Cosmology of the Electric Universe

[Native]

Your claim based on no evidence.

Once again you´re denying and ignoring scientific facts.

From - What is the Universe made of?
The Universe is thought to consist of three types of substance: normal matter, ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’.

Normal matter consists of the atoms that make up stars, planets, human beings and every other visible object in the Universe.

As humbling as it sounds, normal matter almost certainly accounts for the smallest proportion of the Universe, somewhere between 1% and 10%.

In the currently popular model of the Universe, 70% is thought to be dark energy, 25% dark matter and 5% normal matter.

You have absolutely NOTHING to have your coocky besserwissen and dogmatic attitudes in at all.

 

[Polymath257]

Once again you´re denying and ignoring scientific facts.

From - What is the Universe made of?
The Universe is thought to consist of three types of substance: normal matter, ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’.

Normal matter consists of the atoms that make up stars, planets, human beings and every other visible object in the Universe.

As humbling as it sounds, normal matter almost certainly accounts for the smallest proportion of the Universe, somewhere between 1% and 10%.

In the currently popular model of the Universe, 70% is thought to be dark energy, 25% dark matter and 5% normal matter.

You have absolutely NOTHING to have your coocky besserwissen and dogmatic attitudes in at all.

You correctly described our current state of knowledge.

But, if we took your advice, we would be giving up the small amount we *have* learned for no good reason.

Your views have been shown to be wrong again and again. From the crazy EU nonsense to the idea that air pressure causes things to fall, all of you 'thinking outside the box' has been shown to be wrong.

To truly think outside the box you have to actually deal with the reality that things fall in a vacuum, that there is no such thing as orbital pressure, that gravity actually exists, and that E&M does NOT control everything.

After you get past those biases in your thinking, you might have a chance to actually deal with some data and attempt to explain it in detail. But to do that, you will need a LOT more background in math. Philosophical exposition is useless unless it gives specific predictions about actual observations that can subsequently be verified. Until you understand that simple fact, anything you say will have zero scientific value.

Also, there is a difference between only having detailed theories about 4% of the universe and research to understand the rest and denial about the stuff we *do* understand.

E&M alone does not help in understanding the rest. It doesn't explain away the rest. Denial of gravity doesn't solve any problems and creates many more.

 

[Native]

But, if we took your advice, we would be giving up the small amount we *have* learned for no good reason.

And if you did, you could binn the 28 % dark matter and the 68 % dark energy.

And if you did, you could have real explanation´s for the rest 4 % by discarding Newtons occult nonsense and accept the real explanation of pressure - instead of having an occult strong dwarf sitting in the center of the Earth and in all other celestial objects, assumingly pulling on everything at distance.

Your views have been shown to be wrong again and again. From the crazy EU nonsense to the idea that air pressure causes things to fall, all of you 'thinking outside the box' has been shown to be wrong.

You conflate your occult gravitational dogmas as truth and evidence against the REAL measurable EM force all over in the Universe.

After you get past those biases in your thinking, you might have a chance to actually deal with some data and attempt to explain it in detail.

That´s a good one! You refuse the overall EM force and accept the 1/4 part occult weak fundamental force and by doing so, your weak science of course have to be patched lots of times with all kinds of "dark things" - and all observation´s have to be skewed into this narrow world perception = hindsight biases big time.

E&M alone does not help in understanding the rest. It doesn't explain away the rest.

Without the EM, your astrophysical and cosmological science couldn´t have a single image of anything in outer cosmos.

Your silly occult "gravity-science" model would be in the deep s... without the EM and the electric charges in the observable Universe which send electromagnetic informations to all kinds of telescopes.

Unfortunately, these silly dogmatic scientists STILL interpret all these EM-information´s into their stupid invented week gravity nonsense. In fact, they then convert the fundamental EM force itself and skew it all into their weak and ghostly nonsense in their dark Universe.

Dark unseen things govern Standing Cosmology - Light observable things govern the Electric Universe.

 

[Polymath257]

And if you did, you could binn the 28 % dark matter and the 68 % dark energy.

And if you did, you could have real explanation´s for the rest 4 % by discarding Newtons occult nonsense and accept the real explanation of pressure - instead of having an occult strong dwarf sitting in the center of the Earth and in all other celestial objects, assumingly pulling on everything at distance.

That is what you have claimed. But you have yet to give any testable details. You have yet to explain how to use your ideas to predict something that is actually observable. You have yet to do any calculations showing why the planets move the way they do if gravity isn't involved.

