Cosmology of the Electric Universe

[Native]

No, that is what the video you linked to did. Did you even watch the video?

It emphasized several times how the speaker liked one way of viewing things over another. But, as you say, it isn't which version you are emotionally comfortable with. it is a matter of what the evidence actually supports.

Good grief! Shall I now too deal with your emotional and subjective perception of what another debaters feelings expresses on a subject they don´t feel for?

 

[Native]

And yet that’s all Clarage talked about at the start of the 1st video you posted at the OP.

He talk about what he LIKED about EU, but never provided explanation as to (A) WHAT EU IS and (B) HOW DOES EU WORK with testable predictions.

A model that is “testable” doesn’t qualify as scientific theory. In fact, not being “testable” also mean that EU don’t even qualify as being a working hypothesis, because it is even “falsifiable”.

And that embarrassing, for someone in Michael Clarage’s position.

When no advocates can provide a model with falsifiable explanations and predictions, then it isn’t science.

You can call Electric Universe a philosophy, if you want, but you cannot call it science.

Heck, Electric Universe isn’t better than Young Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design, since EU is much more akin to cult religion.

Lots of emotional feelings and no substance - as usual.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
Subject: Ancient and historic philosophy
Some mathematical interested persons have it that “philosophy”cannot be used in scientific methods".

Apparently you don´t understand that "philosophy" is in generally all about finding patterns which are logically connected and naturally explainable.

That's what the philosophers like to claim, but in practice they do quite poorly at it. Way too often, they are still using the outmoded Aristotelian system. Some manage to get into the middle ages in their ideas, but very few have actually learned the lessons of the last 400 years of science.

In this sense, modern astrophysics and cosmology have lost all natural skills of pattern recognition everywhere and need all the philosophical help it can get.

A strong claim, but the evidence shows otherwise.

Pattern recognition is another good *first step*. But any perceived pattern needs to be tested to make sure it persists and is actually valid, and not just a piece of confirmation bias.

 

[Polymath257]

Good grief! Shall I now too deal with your emotional and subjective perception of what another debaters feelings expresses on a subject they don´t feel for?

But the whole basis of that video was what the speaker felt like. He didn't actually give any details of why his position should be accepted scientifically.

 

[Polymath257]

Lots of emotional feelings and no substance - as usual.

Just like the videos you gave?

 

[Native]

That's what the philosophers like to claim, but in practice they do quite poorly at it.

At least this is correct regarding the failed Natural Philosopher, Mr. Newton.
I said:
In this sense, modern astrophysics and cosmology have lost all natural skills of pattern recognition everywhere and need all the philosophical help it can get.

A strong claim, but the evidence shows otherwise.

What evidence? The 27 % dark matter? The 69 % dark energy? The 4% ordinary matter? The 100 % lack of including the EM forces in the overall cosmological models?

Pattern recognition is another good *first step*. But any perceived pattern needs to be tested to make sure it persists and is actually valid, and not just a piece of confirmation bias.

You can get a first good pattern recognition step just by watching a sperm- and egg cell fertilization. I´m sure this is tested and confirmed since long ago. You can even deduce your beloved "gravity" from that.

All the rest are just repeating patterns.

 

[Native]

But the whole basis of that video was what the speaker felt like.

Concentrate! No, it was what Mr. Gnostic FELT - and now you´re supporting his FEELINGS.
Deal with your own emotional feelings before you comment.

 

[Polymath257]

At least this is correct regarding the failed Natural Philosopher, Mr. Newton.

Yes, he failed in his *philosophy*, which was focused on prophesies in the book of David. Fortunately, he succeeded very well in his math and physics.

I said:
In this sense, modern astrophysics and cosmology have lost all natural skills of pattern recognition everywhere and need all the philosophical help it can get.

What evidence? The 27 % dark matter? The 69 % dark energy? The 4% ordinary matter? The 100 % lack of including the EM forces in the overall cosmological models?

Yes, the evidence for dark matter and dark energy is included in my evaluation.

We *do* understand a great deal about the E&M forces in the universe. But those forces have very little to do with the dynamics in most cases (they do have a bearing in some cases, like around neutron stars, or in the plasma associated with HII nebula).

You can get a first good pattern recognition step just by watching a sperm- and egg cell fertilization. i´m sure this is tested and confirmed since long ago. All the rest are just repeating patterns.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand: cosmology.

 

[Native]

Yes, he failed in his *philosophy*, which was focused on prophesies in the book of David. Fortunately, he succeeded very well in his math and physics.

