Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
I know that. Then your just need a course in Natural Philosophy.
Master degree in Natural Philosophy and Comparative Mythology.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Cosmology of the Electric Universe
- Thread starter Native
- Start date
- Status
What? A follower of Hegel?
Somehow that figures. 200 years out of date and having little of substance to say.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
This says all about your serious lack of natural philosophical knowledge! Your ignorance is tremendous!
By your ignorance you (rightfully so) even discard your own 350 year old guru, Newton!
Natural philosophy or philosophy of nature (from Latin philosophia naturalis) was the philosophical study of nature and the physical universe that was dominant before the development of modern science. It is considered to be the precursor of natural science.
From the ancient world, starting with Aristotle, to the 19th century, natural philosophy was the common term for the practice of studying nature. It was in the 19th century that the concept of "science" received its modern shape with new titles emerging such as "biology" and "biologist", "physics" and "physicist" among other technical fields and titles; institutions and communities were founded, and unprecedented applications to and interactions with other aspects of society and culture occurred.[1] Isaac Newton's book Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687), whose title translates to "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", reflects the then-current use of the words "natural philosophy", akin to "systematic study of nature". Even in the 19th century, a treatise by Lord Kelvin and Peter Guthrie Tait, which helped define much of modern physics, was titled Treatise on Natural Philosophy (1867).
Last edited:
Sure it is. I prefer Kant to Hegel and Hume to either of them. Popper was a good expositor of the scientific method and what is required.
Newton was a man. he was a very bright man and had some keen insights. But his ideas are not sacred. When they have been wrong, others have replaced his ideas. This happened when Einstein came along for relativity and when Bohr, Heisenberg, and Schrodinger came along for quantum mechanics.
People today call themselves scientists, not natural philosophers.
OK, so the historical usage 'natural philosophy' has now been changed to 'science'. This has happened as science has broadened and learned more.
So what? it is terminology, nothing else.
You have to understand, science doesn't have prophets and gurus. It has people who have made insights, but those insights are not sacred. They can be criticized and debated and overturned *if the evidence shows they need to be*.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
So why is it that you stubbernly acts as if they are?
If this "holy" scientific method was followed strictly, you wouldn´t have dark matter at all. And you wouldn´t have an increasing expansion velocity too.
These ideas are nothing but pathetic ad hoc patchings on former predictons which failed blatantly.
Last edited:
I don't.
That is your claim, but you have failed to give an alternative that works as well or better.
Such is your claim, but you have failed to give an alternative that works as well or better.
Having these 'ad hoc patchings' gives a result that actually agrees with observations. Unless you can give an alternative that works at least as well, you have nothing to offer.
And, given that you cannot explain why things fall in a vacuum, I am not holding my breath for a deep insight from you.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
No YOU fails to grasp my explanations - because of your lack of cosmological pattern recognition skills.
Once again, by your lack of logics and critical analyses, you fails to see what´s realy is happening.
By adding more and more "stuff and energy" to a contradicted hypothesis/theory, you only and JUST ONLY "confirms" your initial failure.
You´re simply inventing unseen stuff and energy to your failed mathematical number acrobatics - not realizing that the Universe don´t give a s... for your inventions and calculations.
Last edited:
Maybe you need to give more details in your explanations. I have asked for such details a number of times: for example, I have asked about the strengths of the magnetic fields in our galaxy and what effect fields of those strengths would have on dynamics. I have asked for the size of your 'orbital pressure' and you have dodged that request. I have asked for specific evidence that the sun was formed at the core of our galaxy and you have ignored that request.
You claim I lack 'cosmological pattern recognition skills', but have consistently failed to explain some clear examples of such and what they imply.
Then please be more explicit. What is really happening? What is your *evidence* that you have it correct? Give *your* reasons.
You denigrate the math, but I suspect that is only because you fail to understand it. The math gives precision which is helpful for testing of the ideas. If the math says one thing and the observations say another, it is time to modify some aspect of the mathematical analysis.
That does NOT mean the whole theory needs to be discarded. Possibly some small adjustment or the inclusion of something not previously known is all that is required. To argue a complete revision is needed, a new theory that works at least as well needs to be given as a replacement.
Again, you have failed to give enough details to make that a reasonable course of action.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
I´ve seriously tried to explain my cosmological perceptions, but you´re continuesly stucked in your math, instead of trying to understand the overall picture BEFORE going to any calculations.
We shouldn´t make the same mistakes as Newton, should we?