So, once again, you want to throw out what we have managed to learn simply because there is much we still do not know.

So, no, you have NOT proposed an explanation of that 4%. You have claimed that there is such an explanation, but have failed repeatedly to produce such. You have danced around the basic issue that things fall in a vacuum. You have danced around the basic issue of the strengths of the electric and magnetic fields of galaxies. You have danced around the question of why Newtonian physics works so well inside our solar system. you have not given any detailed explanation of the observed rotation rates of galaxies.

ALL you have given is bluster and complaints that people haven't listened to your ideas.The *reason* they don't listen is that you haven't given anything of actual substance.

You conflate your occult gravitational dogmas as truth and evidence against the REAL measurable EM force all over in the Universe.

E&M is no more or less measurable than gravity. It is just as 'occult' and just as much based on the same types of mathematics as that for gravity.

That´s a good one! You refuse the overall EM force and accept the 1/4 part occult weak fundamental force and by doing so, your weak science of course have to be patched lots of times with all kinds of "dark things" - and all observation´s have to be skewed into this narrow world perception = hindsight biases big time.

No, I include *all* four basic forces: Gravity, E&M, the weak force, and the strong force. YOU are the one that wants to deny the existence of one of those forces. And you tend to ignore the weak and strong forces as well.

Without the EM, your astrophysical and cosmological science couldn´t have a single image of anything in outer cosmos.

Your silly occult "gravity-science" model would be in the deep s... without the EM and the electric charges in the observable Universe which send electromagnetic informations to all kinds of telescopes.

Unfortunately, these silly dogmatic scientists STILL interpret all these EM-information´s into their stupid invented week gravity nonsense. In fact, they then convert the fundamental EM force itself and skew it all into their weak and ghostly nonsense in their dark Universe.

Dark unseen things govern Standing Cosmology - Light observable things govern the Electric Universe.

Yes, it is well known that light is an electromagnetic wave. NOBODY denies that. It is also well known that MOST of what we learn from the universe is due to electromagnetic waves. Again, NOBODY denies that. It is well known that high energy processes around stars are often electromagnetic in nature. NOBODY denies that.

BUT, you are denying that gravity is significant as well. YOU are denying that mass is relevant to the dynamics of planets and stars. YOU are claiming there is 'orbital pressure' in a vacuum and that air pressure makes things fall. You ignore simple experiments that show your ideas are flawed and instead attack the ideas that *do* work when yours do not.

 

[Native]

That is what you have claimed. But you have yet to give any testable details.

↑
And if you did, you could binn the 28 % dark matter and the 68 % dark energy.

And if you did, you could have real explanation´s for the rest 4 % by discarding Newtons occult nonsense and accept the real explanation of pressure - instead of having an occult strong dwarf sitting in the center of the Earth and in all other celestial objects, assumingly pulling on everything at distance.
That is what you have claimed. But you have yet to give any testable details. You have yet to explain how to use your ideas to predict something that is actually observable. You have yet to do any calculations showing why the planets move the way they do if gravity isn't involved.

So, once again, you want to throw out what we have managed to learn simply because there is much we still do not know.

So, no, you have NOT proposed an explanation of that 4%. You have claimed that there is such an explanation, but have failed repeatedly to produce such. You have danced around the basic issue that things fall in a vacuum. You have danced around the basic issue of the strengths of the electric and magnetic fields of galaxies. You have danced around the question of why Newtonian physics works so well inside our solar system. you have not given any detailed explanation of the observed rotation rates of galaxies.

ALL you have given is bluster and complaints that people haven't listened to your ideas.The *reason* they don't listen is that you haven't given anything of actual substance.

You conflate your occult gravitational dogmas as truth and evidence against the REAL measurable EM force all over in the Universe.
E&M is no more or less measurable than gravity. It is just as 'occult' and just as much based on the same types of mathematics as that for gravity.

That´s a good one! You refuse the overall EM force and accept the 1/4 part occult weak fundamental force and by doing so, your weak science of course have to be patched lots of times with all kinds of "dark things" - and all observation´s have to be skewed into this narrow world perception = hindsight biases big time.
No, I include *all* four basic forces: Gravity, E&M, the weak force, and the strong force. YOU are the one that wants to deny the existence of one of those forces. And you tend to ignore the weak and strong forces as well.

Without the EM, your astrophysical and cosmological science couldn´t have a single image of anything in outer cosmos.

Your silly occult "gravity-science" model would be in the deep s... without the EM and the electric charges in the observable Universe which send electromagnetic informations to all kinds of telescopes.

