Cosmology of the Electric Universe

[Polymath257]

I said:
Try and use your number acrobatics on the assumed Big Bang - or what happen inside the assumed "black hole" - or why Newtons occult assumption was contradicted in the galactic realms.

And your conclusions are?

That the universe is expanding and has been doing so for the last 13.7 billion years. At the beginning stages it was hot and dense enough for nuclear reactions to happen everywhere. Eventually, it cooled enough to be transparent to light and the afterglow is the cosmic background radiation.

I said:
Even our ancient ancestors understood the creation significantly better than modern cosmology with all its assumptions, superstitious occult agencies and dark ghost and dark energies all over in the Universe.

How can you tell? Are you an expert on Comparative Mythology? I doubt that very much. As a rejecter of natural philosophy in general, you have no clues at all.

1) They had/have the Universe to be eternal.

Probably false, but certainly not proven.

2) They had/have the LIGHT to be the creation force.

Almost certainly false.

3) They had/have 2 main forces of formation, attraction, and expulsion.

Too vague to be useful and likely to be false in any reasonable interpretation.

4) They had/have everything in the Universe to be formed/created, dissolved and re-formatted in a cyclical and eternal process.

Almost certainly false.

5) They had/have all motions and formations to be cyclical.

Again, almost certainly false.

6) They had/have a telling of the preconditions of gases and dust and the factual formation of the Milky Way from chaos to order.

At best a misunderstanding of what they wrote since they had no conception of the Milky Way *as* a galaxy.

7) They had/have the Solar System to be included in the Milky Way formation.

Again, false. The Milky Way formed LONG before the solar system---by several billion years.

8) They had/have the Solar System once to be formed in the galactic center from where it moved out in the galactic arms.

Multiple problems here.
1. The sun did NOT form at the galactic center.
2. The ancients had no concept of the Milky Way *as a galaxy*
3. The spiral arms weren't discovered until very recently.

Just from the paragraph 8) part: it moved out in the galactic arms, you can deduce the correctness of this telling by comparing this paragraph to the observed galactic rotation, where the scientists concluded the stars to fly away from the galaxies because of the rotational pattern.

Um, no they do not. The stars are in orbit around the center of the galaxy. They stay roughly the same distance from that center between their formation in gas clouds to when they 'burn out'.

The ancient cultural mythical knowledge of basic cosmology is far superior to the modern speculations and all their matemathical number gymnatics.

Not superior in any way whatsoever.

I said:
Is your mind at all aware of what your hands are typing here? You´re really saying:
"There were no evidence to support his mechanism".

What´s the logical difference from my conclusion?

You are focused on some sort of mechanism. NO MECHANISM IS REQUIRED.

ALL that is required is that the description works. And it does.

Just think of it: Here we have a scientist claiming he find it unproductive and pointless to look for the causal mechanism of his gravitational hypothesis!?

For any fundamental force, there cannot be a deeper explanation.

All he then have left is his speculative assumption and nothing more! He furthermore then assumed his "two-body gravity" to work in the Solar System too as an universal law, but this universal assumption was directly contradicted in the galactic realms, and then the scientists assumed yet another ting, the "dark matter".

No, it was NOT contradicted. At *most* it was limited. But it still works quite well at the level of the solar system and other stellar systems.

This is what some modern scientists STILL accept as a "Scientific Method!? Accepting a historic assumption of a force which mechanism cannot be found or explained - and most standard scientist or proponent STILL find it "unproductive and pointless" to look for the causal mechanism!?

Is that science at all?

Yes, it is. And that you don't understand that only shows you don't understand how science works.

And at the same time, these "scientist" and proponents, very annoyed by meeting an opposition, just pecks on those persons who critically are trying to find head and tail in Newtons unsubstanciated assumptions.

They are more annoyed at the ignorance of those who are being critical. Those who do so intelligently and with evidence are listened to.

I said:
NO, it´s just you poor guys who isn´t informed on the Universities because they only teach particle physics, Newtons occult agencies and empty space.

Sorry, but gravity exists. Newton's description is very accurate. Einstein's is even more so. The ancient descriptions were simply poor.