Forget your childish and patronizing idiocracy! Try to follow an explanation made by simple words and sentenses before your cookcy besserwissen gets the better of you
I wouldn´t call it "some small adjustments" to fill 27 % dark matter in the entire Universe! Get your proportions right, please.
Oh, I understand your overall picture. I just don't think there is any evidence to support it.
For example, *from your picture*, how fast would you expect a feather to fall in a vacuum tank that has an internal pressure of 1/100 of an atmosphere?
Or, use your picture *and explain it using just your picture* why the planet Mercury has the orbital period it has given, say, the distance of Mercury from the sun.
Nope. And they have been corrected. To the extent his view of gravity was wrong, it has been replaced.
That isn't patronizing. It is a simple request to supply the math in your system. if you can't do so, then your system is literally worthless in understanding the solar system.
It is a small adjustment to the predicted motions of what we can see. But, OK, if you can give detailed math showing the correct velocities of stars using your viewpoint, then you would have something of value.
So, given your viewpoint, at what rotational rate would you expect a star to be orbiting if it is 15,000 light years from the core? What rate would you expect for a star 20,000 light years from the core. You may use anything *from your picture* to make these predictions. Remember, this is the case where Newton failed. if you can succeed in this, you have a case to present.
BUT, you cannot use the observed values for the velocities in your calculations. You can use whatever field strengths for the E&M fields you think are justified. You can use whatever model for the galaxy you want. But you have to give a calculation for the velocities of stars. We can then go and see if your calculations match the observations. If you want, you can even detail how the observations should be done.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
This just says thaht you DON´T UNDERSTAND the overall picture at all because you don´t look at the natural adn philosophical the evidences.
It´s not a question of "thinking" or of premature calculations, but of discovering the cosmological patterns in the first place.
You´re still just babling your boring experiments whithout knowing anything of the causes.
I´m soon coming up with yet another attempt to get your logical and natural philosophical skills working.
OK, give the evidence. Show how your idea predicts that type of evidence. Even better, use your idea to do a calculation that predicts the observation to a couple of decimal point accuracy.
In science, if you *think* you have found a pattern, the next step is to find a test for that pattern. This can involve (usually does) a calculation to show that the pattern (which shows the calculations to do) predicts the observed behavior.
On the other hand, if you *think* you have found a pattern and cannot do a calculation or make a prediction that can be tested, all you are doing is blowing smoke.
You *think* you know the causes. The way to test that is to make a prediction based on your idea and see if it agrees with later observations.
It is *far* more important to be able to do calculations that agree with observations than it is to find some mysterious cause. And thinking you have found a cause without being able to make a testable prediction just means you are deluding yourself.
gnostic
The Lost One
You have vaulted yourself as being logical and being able to “think outside of the box”, and accused others of not being able to do the same.
In the last five years we have our shares of arguments and disagreements, and that’s fine, Native, this is a public forum, not a scientific community.
And I have told you and others in the past, that I am more of engineer (1st in civil engineering, and later in computer science and IT). So I valued calculations, evidence and data, because of my background, all above philosophies.
I have never called myself scientists, nor a physicist, nor a biologist, but I did study physics as Applied Science, so I was only ever involved with physics, chemistry and maths only when these subjects were related to the courses I was doing; I had only studied what were relevant as civil engineer, computer engineer or programmer or network engineer.
So none of my courses I have studied, involved Astrophysics, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics, etc. But I was interested in learning that I was never taught, in my free times, outside of lecture halls and classrooms. And I learned only the basic frameworks of whatever I was interested, but they still don’t make expert in these fields, and I am no scientist, nor a physicist.
My points is that like engineering, physics require evidence, not the long-winded jibber-jabber of some philosophies.
I also love reading history, but I don’t consider myself as a historian. But I know enough that Natural Philosophy started with the Greek philosophers in the Late Archaic period and flourishing in the Classical period and Hellenistic period.
And Natural Philosophy continued to develop and flourish during the Golden Age of Islam, during the Renaissance and during the Scientific Revolution.
But In the last 200 or so years, Natural Philosophy became Natural Sciences, which developed into modern studies of physics, chemistry, Earth science, astronomy and Life Sciences (biology and related fields).
Natural Philosophy is over 200 years in the past, and no longer relevant to today’s studies, unless they have expanded and updated.
Modern sciences, (and I am only referring to Natural Sciences and Physical Sciences, not Social Sciences), are standardized and constrained by 3 core requirements for any proposed model (eg hypothesis)...that the model must be:
- Falsifiable
- must be tested in accordance with Scientific Method
- and lastly they (hypothesis plus evidence & data) be subjected to Peer Review.