Unfortunately, these silly dogmatic scientists STILL interpret all these EM-information´s into their stupid invented week gravity nonsense. In fact, they then convert the fundamental EM force itself and skew it all into their weak and ghostly nonsense in their dark Universe.

Dark unseen things govern Standing Cosmology - Light observable things govern the Electric Universe.
Yes, it is well known that light is an electromagnetic wave. NOBODY denies that. It is also well known that MOST of what we learn from the universe is due to electromagnetic waves. Again, NOBODY denies that. It is well known that high energy processes around stars are often electromagnetic in nature. NOBODY denies that.

BUT, you are denying that gravity is significant as well. YOU are denying that mass is relevant to the dynamics of planets and stars. YOU are claiming there is 'orbital pressure' in a vacuum and that air pressure makes things fall. You ignore simple experiments that show your ideas are flawed and instead attack the ideas that *do* work when yours do not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an outspooken and admitted denyer of philosophical analyzing, pattern recognition and comparison logics, you´re of course excused for not understanding anything else but your old rigid consensus dogmas.

IMO you´re MY PUPIL and I´m YOUR TEACHER regarding these matters. So just hold a low humble profile and learn something.

 

[Polymath257]

↑IMO you´re MY PUPIL and I´m YOUR TEACHER regarding these matters. So just hold a low humble profile and learn something.

Hardly. You have shown little actual knowledge of the relevant concepts.

I have nothing to learn from you, but you could learn from me if you open your mind to the science.

 

[Native]

Hardly. You have shown little actual knowledge of the relevant concepts.

How can you tell what is relevant at all, as you have noe clues of the relevant philosophical methodology of logical analytics and critique?

As an outspooken and admitted denyer of philosophical analyzing, pattern recognition and comparison logics, you´re of course excused for not understanding anything else but your old rigid consensus dogmas.

IMO you´re MY PUPIL and I´m YOUR TEACHER regarding these matters. So just hold a low humble profile and learn something.

I have nothing to learn from you, but you could learn from me if you open your mind to the science.

BTW: This OP is positively about "Cosmology of the Electric Universe" so obey this OP instead of your ridgid consensus parrottings and open your own mind.

 

[Polymath257]

How can you tell what is relevant at all, as you have noe clues of the relevant philosophical methodology of logical analytics and critique?

As an outspooken and admitted denyer of philosophical analyzing, pattern recognition and comparison logics, you´re of course excused for not understanding anything else but your old rigid consensus dogmas.

IMO you´re MY PUPIL and I´m YOUR TEACHER regarding these matters. So just hold a low humble profile and learn something.

BTW: This OP is positively about "Cosmology of the Electric Universe" so obey this OP instead of your ridgid consensus parrottings and open your own mind.

This is a debate form. There is no requirement I be positive about the EU. In fact, I regard it as clear nonsense.

 

[gnostic]

IMO you´re MY PUPIL and I´m YOUR TEACHER regarding these matters. So just hold a low humble profile and learn something.

What???

You? A teacher?

Oh, you crack me up!

Wait! You were serious?

How can you tell what is relevant at all, as you have noe clues of the relevant philosophical methodology of logical analytics and critique?

As an outspooken and admitted denyer of philosophical analyzing, pattern recognition and comparison logics, you´re of course excused for not understanding anything else but your old rigid consensus dogmas.

And here it is where you have failed to understand that

• without explanatory model,
• without predictive model,
• without mathematical model

...and most important of all, without evidence to verify each model, then all that philosophical musings and ponderings amount to nothing more than unjustifiable and unsubstantiated sophistry. In another word, all your claims are unfalsifiable description, very similar to personal opinions, your claims are unscientific and wouldn’t qualify even as a hypothesis.

For instance, you were the one who brought up the bowling ball and feather example.

If you can drop both objects in airtight chamber fill with air, and drop them. What you will see that they will both fall to the floor, regardless of the air resistance.

The air will press on the objects from all direction, including from below. But the feather will still falling to the floor, but it will float while it is falling.

Drop those same item in the same chamber but without air, hence the chamber is now in vacuum, then what do you think happen?

The answer to that, without air, there will be no air pressures from any direction. They will still fall to the floor, except that without air pressure from below, the feather will drop faster, since there are no air to provide resistance.

If they both fall regardless of air in the chamber or without air in the chamber, then it is quite obvious that air pressures are not that objects to free fall.

Something else must cause anything with mass to fall, which have nothing to do with air pressures.