Ok so, but the dogmatically, collectively and hypnotized teachers completely forgot to teach students of the critical, logical and independent thinking methods.

Using those critical thinking skills pretty quickly shows your whole system to be in trouble. There is no evidence for what it says. It is vague and contradicted by the facts.

Once you´ve left your gravitational particle and Newtons unsubstanciated assumptions behind you and begin to study real E&M science, you can begin to judge the overall EU.

I have studied E&M quite a bit, thank you. May I suggest some reading?

I claimed:
It doesn´t matter which kind of critical articles i present for you, as you per automatics rejects these.

As for instants Newtons galactic contradictions, maybe? Then put your words to the logical facts.

Yes, of course. The first thing to do when the observations don't fit the theory is figure out if anything has been missed. A modification of the theory is also a standard approach.

But you don't throw out a theory completely because it fails in one scenario. Especially when it works incredibly well in other scenarios. The way to approach that is to find *when* it works and why. That is being done.

I said:
I bet I could post a critical peer reviewed article and you´ll reject that too - or simply explain away the written criticism - or new alternate observations - as you use to do.

Here´s some tests for that:
Effect of Electromagnetic Interaction on Galactic Center Flare Components

So they found that the plasma close to the central black hole has a net charge density. This affects the local motion of the flares.

And?

Magnetic Fields in the Milky Way and in Galaxies (revised version...

A nice description of the state of knowledge about magnetic fields in space. In particular, it points out that the strength of the galactic magnetic field is about 6 microgauss increasing to about 10 microgauss close to the center. It affects cosmic rays significantly.

And?

Intergalactic electromagnetic cascades in the magnetized Universe...

Attempts to model the intergalactic magnetic fields. Finds that the data isn't very good.

Outflow Bubbles from Compact Binary Mergers Embedded in Active...

Proposes a way for neutron star and black hole mergers to produce photons.

Suggests this can be detected via gravitational waves.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.03744.pdf

Proposes that the galactic magnetic field may have been formed in the early universe. There are some challenges to this view, but the paper discusses them.

Rapid Variability of Sgr A* across the Electromagnetic Spectrum

Uses the emitted gamma rays close to the black hole at the center of our galaxy to better understand the nature of the accretion disk there.

ALL of these papers seem quite reasonable.

Now, how do *any* of them support anything you have said?

For example, how do any of them support the claim that gravity does not exist?

How do any of them support the claim that the sun was formed at the center of the galaxy?

How do any of them support the claim that the motions of the solar system are tightly coupled to the motion of the larger galaxy?

How do any of them support your denial of dark matter?

How do any of them support the EU position AT ALL?

Did you even read the abstracts of any of these papers? Did you understand those abstracts?

Why do you seem to think that these papers are NOT accepted by the scientific community when they clearly ARE?

So, what are there to be ignored or denied in these peer reveiwed articles?

Nothing at all. But none of them support your positions at all.

I asked:
HAVE YOU EVER HAD JUST ONE INDEPENDENT CRITICAL THOUGHT OF ANYTHING IN THE CONSENSUS THEORIES AT ALL?

You criticising the convensus science? You almost could have fooled me there as it doesn´t show up in your replies.

You have no idea what I do for my research nor the alternatives I have investigated. ALL that you can see here is that I firmly reject the EU nonsense and reject the idea that things fall on Earth because of atmospheric pressure.

 

[Native]

That the universe is expanding and has been doing so for the last 13.7 billion years. At the beginning stages it was hot and dense enough for nuclear reactions to happen everywhere. Eventually, it cooled enough to be transparent to light and the afterglow is the cosmic background radiation.

More boring repeating parottings. Give an interesting answer please. How did your matemathical number acrobatics predict this before it assumingly happend?

As for most of your comments to my mythological references and it´s cosmological principles, I just conclude that you´re not in the intellectual position to judge anything af this.

And, as usual you just ignore everything instead of asking into what you don´t know.

Multiple problems here.
1. The sun did NOT form at the galactic center.

Sort of admitted. I should be more precise and say: By the electromagnetically proces IN the galactic center working on all cosmic clouds in the galactic surroundings.

Uses the emitted gamma rays close to the black hole at the center of our galaxy to better understand the nature of the accretion disk there.

