Public Education And Independent Self-Taught Research

[Jayhawker Soule]

Native said: ↑
I´m just pointing out that independed research and alternate thinking is was lead to new discoveries and solutions to standing cosmological problems.

Regarding your second sentence: Yes, especially when cosmological ideas are based on unexlained forces and its connected assumptions.

Right now you seem to be experimenting with hot air ...

 

[Polymath257]

You´re making a circular and unfounded argument here, assuming a de facto unfound "dark matter" as the cause for the also de facto contradicted Newtonian gravitational "universal law of celestial motion around a central gravity force".
If such galactic motions cannot be explained by gravitational laws, other fundamental forces are logically at play.

Actually, no. It is possible that we simply don't have the correct description of gravity (maybe Newton was slightly wrong). It is possible that we have the correct description, but are leaving something out (like dark matter). And it is possible other forces are involved.

Alternative descriptions of gravity, for example MOND, have been proposed and do not fit the evidence, although some are still viable.

NO model that is fully E&M has been proposed that can even deal with solar system dynamics, let alone galactic dynamics. Any model using E&M as *part* of the description also uses gravity for another part.

The thing is that we know the mathematical description of E&M and know how and when it is relevant. There *are* times when E&M is relevant to the motion (close to neutron stars, in HII nebula) and other times when it is relevant to other aspects of the description (auroras, for example).

In other words, we know enough about E&M to know when it is relevant and when it is not. The required charged and magnetic materials are simply not there on the galactic scale in the amounts that would significantly affect the motion of things like planets and stars (as opposed to, say, the internal dynamics of stars).

 

[Native]

Right now you seem to be experimenting with hot air ...

It´s called "philosophical ponderings" over factual standing scientific conditions

 

[Polymath257]

It´s called "philosophical ponderings" over factual standing scientific conditions

Isn't that what he said?

 

[gnostic]

So why did you at all mentioned it in the first hand?

I have heard of the story about Galileo, but had never investigated it, to find out if it is true or not.

Do I have the times to investigate everything single things that I read?

I suspected it may not be true, i just didn’t know.

I am willing to admit I am wrong about this. That I have been corrected, I have at least learned something new, tonight.

Anyway, I am tired, so good night.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, I agree with Maxwell's contributions to EM waves. A fact, that Maxwell don't even rate a mention by @Native.

And neither Maxwell, nor Faraday, say anything about the Solar System, the Milky Way or the Universe, in which @Native has been claiming.

Actually, Maxwell was mentioned in the OP.

It amazes me when someone takes a position and doesn't know the basics about their position. I would bet that our friend wouldn't be able to even recognize Maxwell's equations, let alone use them to actually describe anything.

A side note: in the relativistic description of E&M, the electric and magnetic fields are unified into a single object, called the Faraday tensor in honor of Faraday.

 

[Polymath257]

I think scholarship as a whole would benefit from more people committed to understanding the world around us and willing to go through the hardship of self-education to contribute to these fields. Just make sure you are educating yourself when you self-study because there are a lot of psuedoscientific works and hoaxes out there that might lead you astray if you aren't careful.

Such as the 'Electric Universe' proponents.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It´s called "philosophical ponderings" over factual standing scientific conditions

Not all "philosophical ponderings" are created equal.

 

[Left Coast]

I´m just pointing out that independed research and alternate thinking is was lead to new discoveries and solutions to standing cosmological problems.

Yes, no one disputes that. You didn't answer my question to you: what rigorous independent research have you done? Has it been peer reviewed? Have you even spoken to anyone with expertise in the field about it? How has any of that gone?

 

[gnostic]

Oviously you missed to read this citation:

What I actually meant that you make no mention of Maxwell in your comment - after the “My comments:”

Yes, you had quoted Wikipedia article on Michael Faraday in the OP that mentioned “James Clerk Maxwell”, but that’s from Wikipedia. You have nothing to say about Maxwell, yourself.

There are differences between what were written in Wikipedia and your own comments and views. I hoped that you understand me, now?

 

[gnostic]

Right now you seem to be experimenting with hot air ...

It´s called "philosophical ponderings" over factual standing scientific conditions

Not all "philosophical ponderings" are created equal.

The problems with “philosophical ponderings” is that there are so many different philosophers following so many different philosophies, they don’t necessarily agree.

And more often than not, such ponderings are useless, often they are wrong, and even sometimes stupid.

Sorry, guys. I get cranky when I’m tired, so I’m gonna put away my iPad.

 

[Native]

Actually, no. It is possible that we simply don't have the correct description of gravity

Not very precise. According to the standing claims in cosmology, "we have DESCRIPTIONS" but NOT a scientific dynamic EXPLANATION of a gravitational force, hence it´s all assumptions so far.