I didn’t say the “g” word, but it is clearly that is the answer to it. The “g” phenomena not only was explained, predicted and mathematically stated (in the form of equations), it is testable and tested. That’s what make Newton’s theory of the unmentionable “g”, scientific, simply because it has been testable, and have been tested so many times in so many ways.

So unless you can provide similar models to your claims, and have each those models tested, then all you have philosophy that isn’t science, and YOU ARE NO TEACHER!

 

[Native]

And here it is where you have failed to understand that

• without explanatory model,
• without predictive model,
• without mathematical model

...and most important of all, without evidence to verify each model, then all that philosophical musings and ponderings amount to nothing more than unjustifiable and unsubstantiated sophistry. In another word, all your claims are unfalsifiable description, very similar to personal opinions, your claims are unscientific and wouldn’t qualify even as a hypothesis.

For instance, you were the one who brought up the bowling ball and feather example.

If you can drop both objects in airtight chamber fill with air, and drop them. What you will see that they will both fall to the floor, regardless of the air resistance.

The air will press on the objects from all direction, including from below. But the feather will still falling to the floor, but it will float while it is falling.

Drop those same item in the same chamber but without air, hence the chamber is now in vacuum, then what do you think happen?

The answer to that, without air, there will be no air pressures from any direction. They will still fall to the floor, except that without air pressure from below, the feather will drop faster, since there are no air to provide resistance.

If they both fall regardless of air in the chamber or without air in the chamber, then it is quite obvious that air pressures are not that objects to free fall.

Something else must cause anything with mass to fall, which have nothing to do with air pressures.

I didn’t say the “g” word, but it is clearly that is the answer to it. The “g” phenomena not only was explained, predicted and mathematically stated (in the form of equations), it is testable and tested. That’s what make Newton’s theory of the unmentionable “g”, scientific, simply because it has been testable, and have been tested so many times in so many ways.

You´re just a babbling consensus parrot without a single independent critical thought activity and you have no overall sight over anything at all.

So unless you can provide similar models to your claims, and have each those models tested, then all you have philosophy that isn’t science, and YOU ARE NO TEACHER!

The funny thing is that I can explain my cosmology with plain words and logical sentenses - and you STILL don´t grasp anything.

BTW: Your animations shows your intellectual state: CHILDISH.

 

[Native]

This is a debate form. There is no requirement I be positive about the EU. In fact, I regard it as clear nonsense.

Of course you do as you have no philosophical skills to judge otherwise with your head and math burried deep in all dark things and occult agensies.

IMO you´re simply afraid to loose your scientific face and your autoritative identity on this forum.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course you do as you have no philosophical skills to judge otherwise with your head and math burried deep in all dark things and occult agensies.

How do you know I have no philosophical skills? The local professors of philosophy seem to differ on that assessment.

Maybe it is just that my philosophy differs from yours? Given that you haven't actually stated what your philosophy is, it's sort of difficult to tell.

What I do know is that your science is poor. You avoid dealing with cases that test your ideas and argue for things that are directly contradicted by the evidence.

IMO you´re simply afraid to loose your scientific face and your autoritative identity on this forum.

Not scared of that at all. I am more than happy to call out falsehoods as I see them. That is one of the things I am doing here.

 

[Native]

How do you know I have no philosophical skills? The local professors of philosophy seem to differ on that assessment.

Because such skills NEVER shines trough in your discussions! You have NO cosmological pattern recognition skills at all.

It certainly cannot be Natural Philosophy you´ve possibly studied - Natural philosophy - Wikipedia

Not scared of that at all. I am more than happy to call out falsehoods as I see them. That is one of the things I am doing here.

Fine. So get the necessary philosophcal analythic, critical and logical skills before you do and use these on your own approach and theories too, and you´ll be welcome.

 

[Polymath257]

Because such skills NEVER shines trough in your discussions! You have NO cosmological pattern recognition skills at all.

According to you. On the other hand, I see yours as deficient. And my position is supported by the actual evidence.

Fine. So get the necessary philosophcal analythic, critical and logical skills before you do and use these on your own approach and theories too, and you´ll be welcome.

And I do. As I have been clearly stating repeatedly in this thread and others.

Theories are only of value if they allow for modeling specific situations and giving detailed descriptions of what happens. This is what allows for testability, a crucial standard. Those theories that do not or cannot make predictions regarding observable phenomena are simply useless. Those that do need to be tested to see which predictions actually agree with observations.

