Cosmology of the Electric Universe

[Polymath257]

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

Did you read the rest of what i said? The *key* is being able to make testable statements that are verified by observations. Any theory that cannot make such statements is worthless.

That is how you tell. You see if it makes testable claims. if it does not, it is worthless. Then you see if the testable claims it makes are born out by actual observations Again, if it is not, then it is worthless.

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

Well, it certainly seems correct in your own case.

Which is why I stay out of debates about things I don't know much about. It's a good policy. But I *do* know about cosmology and astrophysics, which is the topic of these discussions.

Remember that *your* ideas are the ones that avoid trying to make specific conclusions and when they do, those conclusions are shown to be wrong by observations.

For example, the fact that things still fall in a vacuum shows that air pressure is NOT why things fall. Avoiding that fact by saying that taking the air out is unnatural only shows that you don't grasp how to test ideas rigorously.

 

[Native]

Which is why I stay out of debates about things I don't know much about

That doesn´t leave much left for you to debate at all:

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.

For example, the fact that things still fall in a vacuum shows that air pressure is NOT why things fall.

It´s amazing that you can´t se the logics of emptying a tank for it´s amospheric pressure makes all the difference between the motion of a falling bowling ball and a feather inside or outside the experiment.

Then again it isn´t that amazing when thinking of your lack of philosophical pattern recognition.

 

[Native]

That is how you tell. You see if it makes testable claims. if it does not, it is worthless. Then you see if the testable claims it makes are born out by actual observations Again, if it is not, then it is worthless.

Yes indeed. Discard the silly Newtons prediction in his "Universal laws of celestial motion" which was directly contradicted!

Then you could have avoid the silly assumption of dark matter too.

You´re SO inconsistent that it shouts to the heavens!

 

[Polymath257]

That doesn´t leave much left for you to debate at all:

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.

Only #1 is even remotely true. The rest are based on your poor understanding.

It´s amazing that you can´t se the logics of emptying a tank for it´s amospheric pressure makes all the difference between the motion of a falling bowling ball and a feather inside or outside the experiment.

Yes, it has an effect *because* the air pressure is removed. That means that there is no air pressure inside, so *only* gravity is determining how things fall. In particular, the fact that they *do* fall shows that the air pressure isn't the reason they fall.

Air produces friction which *slows the fall*. it isn't why things fall in the first place.

Then again it isn´t that amazing when thinking of your lack of philosophical pattern recognition.

Given that your philosophical pattern recognition has done so poorly in predicting actual observational results, I am quite happy with you thinking I lack it.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes indeed. Discard the silly Newtons prediction in his "Universal laws of celestial motion" which was directly contradicted!

Except that it works very well inside the solar system. it works quite well in other star systems (stars and planets).

The time it 'fails' is when incredibly large things like galaxies are being dealt with. And, even in that case, the 'failure' can be explained by there being mass we don't see.

Further, that assumption of mass ALSO explains many other phenomena. So it isn't a failure at all, but a discovery!

Then you could have avoid the silly assumption of dark matter too.

You´re SO inconsistent that it shouts to the heavens!

Newtonian gravity allows us to make testable claims in the solar system. Those claims are verified for things in the solar system.

Yes, they are modified for black holes (which we now know exist), and ALL the matter needs to be taken into account. But when it is, the results agree with observations.

 

[Native]

Yes, it has an effect *because* the air pressure is removed. That means that there is no air pressure inside, so *only* gravity is determining how things fall. In particular, the fact that they *do* fall shows that the air pressure isn't the reason they fall.

So why on Earth are the bowling ball and the feather falling with much higher velocity outside the tank under the open atmospheric pressure!?

Get some philosophical logics so we have a reasonable debate - or just get of my back.

 

[Native]

The time it 'fails' is when incredibly large things like galaxies are being dealt with.

And of course our solar system isn´t located in our galaxy too, right?

Inconsistencies - Inconsistencies - Inconsistencies all over the places!

 

[Polymath257]

So why on Earth are the bowling ball and the feather falling with much higher velocity outside the tank under the open atmospheric pressure!?