Now, how do *any* of them support anything you have said?

This support very nicely my and - the ancestral - perception of the central Milky Way formation via E&M frequenscies when a central current induces perpendicular magnetic fields in its disklike surroundings.

Thats what the scientists in case cloud have got from the ancient knowledge.

You have no idea what I do for my research nor the alternatives I have investigated.

Well according to most of your replies, it does´t shine through very clearly.

ALL that you can see here is that I firmly reject the EU nonsense and reject the idea that things fall on Earth because of atmospheric pressure.

Naturally it is so to you as this certainly isn´t something you critically, independently and logically have investigated - because you´re stuck in the common consensus agreements no matter how superstitions and unsubstanciated these are.

 

[Polymath257]

More boring repeating parottings. Give an interesting answer please. How did your matemathical number acrobatics predict this before it assumingly happend?

The mathematics predicted the exact form of the background radiation. It was accurate to one part in 100,000. It then goes on to explain the deviations from the 'pure curve' that are due to fluctuations in the early universe.

ALL of these predictions, made well ahead of time, have been verified by observation.

As for most of your comments to my mythological references and it´s cosmological principles, I just conclude that you´re not in the intellectual position to judge anything af this.

Quite the contrary. if the mythological references disagree with the modern observations, they are simply wrong.

And, as usual you just ignore everything instead of asking into what you don´t know.

Sort of admitted. I should be more precise and say: By the electromagnetically proces IN the galactic center working on all cosmic clouds in the galactic surroundings.

Nope, not that either.

[QUUOTE]This support very nicely my and - the ancestral - perception of the central Milky Way formation via E&M frequenscies when a central current induces perpendicular magnetic fields in its disklike surroundings.[/QUOTE]

Which paper supports that?

Thats what the scientists in case cloud have got from the ancient knowledge.

Ancient superstitions, you mean. And no, those superstitions have very little to offer modern science.

Well according to most of your replies, it does´t shine through very clearly.

It's just that I disagree with your positions.

For example, I was a supported of MOND until the evidence came in showing it to be wrong.

I suspect that part of the explanation of the galactic rotations curves may be due to non-linearities in the Einstein filed equations. The math is still being worked out for that one and testable predictions are being sought.

Naturally it is so to you as this certainly isn´t something you critically, independently and logically have investigated - because you´re stuck in the common consensus agreements no matter how superstitions and unsubstanciated these are.

I've notice that you seem to think everyone else is being non-critical when they disagree with you and agree with the observations. You, however, never seem to critically analyze your own views.

 

[Native]

The mathematics predicted the exact form of the background radiation.

I asked into the matemathical prediction BEFORE this BB fantasy and not of hindsight biases.

Quite the contrary. if the mythological references disagree with the modern observations, they are simply wrong.

If you don´t have the intellectual, mythical, philosophical and logical analytic skills, you can´t judge anything mythical and of it´s connection with astronomy and cosmology.
Once again you´re simply just ignoring and denying on the basics of pure ignorance.

Which paper supports that?

Do you need papers for everything? Why just take my written reply explanation for granted and compare it with the article hypothesis you read?

And no, those superstitions have very little to offer modern science.

I know. This is why I´m opposing the superstitious inventions of gravity, dark holes, dark matter and dark energy.

It's just that I disagree with your positions.

I really don´t think YOU do, but certainly your education and consensus beliefs does.

For example, I was a supported of MOND until the evidence came in showing it to be wrong.

Of course it was wrong. Hypothezing dark matter and a gravity which both isn´t there, is bound to be wrong.

I suspect that part of the explanation of the galactic rotations curves may be due to non-linearities in the Einstein filed equations. The math is still being worked out for that one and testable predictions are being sought.

You can wait for this in wain for many coming centuries as Einsteins Newtonian heritage is totally bunkers.

I've notice that you seem to think everyone else is being non-critical when they disagree with you and agree with the observations. You, however, never seem to critically analyze your own views.

"The best defence is an attack" in ordet to tweek the course of an discussion, right?

You, however, never seem to critically analyze your own views.