That is my epistemology. I clearly have the analytical skills and the critical thinking skills. That is ultimately why I disagree with you: I have used those skills, evaluated your claims and have found them wanting.

So, I *do* use my analytical skills and logical reasoning on your views and have found them to be contradicted by logic and observation. I also use these skills on my own views.

You have yet to give any reason to suspect that the standard model is wrong. It may well *be* wrong. But if it is, it isn't wrong in the way that you claim nor for the reasons you give.

I think your main issue is that I don't agree with your conclusions. Since you have failed to give any substantial reasons to agree with your conclusions, maybe you can step up to the plate and provide the evidence and reasoning that supports your claims. Everything I have seen from you is basic misunderstandings of papers that do not support your positions.

Maybe *you* need to use some critical thinking skills and give some philosophical justifications for your positions. In particular, I would be interested in your epistemology: how do you get to know what it is possible to know?

 

[Native]

That is my epistemology. I clearly have the analytical skills and the critical thinking skills. That is ultimately why I disagree with you: I have used those skills, evaluated your claims and have found them wanting.

Nonsense! You´ve just weighed your consensus dogmas up against my E&M logics and if your dsiconnected dogmas in general where that good, modern science already would have a TOE long long ago.

 

[Polymath257]

Nonsense! You´ve just weighed your consensus dogmas up against my E&M logics and if your dsiconnected dogmas in general where that good, modern science already would have a TOE long long ago.

No, I gave a specific case: things falling in a vacuum. At first, you avoided even considering it. Then you tried to explain away the observational results. Your views would imply that things either do not fall in a vacuum or would fall slower there. In contrast, the actual results are that things fall *faster* in a vacuum.

This is easily understood in the standard model because air would produce *friction* slowing the rate of fall.

In other cases, I asked for an E&M description of the motion of the planets. In this, you claimed that the usual calculations should be made in the same way they are now. You didn't seem to understand that the calculations themselves *depend* on the force of gravity as an inverse square law. The equations for E&M are quite different and would lead to other calculations entirely.

Instead, you made the assertion that the calculations were known by the ancients, which is directly contradicted by the historical record. In particular, the development of theoretical astronomy clearly shows that claim to be wrong on several levels. At no point did you deal with the poor accuracy of the ancient models and the exquisite accuracy of the Newtonian and Einsteinian models within our solar system. Instead, you always try to deflect to questions about stellar motion in the galaxy. The effect is that you ignore the solar system and give no accurate description (say, to within a minute of arc per century) that is comparable to even Newton's model, let alone Einstein's.

Your main claim is that these theories are philosophically silly. But the mere fact that they work as well as they do when they do work shows that your claims of silliness is irrelevant to actual understanding.

 

[Native]

No, I gave a specific case: things falling in a vacuum.

There IS no such thing as vacuum in nature. Its all in constant motions.

At first, you avoided even considering it.

Yes, because I dont work with artificial nonsense.

Then you tried to explain away the observational results.

Yes because the experiment removed the factual force in question, hence the "result" was seriously flawed.

This is easily understood in the standard model because air would produce *friction* slowing the rate of fall.

When accepted, this friction also works on planets causing pressures and lesser pressure in the lee side of the orbital motion - because there is no such thing as vacuum in any spaces - unless you of course removes it artificially.

You didn't seem to understand that the calculations themselves *depend* on the force of gravity as an inverse square law.

And you don´t seem to understand that Newton simply inserted his unsubstanciated occult two-body-agency into the ALREADY KNOWN planetary motions which you, by your lack of natural philosophical insights, ignores and denies.

Newtons silly "force" is simply embedded in the already know motions and adn tis insertion of course don´t change the motions themselves! This is why I accept the motions but NOT the cause of the motions, which is heavily flawed by Newtons occult agency assumptions,

In fact, Newton has inserted the Earth´s weight of air principle as a law into the entire Universe.

The equations for E&M are quite different and would lead to other calculations entirely.

I´ve already explained 117 times for you how the planetary motions derives directly from its EM formation in the galaxy and this process has NOTHING to do with Newtons occult agency and logically so too because Newtons occult agency was directly contradicted in the galaxy.

The effect is that you ignore the solar system and give no accurate description (say, to within a minute of arc per century) that is comparable to even Newton's model, let alone Einstein's.

I can´t use your claim of accuracy to anything at all before your basic natural philosophy present an overall and connected cosmological idea based on real forces..

But the mere fact that they work as well as they do when they do work shows that your claims of silliness is irrelevant to actual understanding.