Get some philosophical logics so we have a reasonable debate - or just get of my back.

The bowling ball falls at close to the same rate as it does in a vacuum because the air pressure has less effect on it. The feather falls *faster* in the vacuum because it isn't slowed down by air resistance.

Once again, you got the facts of the matter wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

And of course our solar system isn´t located in our galaxy too, right?

Inconsistencies - Inconsistencies - Inconsistencies all over the places!

Yes, of course it is. But that is irrelevant to my statement that Newton's theory describes what happens in the solar system quite well.

Also, the solar system is NOT tightly coupled to the motion of the galaxy as a whole. The sun moves along, but the larger motion has no effect on the planets.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The OP reminds me quite a bit of Ralph Rene, and though it took several pages of Google, four of them to be precise, his website is still up and active:

Ralph Renés' Website about the NASA/Apollo moon hoax and how they faked their science and physics

 

[Native]

The bowling ball falls at close to the same rate as it does in a vacuum because the air pressure has less effect on it. The feather falls *faster* in the vacuum because it isn't slowed down by air resistance.

This experiment is such a speculative and occult gravity nonsense!

You have to have measured the max falling velocity of both objects in free air under the atmospheric pressure in order to find the REAL VALUES before you can make a scientific comparable experiment.

And when having done this, you´ll find the atmospheric pressure = WEIGHT OF AIR to do all the differences.

 

[Native]

Yes, of course it is. But that is irrelevant to my statement that Newton's theory describes what happens in the solar system quite well.

Yes! Lets have two different laws in the same integrated orbital system!

Can´t you see how outright stupid this is?

 

[Native]

I said earlier that:
NOTE:
"I´m throttling down my time here for the moment and I´m prioritizing my participation according having time to waste".

So please respect my message!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes! Lets have two different laws in the same integrated orbital system!

Can´t you see how outright stupid this is?

What makes you think that there are two separate laws?

 

[Polymath257]

Yes! Lets have two different laws in the same integrated orbital system!

Can´t you see how outright stupid this is?

And so we start with the one that works (Newtonian gravity within the solar system) and see what modifications it requires to work in the other system (specifically, orbital velocities of stars in the galaxy).

When we do this, we find the best option is an extra mass we do not see. When that is taken into account, not only do the star velocities come into alignment, but several other observations (lensing, movement in galactic clusters) also is in agreement.

 

[Polymath257]

I said earlier that:
NOTE:
"I´m throttling down my time here for the moment and I´m prioritizing my participation according having time to waste".

So please respect my message!

Nobody is forcing you to post. People can still post even if you don't want to respond.

 

[Polymath257]

This experiment is such a speculative and occult gravity nonsense!

You have to have measured the max falling velocity of both objects in free air under the atmospheric pressure in order to find the REAL VALUES before you can make a scientific comparable experiment.

And when having done this, you´ll find the atmospheric pressure = WEIGHT OF AIR to do all the differences.

OK, so your prediction is that things will fall *slower* in a vacuum tank than they do outside of that tank. I predict the opposite.

Is this a fair description of your expectations?

 

[Native]

Nobody is forcing you to post. People can still post even if you don't want to respond.

If you don´t respect my messages and I cant set you on my ignore list, I´ll just conclude you to be an ignorant idiot in this matter too!

Please do me the favor to exclude me from this idiotic forum.

Edit: Insult deleted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you don´t respect my messages and I cant set you on my ignore list, I´ll just conclude you to be an ignorant idiot in this matter too!

Please do me the favor to exclude me from this idiotic forum

LOL! Since he is a mod he could fulfill your request.

 

[Native]

Subject: Halton Arp EM Quasar Model Verified

And the redshift model seriously questioned.

Contributor and Electric Universe advocate, Gareth Samuel, creator of "See the Pattern”, examines a new study those data verifies quasars embedded within filaments connected to a host galaxy. This discovery is in line with Halton Arp's model where he found examples of quasars that were clearly embedded in plasma connected all the way back to a host galaxy.