NO model that is fully E&M has been proposed that can even deal with solar system dynamics, let alone galactic dynamics.

Isn´t that strange to you? All atoms and molecules have electromagnetic properties and are affected by external E&M effects. STILL, this logical logical connection isn´t made in publicized cosmological models. And those (MOND) which still have somelesser gravitational contents, doesn´fit anyway.

I don´t claim DIRECTLY that the E&M governs the motion in our Solar System

The Solar System motions cannot be explained without connecting its formation to the overall galactic E&M formation from cloudy gas and dust, hence the E&M influence itself primarily only regards the very galactic formation itself, and this all depends on which direction a specific cosmic current run compared to the affected cosmic cloud, thus creating both clockwise- and counter clockwise rotational galaxies as observed from our perspective.

The thing is that we know the mathematical description of E&M and know how and when it is relevant. There *are* times when E&M is relevant to the motion (close to neutron stars, in HII nebula) and other times when it is relevant to other aspects of the description (auroras, for example).

Well, as this OP is exemplified by the discoveries of Michael Faraday, just think of his Faraday Motor on the cosmic scales.

In other words, we know enough about E&M to know when it is relevant and when it is not. The required charged and magnetic materials are simply not there on the galactic scale in the amounts that would significantly affect the motion of things like planets and stars (as opposed to, say, the internal dynamics of stars).

Do you then suggest it´s the gravity force which produces the strong electromagnetigc gamma- and x-rays radiating out of galactic planes?

 

[Native]

What I actually meant that you make no mention of Maxwell in your comment - after the “My comments:

So, as I assumed, you jumped over this information in the opening text.

Yes, you had quoted Wikipedia article on Michael Faraday in the OP that mentioned “James Clerk Maxwell”, but that’s from Wikipedia. You have nothing to say about Maxwell, yourself.

Of course not so as I never met him personally.

The problems with “philosophical ponderings” is that there are so many different philosophers following so many different philosophies, they don’t necessarily agree.
And more often than not, such ponderings are useless, often they are wrong, and even sometimes stupid.

Still, EVERYTHING what consttutes modern cosmology, is based on former individual and independent philosophical ponderings.

 

[wellwisher]

Are there peer reviewers in that specific scientific field?

I of course don´t discard public education as such. I´m just underpinning that new discoveries and explanations by independent researchers are long time underway before it shows up in books and taught in Universities.

Thanks for your concerned advise. This is exactly why I´m very critical when reading all kinds of unnatural theories and inconsistencies in the standing cosmology.

One observation that can change how we look at the forces of nature, is the observation that the electron is considered an elementary particle. The electron has mass and charge, but it is a considered one unified thing; elementary particle, and not two things. One way to explain this paradox is that mass and charge are one thing within the electron, or else we should be able to split the electron, further. Picture an aspect of the unified force, where mass; gravity and charge; EM forces are interchangeable, so they appear to us as a single irreducible particle.

An interesting analogy is magnetism, where we have two poles. Although we have two poles which we define as distinct, we do not find any monopoles. They only come in connected pairs, with them being separate, a convention illusion made before particle accelerators. I like to assume the elementary particle nature of the electron, is the same thing; pairing dependent things that cannot exist by themselves like monopoles.

All the atoms of the earth have electrons, which maintain space between the masses of atoms, which is mostly in their nuclei; protons and neutrons. Gravity, via mass, adds pressure and work; temperature to matter, which can alter the states of the matter, with any new state based on a new arrangements of unified force electrons; shift in the pairing.

For example, metallic water has the electrons of water become better conductors than they are in liquid water. Metallic water has a density of about 5gram/cc, with liquid water at about 1 gm/cc. Gravity can create this new state in the electrons and molecules via gravitational pressure. If we made this state of water, by another lab method, we could make water exert more gravity than normal; more mass density in this molecular state. There is a reciprocity implicit of a unified force through connected intermediaries.

Interestingly, electricity was originally assume to be the movement of positive charge. The proton is not an elementary particle so its charge and mass can be separated. However, the convention changed to the electron and negative charge moving in current, which, by virtue of the elementary nature for the electron was not correct to assume two independent things. We need to upgrade since the electron unifies gravity with EM; missing link.

 

[Polymath257]

Not very precise. According to the standing claims in cosmology, "we have DESCRIPTIONS" but NOT a scientific dynamic EXPLANATION of a gravitational force, hence it´s all assumptions so far.

Actually, we *do* have an explanation. That is what Einstein did with General Relativity. Gravity is a curvature of spacetime.

Isn´t that strange to you? All atoms and molecules have electromagnetic properties and are affected by external E&M effects. STILL, this logical logical connection isn´t made in publicized cosmological models. And those (MOND) which still have somelesser gravitational contents, doesn´fit anyway.

Charged particles and magnetized materials are affected by the E&M force. Metals are affected by induced currents.