The calculations works but the applied unsubstantiated and assumed force is simply superstitious.

Einstein himself meant that too and this also was/id the case on the galactic scales.

It´s here your natural philosophical skills completely fails! You don´t accept the contradictions but keep on holding onto all dogmas like a drowning sailor holding onto a single straw.

It´s beyond me that you apparently are having huge intellectual and philosophical difficulties of connecting EM-atoms and molecules to the natural force of EM everywhere there are atoms and molecules in the Universe.

Even if you weren´t educated in this in your University, you should have investigated this when you left the university and was allowed to think and conclude independently for yourself.

 

[Polymath257]

Thee IS no such thing as vacuum in nature.

Then what is the pressure at 200 kilometers above the surface of the Earth? if that doesn't qualify as a high quality vacuum, what would?

NOBODY is claiming an absolute vacuum. But let's face it, having 10 molecules per cubic centimeter isn't going to affect how fast things fall.

And, even on Earth, we can create vacuums quite sufficient to show that air pressure is what makes things fall. It is what slows how fast things fall.

Yes because I dont work with artificial nonsense.

Except that you ignore the actual pressures. YOU mentioned barometric pressure as a measure of pressure. How much pressure do you think is in a vacuum tank?

Yes because the experiment removed the factual force in question, hence the "result" was flawed.

If it removed the factual force, then why do things fall?

When accepted, this friction also works on planets causing pressures and lesser pressure in the lee side of the orbital motion - because there is no such thing as vacuum in any spaces - unless you of curse remove it artificially.

What sort of pressure do you think is involved in this orbital pressure? Compare it to the 100,000 N/m^2 of atmospheric pressure. How large do you think the pressure would be at the 'shock wave' in your pictures?

And you don´t seem to understand that Newton simply inserted his unsubstanciated occult two-body-agency into the ALREADY KNOWN planetary motions which you, by your lack of natural philosophical insights, ignores and denies.

No, that is simply factually incorrect. Newton *corrected* the previous calculations, showing how to with the use of gravity. the previous 'known' motions were incredibly inaccurate. You seem to want to ignore that basic fact.

Newtons silly "force" is simply embedded in the already know motions and adn tis insertion of course don´t change the motions themselves! This is why I accept teh motions but NOT the cause of the motions, which is heavily flawed by Newtons occult agency assumptions, In fact, Newton has inserted the Earth´s weight of air principle as a law into the entire Universe.

The description of the motion and the law of gravity cannot be separated. The calculations done previous to Newton were simply not very accurate. Newton showed how to correct them and update them using his law of gravity.

I´ve already explained 117 times for you how the planetary motions derives directly from its EM formation in the galaxy and this process has NOTHING to do with Newtons occult agency and logically so too because Newtons occult agency was directly contradicted in the galaxy.

You keep saying that, but never give details that would allow for the computation of planetary motion based on that idea.

I can´t use your claim of accuracy to anything at all before your basic natural philosophy present an overall and connected cosmological idea.

Why not? The observed motion can be compared directly with the calculations made. Either they agree or they do not.

The calculations works but the applied unsubstantiated and assumed force is simply superstitious.

The calculations require the force in order to give the correct answers.

Einstein himself meant that too and this also was/id the case on the galactic scales.

Its here your natural philosophical skills completely fails! You don´t accept the contradictions but keep on holding onto all dogmas like a drowning sailor holding onto a single straw.

You have yet to show an actual contradiction that cannot be explained.

Its beyond me that you apparently are having huge intellectual difficulties of connecting EM-atoms and molecules to the natural force of EM everywhere there are atoms and molecules in the Universe.

Because there is no evidence of such a connection. if you have evidence, give it.

Even if you weren´t educated in this in your University, you should have investigated this when you left the university and was allowed to think independently for yourself.

And my conclusion is that EU is bunk. It simply doesn't deliver what it claims to. It gives no actual details allowing for computations. Instead it has vague drivel.

 

[Native]

Its beyond me that you apparently are having huge intellectual difficulties of connecting EM-atoms and molecules to the natural force of EM everywhere there are atoms and molecules in the Universe.

Because there is no evidence of such a connection

Are you sure you got an education diploma at all?

You´re such a naughty pupil

 

[Polymath257]

Its beyond me that you apparently are having huge intellectual difficulties of connecting EM-atoms and molecules to the natural force of EM everywhere there are atoms and molecules in the Universe.

Are you sure you got an education diploma at all?

You´re such a naughty pupil

No, not in education. In math and in physics.

And what is your degree in?