- Epistemology
- Empiricism
- Logical Positivism
- Methodological Naturalism
Science should be more doing, more works (eg testings, experiments, discovering evidence, etc), less talking.
Anyway, if you were really logical as you believe yourself to be, then you should be able to come up with predictive model and mathematical model to your alternative views, that you should be able to verify with observations (eg evidence and data).
But all you don’t have clear view, and whenever ask that you present evidence and data that match with your predictive/mathematical models, you balks and you evades.
So really, Native, you are not logical at all.
And to call yourself a teacher, well, from my experiences with debating with you, just laughable.
That you think you are smarter than Polymath257, is just your ego talking.
I may be no physicist, but you are no teacher...and you are certainly no scientist.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Subject: The significance of cosmological pattern recognitions.
Some astrophysical and cosmological scientists, in fact most of them, seem to believe in doing mathematical calculations before having a plausible overall perspective of what they´re trying to calculate.
Pattern analysis recognition is very important in order to avoid hypothesis which collide with connected cosmological areas.
The Milky Way formation.
If looking at the central barred structure of our Milky Way, there is NO WAY Newton´s assumed attractive force can make the 90 degree turn from the arms and into the bars. This pattern speaks clearly about an outgoing motion from the center, OUT in the bars and further OUT in the galactic arms.
This scenario speaks clearly of a central rotation and repulsion i.e. a “PRESSURE”.
When discovering the Galactic Rotation Curve, the scientists thought that with such an orbital motion, “the stars would fly away OUT from the galaxy”. And in fact, they were right in assuming such and OUTGOING motion, a pressure from within.
But then they just added “dark matter to hold the stars” instead of accepting the Newtonian failure and discard his ideas.
The conclusion from this is now: There is an overall galactic PRESSURE from inside out on our Solar System!
Motions in our Solar System.
We have an annual increasing distance between the Sun and the Earth with about 16 cm. We have a similar increasing distance between the Moon and the Earth by about 4 cm.
Link: “Earth Is Drifting Away From The Sun, And So Are All The Planets” -
Earth Is Drifting Away From The Sun, And So Are All The Planets
(Of course, the author follows the standard gravitational assumptions and “explanations” here, but the focus is on the expansion itself = a PRESSURE away from the Sun – and as such, mirroring the initial PRESSURE away from the galactic center).
Once again, the conclusion is: PRESSURE.
The orbital pressure on Earth.
This initial Milky Way pressure of course still affect the Earth´s rotational and orbital motion through the space.
The drag resistance from the orbital velocity asserts a pressure on the Earth and of course also a pressure on the weight of the air, our atmosphere on the Earth.
Again, the plausible conclusion is PRESSURE.
------------------------
Note:
Except from the factual EM effect from the Sun on the Earth, these motions have nothing to do with an EM which governs these motions. They were already produced when the Solar System was formed by the EM plasma-influence on a gaseous and particle cloud in our galaxy.
Some astrophysical and cosmological scientists, in fact most of them, seem to believe in doing mathematical calculations before having a plausible overall perspective of what they´re trying to calculate.
Pattern analysis recognition is very important in order to avoid hypothesis which collide with connected cosmological areas.
The Milky Way formation.
If looking at the central barred structure of our Milky Way, there is NO WAY Newton´s assumed attractive force can make the 90 degree turn from the arms and into the bars. This pattern speaks clearly about an outgoing motion from the center, OUT in the bars and further OUT in the galactic arms.
This scenario speaks clearly of a central rotation and repulsion i.e. a “PRESSURE”.
When discovering the Galactic Rotation Curve, the scientists thought that with such an orbital motion, “the stars would fly away OUT from the galaxy”. And in fact, they were right in assuming such and OUTGOING motion, a pressure from within.
But then they just added “dark matter to hold the stars” instead of accepting the Newtonian failure and discard his ideas.
The conclusion from this is now: There is an overall galactic PRESSURE from inside out on our Solar System!
Motions in our Solar System.
We have an annual increasing distance between the Sun and the Earth with about 16 cm. We have a similar increasing distance between the Moon and the Earth by about 4 cm.
Link: “Earth Is Drifting Away From The Sun, And So Are All The Planets” -
Earth Is Drifting Away From The Sun, And So Are All The Planets
(Of course, the author follows the standard gravitational assumptions and “explanations” here, but the focus is on the expansion itself = a PRESSURE away from the Sun – and as such, mirroring the initial PRESSURE away from the galactic center).