But put a magnet near a falling tennis ball. There will be no effect on the motion.

I don´t claim DIRECTLY that the E&M governs the motion in our Solar System

The Solar System motions cannot be explained without connecting its formation to the overall galactic E&M formation from cloudy gas and dust, hence the E&M influence itself primarily only regards the very galactic formation itself, and this all depends on which direction a specific cosmic current run compared to the affected cosmic cloud, thus creating both clockwise- and counter clockwise rotational galaxies as observed from our perspective.

Please give details using Maxwell's equations and observed properties of the gas and dust, as well as any evidence for this cosmic current and exactly how large it is.

Any details at all based on observation?

Well, as this OP is exemplified by the discoveries of Michael Faraday, just think of his Faraday Motor on the cosmic scales.

Do you then suggest it´s the gravity force which produces the strong electromagnetigc gamma- and x-rays radiating out of galactic planes?

Yes. It is the material falling into the central black hole that gets accelerated to very high energies, producing electron-positron pairs and thereby gamma rays. We can see and measure the properties of the accretion disk as well as model such. And yes, both gravity and E&M are required to understand the dynamics there.

Are you claiming that the observed gamma rays affect the motion of the sun and planets?

You seem to think that standard science ignores E&M, which is very far from the truth. Electromagnetism is highly significant in high energy situations. But it usually doesn't affect the motion of *neutral* matter greatly. This can be tested and has been tested. We understand in a lot of detail how E&M affects things.

But gravity is *also* required. E&M alone simply doesn't fit the data. It is *far* worse than applying Newton's laws to galactic motion without dark matter.

 

[Native]

[

I would bet that our friend wouldn't be able to even recognize Maxwell's equations, let alone use them to actually describe anything.

You miss the very OP point.

When Maxwell states Faraday "to have been in reality, a mathematician of a very high order", despite his lack of mathematical education, you love Maxwell and ignore what Maxwell thought of Faradays philosophical work.

In fact, you´re dismissing Maxwell himself by your quote above.

 

[Native]

One observation that can change how we look at the forces of nature, is the observation that the electron is considered an elementary particle. The electron has mass and charge, but it is a considered one unified thing; elementary particle, and not two things. One way to explain this paradox is that mass and charge are one thing within the electron, or else we should be able to split the electron, further. Picture an aspect of the unified force, where mass; gravity and charge; EM forces are interchangeable, so they appear to us as a single irreducible particle.

An interesting analogy is magnetism, where we have two poles. Although we have two poles which we define as distinct, we do not find any monopoles. They only come in connected pairs, with them being separate, a convention illusion made before particle accelerators. I like to assume the elementary particle nature of the electron, is the same thing; pairing dependent things that cannot exist by themselves like monopoles.

All the atoms of the earth have electrons, which maintain space between the masses of atoms, which is mostly in their nuclei; protons and neutrons. Gravity, via mass, adds pressure and work; temperature to matter, which can alter the states of the matter, with any new state based on a new arrangements of unified force electrons; shift in the pairing.

For example, metallic water has the electrons of water become better conductors than they are in liquid water. Metallic water has a density of about 5gram/cc, with liquid water at about 1 gm/cc. Gravity can create this new state in the electrons and molecules via gravitational pressure. If we made this state of water, by another lab method, we could make water exert more gravity than normal; more mass density in this molecular state. There is a reciprocity implicit of a unified force through connected intermediaries.

Interestingly, electricity was originally assume to be the movement of positive charge. The proton is not an elementary particle so its charge and mass can be separated. However, the convention changed to the electron and negative charge moving in current, which, by virtue of the elementary nature for the electron was not correct to assume two independent things. We need to upgrade since the electron unifies gravity with EM; missing link.

Hi Wellwisher and thanks for your always well elaborated replies

 

[Native]

Actually, we *do* have an explanation. That is what Einstein did with General Relativity. Gravity is a curvature of spacetime.

A description without scientifically explaining the assumed forces in play is nothing but assumptions and full of biased ad hoc assumptions until the force is explained.

 

[Native]

You didn't answer my question to you: what rigorous independent research have you done?

You are welcome to inform yourself by reading my RF OP`s..

Has it been peer reviewe?

How do you yourself think very alternate thoughts and descriptions and explanations are welcomed in the orthodox peer review establishment?

 

[Native]

A side note: in the relativistic description of E&M, the electric and magnetic fields are unified into a single object, called the Faraday tensor in honor of Faraday.

To me this is certainly not just a "side note" at all, as I have "just" ONE E&M FORCE working by two opposite but complementary polarities, working by all charges, all frequencies and all ranges in micro- and macrocosm.

And I take Michael Faraday to have had a similar universal E&M perception whith his work on chemistry and electromagnetic influence of forming molecular structures.