Obviously you¨re THAT AUTOMATICALLY OPPOSING that you even don´t mark when I´m correcting myself.

You replied:
Polymath257 said: ↑
Multiple problems here.
1. The sun did NOT form at the galactic center.

Sort of admitted. I should be more precise and say: By the electromagnetically proces IN the galactic center working on all cosmic clouds in the galactic surroundings.

Can you read it now?

Of course I frequently correct myself as a genuine an honest natural philosopher.

When did´you lastly corrected yourself? When did you lastly and independently discarded a contradicted convensus theory as nonsense?

 

[Polymath257]

I asked into the matemathical prediction BEFORE this BB fantasy and not of hindsight biases.

The prediction was before the observation. That is what is required.

It isn't hindsight bias if the observations and the prediction agree with one part in 100,000.

If you don´t have the intellectual, mythical, philosophical and logical analytic skills, you can´t judge anything mythical and of it´s connection with astronomy and cosmology.
Once again you´re simply just ignoring and denying on the basics of pure ignorance.

Rubbish. I am denying because the ancient superstitions disagree with actual observations. I am denying from a position of knowledge, not from a position of ignorance.

Do you need papers for everything? Why just take my written reply explanation for granted and compare it with the article hypothesis you read?

YOU were the one that offered those papers in support of your ideas. But those papers do NOT support any of your specific claims.

Your hypothesis does, in fact, disagree with the papers AND disagrees with the actual evidence.

I know. This is why I´m opposing the superstitious inventions of gravity, dark holes, dark matter and dark energy.

Except that we can actually measure gravity. We have actual pictures of black holes, and we can observe the effects of dark matter and dark energy.

Your denial doesn't help your case.

I really don´t think YOU do, but certainly your education and consensus beliefs does.

Of course it was wrong. Hypothezing dark matter and a gravity which both isn´t there, is bound to be wrong.

Gravity *is* there. it can even be measured between two masses of 90 milligrams. Your denial notwithstanding.

You can wait for this in wain for many coming centuries as Einsteins Newtonian heritage is totally bunkers.

"The best defence is an attack" in ordet to tweek the course of an discussion, right?

Obviously you¨re THAT AUTOMATICALLY OPPOSING that you even don´t mark when I´m correcting myself.

You replied:
Polymath257 said: ↑
Multiple problems here.
1. The sun did NOT form at the galactic center.

Can you read it now?

Of course I frequently correct myself as a genuine natural philosopher.

When did´you lastly corrected yourself? When did you lastly and independently discarded a contradicted convensus theory as nonsense?

Most consensus theories are NOT nonsense. They don't get to the point of consensus if they are nonsense. They *can* be wrong. That is shown by whether they disagree with the actual evidence.

 

[Native]

The prediction was before the observation. That is what is required.

So the needed matemathical equation in question existed BEFORE this strange Big Bang fantasy happend?

Well everything apparentely goes in the modern science fiction.

It isn't hindsight bias if the observations and the prediction agree with one part in 100,000.

This is a typical example of fiddling with matemagician in order to count back to the initial assumption. in fact this is a circular argument when it comes to the real deal.

Gravity *is* there.

And

Most consensus theories are NOT nonsense. They don't get to the point of consensus if they are nonsense. They *can* be wrong. That is shown by whether they disagree with the actual evidence.

Isn´t it funny? The very old and much used and emensily elaborated "occult gravity" is in the ways in all attempts to make a Theory of Everything? That should really make you and the scientists to think twice.

Well I don´t have this problem at all as I don´t believe in unsubstansiated dark ghosts.

 

[Polymath257]

So the needed matemathical equation in question existed BEFORE this strange Big Bang fantasy happend?

NO. the mathematics predicted what would be *observed* before it was actually observed.

Well everything apparentely goes in the modern science fiction.

This is a typical example of fiddling with matemagician in order to count back to the initial assumption. in fact this is a circular argument when it comes to the real deal.

No fiddling required. The mathematics agreed with the later observations. In detail.

And

Isn´t it funny? The very old and much used and emensily elaborated "occult gravity" is in the ways in all attempts to make a Theory of Everything? Taha sould really make you and the scientists to think twice.