Once again, the conclusion is: PRESSURE.
The orbital pressure on Earth.
This initial Milky Way pressure of course still affect the Earth´s rotational and orbital motion through the space.
The drag resistance from the orbital velocity asserts a pressure on the Earth and of course also a pressure on the weight of the air, our atmosphere on the Earth.
Again, the plausible conclusion is PRESSURE.
------------------------
Note:
Except from the factual EM effect from the Sun on the Earth, these motions have nothing to do with an EM which governs these motions. They were already produced when the Solar System was formed by the EM plasma-influence on a gaseous and particle cloud in our galaxy.
Simulations say otherwise.
The barred spiral structure of galaxies - ScienceDirect
Spiral arm formation mechanisms: Spiral Structure in Barred...
TESTING THEORIES IN BARRED-SPIRAL GALAXIES - IOPscience
Easily testable: find the velocities of the stars in the different locations. Here's a paper with some actual data:
A survey of the stellar rotation in barred galaxies | Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series
Then why do stars *orbit* as opposed to simply moving outward? A pressure alone would push them away and disrupt the galaxy: it would not hold together.
This is contradicted by the fact that galaxies *do* hold together. So, even if there is a pressure outward, there must also be something inward keeping the stars in the galaxy.
Not quite what happened. We observe the velocities of the stars. Those velocities *around* were faster than predicted. Not outward: around.
Question: what is the magnitude of this pressure? Is it even across the solar system? What material produces this pressure? What are the characteristics of this material?
Something tells me you don't understand the concept of pressure.
And why would a pressure from the galaxy produce a pressure *away* from the sun? It seems like the galactic pressure would always be in one direction across the solar system, not a pressure outward from the sun.
Initial? As in not there now? In that case, why would it affect anything?
Drag from what? What material is there to produce the drag? How much is there? What is the amount of drag produced?
Huh? Either the E&M field is there and affects things or it isn't. The timing of their production doesn't affect how they act *now*.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
That apparently didn´t ring any bells in your mind . . .
I said:
If looking at the central barred structure of our Milky Way, there is NO WAY Newton´s assumed attractive force can make the 90 degree turn from the arms and into the bars.
Apparenty you don´t make the slightest pattern recognition efforts by looking at the barred structure and ponder over the 90 degree turn out in the arms and logically asking yourself how "gravity" could do such an abrupt turn?
NO pattern recognitions = lots of guessworks and assumptions.
PC simulations? Really?
You know what you can do with simulations based on mathematical programming made by scientists who believe in a gravity which is contradicted in galaxies and filled up with occult "dark matter" in order to patch the contradiction?
Get updated on real discoveries and new thoughts instead:
Gaia-ESO data show Milky Way may have formed ‘inside-out’, and provide new insight into Galactic evolution
The Inside-out Growth of the Galactic Disk
With this in mind, I don´t even bother to comment on your other sentenses.
Last edited:
Gravity isn't doing the turn. Duh. Gravity works in a straight line to the sources and is additive.
The orbits in this case and the differences between the orbits farther out and those closer in are what produce the bar (and the 90 degree turn). Different orbits have slightly different times to go around, which means you get waves of more stars and fewer stars. that is what produces the spiral arms.
What pattern are you seeing? Be explicit.
Yes, the addition of the missing dark matter in simulations brings the theory into agreement with observations. How is that a problem?
The fact that the simulations agree with the observations says something, don't you think? It's a pattern that should be recognized and taken advantage of, right?
So the inner structures formed before the outer structures. That does NOT mean that there was a 'pressure' from the inner structures to the outer ones. It just means the gravity closer in is more intense and produces structures faster.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
If you took your time to read what I initially wrote above, you wouldn´t make fool of yourself Duh!
In fact, you are confirming my statement about the abrupt turn. Duh. Try to read it all once more so you don´t make more fool of yourself.
The assumed "gravity" cannot make such motions in barred galaxies, hence the occult gravity agency don´t work anywhere in the galaxy - or otherwhere for that matter.
As for the rest of your comments, I don´t bother to reply as you even didn´t understand the very impossible gravity turn point I wrote of in the first place. Duh.
Last edited:
GRAVITY DOESN'T MAKE A TURN. I explained what does happen and you ignored the explanation. Yes, there is a turn. But it doesn't show what you think it shows.
- Status