So you don´t think his failed philosophy have anything to do with his occult and matemathical assumptions?

Yes, the evidence for dark matter and dark energy is included in my evaluation.

I would call this "devaluation" but never mind.

We *do* understand a great deal about the E&M forces in the universe. But those forces have very little to do with the dynamics in most cases

Boring repetations of denials.

I claimed that:
You can get a first good pattern recognition step just by watching a sperm- and egg cell fertilization. i´m sure this is tested and confirmed since long ago. All the rest are just repeating patterns.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand: cosmology.

You see? No pattern recognition skills at all. Which is sort of OK, since your University never thaught you this, but at least you then could have asked politely into the subject before rejecting it per automatics.

 

[Polymath257]

So you don´t think his failed philosophy have anything to do with his occult and matemathical assumptions?

No. Especially not after it was verified by observation.

I would call this "devaluation" but never mind.

Give a theory that actually matches the observations better *in detail*.

Boring repetations of denials.

As opposed to boring claims that have no evidence?

I claimed that:
You can get a first good pattern recognition step just by watching a sperm- and egg cell fertilization. i´m sure this is tested and confirmed since long ago. All the rest are just repeating patterns.

You see? No pattern recognition skills at all. Which is sort of OK, since your University never thaught you this, but at lest you then could have asked politely into the subject before rejecting it per automatics.

Looks to me that you are seeing faces in clouds and thinking they are real dragons.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Anyone who simply skips Newtons and Einsteins "gravitational fantasies" can make both a GUT and the TOE by the fundamental EM forces.

so what are you waiting for?
Go ahead and publish and collect your nobel already.

 

[Native]

No. Especially not after it was verified by observation

Do you mean the galactic observation?

I claimed that:
You can get a first good pattern recognition step just by watching a sperm- and egg cell fertilization. i´m sure this is tested and confirmed since long ago. All the rest are just repeating patterns.

You see? No pattern recognition skills at all. Which is sort off OK, since your University never thaught you this, but at lest you then could have asked politely into the subject before rejecting it per automatics.

Looks to me that you are seeing faces in clouds and thinking there are real dragons.

BRAVO! At least you´re having fantasy enough to imagine something But you STILL lacks the polite skill of asking into something you don´t know.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you mean the galactic observation?

No, I mean in the solar system and other systems of planets.

For the galaxy, as you know, we need to take into account other mass. Then things work.

I claimed that:
You can get a first good pattern recognition step just by watching a sperm- and egg cell fertilization. i´m sure this is tested and confirmed since long ago. All the rest are just repeating patterns.

You see? No pattern recognition skills at all. Which is sort off OK, since your University never thaught you this, but at lest you then could have asked politely into the subject before rejecting it per automatics.

BRAVO! At least you´re having fantasy enough to imagine something But you STILL lacks the polite skill of asking into something you don´t know.

I'm pointing out that you are imagining things not there and you say BRAVO???

 

[Native]

No, I mean in the solar system and other systems of planets.

How can you believe on Newton´s gravity in planetary systems when it doesn´t work in galaxies in which the planetary systems are orbiting and where Newton were contradicted?

I'm pointing out that you are imagining things not there and you say BRAVO???

Did you read the sentense backwards?

BRAVO! At least you´re having fantasy enough to imagine something

 

[Polymath257]

How can you believe on Newton´s gravity in planetary systems when it doesn´t work in galaxies in which the planetary systems are orbiting and where Newton were contradicted?

Because it makes correct predictions in the solar system. That is what is required.

Can EU do that?

 

[gnostic]

You see? No pattern recognition skills at all. Which is sort of OK, since your University never thaught you this, but at least you then could have asked politely into the subject before rejecting it per automatics.

No, Native. Your egg-sperm example and the topic of EU cosmology, make you using an irrelevant comparison - this is a false dichotomy.

In science, comparing a subject to a very completely different and irrelevant example that have nothing to do with each other, is simply you waffling, changing the subjects, causing chaotic confusion.

In scientific model, such as a scientific theory, you need to focus the explanatory/predictive models on the subject of phenomena under investigation, for instance, in the case of physical cosmology, to not go off on new subject that are completely irrelevant.

But of course, we are in debate forum, this isn’t scientific theory or falsifiable hypothesis of Electric Universe, you aren’t astrophysicist nor a cosmologist, so you can go off to spew any unrelated garbages that you want, but the point is that what are you doing with sperm-egg example isn’t helping your argument at all.

Lots of emotional feelings and no substance - as usual.

Again, you are wrong.