Well I don´t have this problem at all as I don´t believe in unsubstansiated dark ghosts.[/QUOTE]

You also can't supply any details. Which means your views aren't even a serious contender. At least the theory of gravity makes predictions that can be verified by observation.

But, then, the details of how the calculations are done and how the measurements are done are seemingly irrelevant in your mind.

 

[Native]

You also can't supply any details.

Thas´s logical as it is difficult to define ghosts, isn´t it.

 

[Native]

NOTE:
I´m throttling down my time here for the moment and I´m prioritizing my participation according having time to waste - as most of it is wasted anyway.

 

[tas8831]

How do any of them support the EU position AT ALL?

Did you even read the abstracts of any of these papers? Did you understand those abstracts?

Why do you seem to think that these papers are NOT accepted by the scientific community when they clearly ARE?

I tend to steer clear of these sorts of physics/cosmology discussions as it is not my area. But my gosh, I see the same sorts of people using the same sorts of antics and tactics exhibiting the same sort of invincible ignorance and pseudo-certainty and of course the Dunning-Kruger effect on this topic as I do in those espousing creationism, flat earth, QAnon garbage, etc.
Nonsense certainly seems to attract a certain group of folks...

 

[Polymath257]

I tend to steer clear of these sorts of physics/cosmology discussions as it is not my area. But my gosh, I see the same sorts of people using the same sorts of antics and tactics exhibiting the same sort of invincible ignorance and pseudo-certainty and of course the Dunning-Kruger effect on this topic as I do in those espousing creationism, flat earth, QAnon garbage, etc.
Nonsense certainly seems to attract a certain group of folks...

Indeed. It's always strange to me how people that can't read a paper in a subject because they don't know the basics think they have enough knowledge to criticize the conclusions of those who have been studying a subject for decades. Like someone criticizing evolution that thinks it predicts crocoducks or someone criticizing the Big Bang that has absolutely no math or physics background.

What bothers me is the people that prey on the ignorant folks; those that write the books of garbage about evolution or who make videos about the EU. They are the ones making money from encouraging this ignorance.

I'm also curious what it is that makes us prone to these sorts of delusions. Why are they held so strongly? As you say, invincible ignorance. I've also heard it called aggressive ignorance. I've seen it a lot, but have never quite understood it.

 

[Native]

I tend to steer clear of these sorts of physics/cosmology discussions as it is not my area. But my gosh, I see the same sorts of people using the same sorts of antics and tactics exhibiting the same sort of invincible ignorance and pseudo-certainty and of course the Dunning-Kruger effect on this topic as I do in those espousing creationism, flat earth, QAnon garbage, etc.
Nonsense certainly seems to attract a certain group of folks...

Maybe you then should have keept out of this thread too, as you admittedly don´t have the knowledge to judge anything of it, either it deal vith consensus ideas or alternative ideas!?

Apparently you have all your personal qualities in your subjective, emotional and downgrading nonsense, you poor thing.

Indeed. It's always strange to me how people that can't read a paper in a subject because they don't know the basics think they have enough knowledge to criticize the conclusions of those who have been studying a subject for decades. Like someone criticizing evolution that thinks it predicts crocoducks or someone criticizing the Big Bang that has absolutely no math or physics background.

What bothers me is the people that prey on the ignorant folks; those that write the books of garbage about evolution or who make videos about the EU. They are the ones making money from encouraging this ignorance.

I'm also curious what it is that makes us prone to these sorts of delusions. Why are they held so strongly? As you say, invincible ignorance. I've also heard it called aggressive ignorance. I've seen it a lot, but have never quite understood it.

Do you enjoy yourself now, Polymath? Clapping at another debater who knows nothing of the issues we´re debating here - but as long other debaters are on your side, you just fall into the unconscious downgrading atmosphere.

PS: Are you a moderator in RF?

1) Modern astrophysical and cosmological science only knows of 4 % of the matters in the Universe. The rest is 68 % dark energy and 28 % dark energy.

2) They believe in an occult gravity agency which no one can explain

3) They believe that this unknown force is governing the entire Universe.

4) They can´t find a consensus theory of anything at all.

