

The physicist simply thinks there may be some other factors related to plasma and such influencing the orbits of the objects. Again, did you even watch the video?

 

[Native]

OMG, you did it again.
The physicist in the video 100% believes in gravity.
There is not one shred of evidence for gravity being false in your video.
Yet your "summary" was that gravity is wrong?

The physicist simply thinks there may be some other factors related to plasma and such influencing the orbits of the objects. Again, did you even watch the video?

The physicist disguss OTHER possibilities of the formation of the Solar System instead of the Standard Model gravitational assumptions.

But of course you don´t like ANY other models but the consensus ones which even can´t explain "gravity" or the attached "dark ghosts" which follows the gravitational asumptions.

So just just keep on believing what you once have been teached without having critical questions or alternative suggestions.

 

[Native]

Subject: False cosmic distance measuring contradicts a Big Bang and "dark energy".

Listen to this video and think for yourself:

Wal Thornhill: Big Bang Busted Again

Regarding the ancient cultural Stories of Creation mentioned in the beginning of this video, several of these stories claims the creation to be of an eternal and cyclic nature, thus also contradicting a Big Bang.

My comment to the video:
Timestamp 4:15 regarding the cultural Stories of Creation:
Most of the ancient cultural Stories of Creation claims the creation to be of an eternal and cyclic nature, which of course (also) discards a Big Bang idea.
The specific creation myths mostly describes the pre-conditions of and the factual creation of the Milky Way galaxy which constitutes the ancient known part of the (local) Universe.