You posted videos from Michael Clarage (and from Pierre-Maie Robitaille), so I have every rights to criticize his personal opinions on any subject in those videos, to criticize his behavior in these videos (such as him expressing “like” for Electric Universe, and his “dislike” for gravity or any other subjects in physics or astrophysics, him ignoring the current evidence, and so on.

And since, you are the one who keeping up the subject of philosophy as well as with religion, then I can criticize your views on philosophy, on school of thoughts, and your incorrect use of philosophy on the matter of physical cosmology.

 

[Native]

Because it makes correct predictions in the solar system. That is what is required.

Newton´s "Universal gravitational law of motion" was contradicted in the very galaxy, in which the Solar System is located as an orbiting part in the galaxy, thus clearly indicating a huge flaw in his speculative assumption of "gravity".

You can´t have 1 gravitational law for 2 different motions in the same closed galactic system.

 

[Polymath257]

Newton´s "Universal gravitational law of motion" was contradicted in the very galaxy, in which the Solar System is located as an orbiting part in the galaxy, thus clearly indicating a huge flaw in his speculative assumption of "gravity".

You can´t have 1 gravitational law for 2 different motions in the same closed galactic system.

1. Why not?

2. In actuality, we don't. The same law applies to both. There is just more unseen matter in the galaxy than in the solar system.

3. Once again, Newton's hypothesis allowed for the calculation of detailed positions for planets, comets, asteroids, moons, etc in the solar system. The results of the calculation agreed with actual observations. That is why it was taken seriously.

What you don't seem to grasp is that even if we throw out Newton's law of gravity, the fact that it worked for planets in the solar system needs to be explained by whatever theory replaces it. At the very worst, Newton's law would be an approximation that gives very accurate results at the level of the solar system. And that means that *any* replacement would have to give the same results when applied to the solar system.

Of course, now we *do* have a more accurate theory of gravity: general relativity. it works even better in the solar system. So, anything that would replace it would have to agree with GR to at least that level of accuracy.

This is in fact, one of the biggest hurdles for explaining the galactic rotation curves: any proposal to explain the rotation has to *also* not mess up things too much in the solar system. Any explanation has to ALSO explain why Newton's laws (and later, GR) work so well for the sun, planets, comets, etc.

 

[Native]

No, Native. Your egg-sperm example and the topic of EU cosmology, make you using an irrelevant comparison - this is a false dichotomy.

As said before in another situation: You´re simply lack the noble art of pattern recognition, so you are excused.

It´up to me to descide what examples I provide in my own OP and it´s up to you to follow my comparison examples - and ask into these if you cant understand or see the relevance.

You posted videos from Michael Clarage (and from Pierre-Maie Robitaille), so I have every rights to criticize his personal opinions on any subject in those videos, to criticize his behavior in these videos (such as him expressing “like” for Electric Universe, and his “dislike” for gravity or any other subjects in physics or astrophysics, him ignoring the current evidence, and so on.

How on Earth would you criticise a subject which you have no ideas of and don´t bother to investigate it and just reject it without it providing factual and conctructive arguments why?

This is why you constantly posts long tirades of emotional feelings and theories of how the Scientific Method works etc . etc - with no constructive substance at all. And with no recognition of when this metod don´t work.

 

[Native]

1. Why not?

Because it is unscientific idiotry.

2. In actuality, we don't. The same law applies to both. There is just more unseen matter in the galaxy than in the solar system.

So: Newton´s gravity refers to matter which assumingly governs the Sun and its planetary motions in a galaxy where more of Newton´s gravity reffering matter is needed to govern ALL THE OTHER STARS and their eventuel planetary motions in the same galaxy!?

This is simple cosmological idiotic nonsense and it clearly indicates something is hugely wrong with this idea.

Of course, now we *do* have a more accurate theory of gravity: general relativity. it works even better in the solar system. So, anything that would replace it would have to agree with GR to at least that level of accuracy.

It doesn´matter as you´ll stil have two different kinds of motions to deal with.

What you don't seem to grasp is that even if we throw out Newton's law of gravity, the fact that it worked for planets in the solar system needs to be explained by whatever theory replaces it.

Oh yes I very much grasp this.

This is in fact, one of the biggest hurdles for explaining the galactic rotation curves: any proposal to explain the rotation has to *also* not mess up things too much in the solar system. Any explanation has to ALSO explain why Newton's laws (and later, GR) work so well for the sun, planets, comets, etc.

This formative solution comes from the described content here - #251Native, Tuesday at 11:28 AM - where the formation of the Solar System and it´s motions are included in the formation of our Milky Way.