Still, some self conceited debaters acts as being infected with megalomaniac greatness madness, thinking that only those who have gone at some Universites and can do some matemathical arcrobatics about all what isn´t known, are those who knows everything - and that and all other alternate thinking debaters with new approaches are completely wrong.

This besserwissen attitude is SO unconscious and SO pathetic, that you both should be seriously ashame of yourself.

 

[tas8831]

Maybe you then should have keept out of this thread too, as you admittedly don´t have the knowledge to judge anything of it, either it deal vith consensus ideas or alternative ideas!?

Apparently you have all your personal qualities in your subjective, emotional and downgrading nonsense, you poor thing.

Typical creationist-type personality traits.
I have enjoyed watching other run circles around you, all the while you being clueless.

 

[Native]

I tend to steer clear of these sorts of physics/cosmology discussions as it is not my area.

Next time you´re replying, please use your brain to notise your own intellectual condition BEFORE replying.

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe you then should have keept out of this thread too, as you admittedly don´t have the knowledge to judge anything of it, either it deal vith consensus ideas or alternative ideas!?

And, frankly, neither do you. You don't understand the links you give. They don't support your views, but you seem to think that they do.

 

[Native]

And, frankly, neither do you. You don't understand the links you give. They don't support your views, but you seem to think that they do.

Once you´ve opened up your eyes for other approaches but you own consensus theories, we can begin to have a real discussion - but I don´t think anymore that this ever will happen.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you enjoy yourself now, Polymath? Clapping at another debater who knows nothing of the issues we´re debating here - but as long other debaters are on your side, you just fall into the unconscious downgrading atmosphere.

No, I am always on the side of informative discussion based on the evidence. You also seem to know nothing of the areas we are debating, but that doesn't stop you either. From what I have seen, though, the other poster seems to know more about it than you do.

PS: Are you a moderator in RF?

Yes. And I have been within the rules for every post.

1) Modern astrophysical and cosmological science only knows of 4 % of the matters in the Universe. The rest is 68 % dark energy and 28 % dark energy.

And the 68% and 28% were only discovered by modern science.

2) They believe in an occult gravity agency which no one can explain

3) They believe that this unknown force is governing the entire Universe.

On the contrary, the force is pretty well known. We know its properties and can use our understanding to make predictions that are verified by observation. No further explanation is required.

4) They can´t find a consensus theory of anything at all.

Again, not true. The vast majority of cosmologists, people who know the data and a variety of different theories, support the LCDM model of cosmology.

Still, some self conceited debaters acts as being infected with megalomaniac greatness madness, thinking that only those who have gone at some Universites and can do some matemathical arcrobatics about all what isn´t known, are those who knows everything - and that and all other alternate thinking debaters with new approaches are completely wrong.

As opposed to those who can't even do the math who seem to think they know enough to dismiss the views of specialists that have been studying this for decades. Math is an important aspect of modern physical theories. it gives the precision by which we are able to test our ideas. Even your vaunted 'contradiction' based on galactic rotation curves is a difference between the mathematical predictions and the observations. Those mathematical acrobatics are the crucial aspect of our understanding these things in detail.

This besserwissen attitude is SO unconscious and SO pathetic, that you both should be seriously ashame of yourself.

As opposed to the view that you take where ALL the professionals are wrong? Where you point to papers to support your view that, in fact, don't do anything of the sort?

 

[Polymath257]

Once you´ve opened up your eyes for other approaches but you own consensus theories, we can begin to have a real discussion - but I don´t think anymore that this ever will happen.

Not all alternative theories are equally worthy. The key is the ability to make testable statements that agree with subsequent observations. At each and every stage, your views have failed on this.

 

[Native]

No, I am always on the side of informative discussion based on the evidence.

According to all the unknown areas in modern cosmology, it´s something of a novelty to talk of "evidence" in general terms.

In fact you have only 4 % to hold your besserwissen attitude in, and of this poor 4 % you even believe on occult agencies to govern that poor bit.

 

[Native]

Not all alternative theories are equally worthy.

How can you tell if you just ignore and deny it all of fear for loosing your scientific face?

From your profile signature:
A little learning is a dangerous thing

Well, it certainly seems correct in your own case.