Galactic Telescope Interpretations

[ecco]

As I´m not a part in any EM group, you have to ask an EM-group if they can provide answers to your question. The only thing you can ask from me is answers according to my personal approaches to the relevant and actual issues.

I don't communicate with any EMers except you. I asked you, why there wasn't an EM version of a computer simulation of the motions of the planets. I presented this to you over a year ago. I presented it to you because I know that using the formulas for gravity, there have been hundreds of simulations programmed. I also knew there could be no EM version because EM is bogus.

Why are you linking me to a site with "gravity" as this occult and unexplained and contradicted invention has nothing to do with motions in our galaxy and solar system?

‪Gravity and Orbits‬
This site has a simulation of the movement of the planets in our solar system. It was programmed using the formulas for the laws of gravity. It is an extremely accurate depiction of the orbital motions.

I posted it to show you one way in which gravity is proven. I also posted it to, once again, present a challenge to EMers - if your theories have any validity, you/they can do the same thing. We all know there will be nothing forthcoming because your/their theories are nonsense.

Another reason I posted it was to make lurkers aware of it. It is a really good program with many different viewing options (for example looking at the solar system from the vantage point of Jupiter).

Maybe you should get your perceptions of the E&M cosmic forces correct before ridiculing yourself all too much

My perceptions of EM vs Gravity are correct. The proof is that people who believe as I do can write really good simulations of the planets' orbits whereas the people who believe like you cannot.

I have proof. You have unfounded opinions.

 

[Meow Mix]

Abstract: Of course, the standing cosmological science interpret the cosmological observations according to the standing consensus. But as all telescopic images are still images, it is difficult for the scientists to discern what forces cause the motion of these imageries.

Gareth Samuel, owner of the YouTube channel, "See The Pattern", present some of these problems and their solutions in this video:

I´ve for a long time claimed stars and dwarf galaxies to have been ejected from galactic centers, and this is anyway confirmed in this video content.

IMO, the standing cosmological ideas needs a serious changes of paradigms. What are your sayings about the video content?

I'm an astrophysics grad student, and while so far most of what I've been doing is supernovae constraints on dark energy, I know a few things about this.

As the video briefly mentions, the massive object thought to have disturbed the Hyades is a virialized subhalo of dark matter. As far as I know this is just a working hypothesis right now.

What leads you to believe this requires a massive paradigm change?

 

[Native]

I don't communicate with any EMers except you . . ..

In my opinion you are not even communicating properly. Didn´t I told you to await my replies to your single posts instead of your constant "carpet bombing" approach?

I have now several loose ends hanging in our discussion - and now I even wonder if you´re polite enough to deserve answers at all.

If I take the loose ends up - you can in the mean time ponder why it is that "gravity" is the main problem in order to find a Theory of Everything - despite millions of cosmic "gravity PC simulations and animations".

 

[Native]

As the video briefly mentions, the massive object thought to have disturbed the Hyades is a virialized subhalo of dark matter. As far as I know this is just a working hypothesis right now.

What leads you to believe this requires a massive paradigm change?

About everything in modern cosmology needs paradigm changes, right from the stellar formation ideas to the idea that an invented weak gravity governs everything in the Universe.

The standing cosmological idea only consists of "collisions and explosions" and nothing in between whereas all observations shows spiraling and orbital motions with lots of different kinds of stars and planets.

That the Hyades Cluster consists of different amounts of heavier elements, is just a random fact as the elements which made up these are not evenly distributed in the Universe.

And, as said in the video, every time cosmologists are surprised, they just add dark matter to patch their surprises, hence they now have dark matter to fill 28 % of the universe and dark energy to fill almost the rest.

The standing consensus cosmology is simply a "dark theoretical cosmology".

 

[Meow Mix]

About everything in modern cosmology needs paradigm changes, right from the stellar formation ideas to the idea that an invented weak gravity governs everything in the Universe.

The standing cosmological idea only consists of "collisions and explosions" and nothing in between whereas all observations shows spiraling and orbital motions with lots of different kinds of stars and planets.

That the Hyades Cluster consists of different amounts of heavier elements, is just a random fact as the elements which made up these are not evenly distributed in the Universe.

And, as said in the video, every time cosmologists are surprised, they just add dark matter to patch their surprises, hence they now have dark matter to fill 28 % of the universe and dark energy to fill almost the rest.

The standing consensus cosmology is simply a "dark theoretical cosmology".

There's another thread where I posted in some more detail why we know very certainly there is dark matter. If you want to talk about dark energy, that's actually in my field of research and I can get quite in depth about that.

Dark matter and dark energy aren't as ad hoc as you make them out to be. For instance, we can get the critical density parameter from the Friedmann equations and understand that our total energy densities have to be equal or very close to equal to that parameter. We don't even have to look at rotation curves or colliding clusters (like the Bullet Cluster) to look at the baryonic energy density, look at the curvature of the universe (read: the lack thereof), and to say "okay, baryonic energy density is NOT enough, and it's not even close. There must be something else."

 

[Meow Mix]

For instance, during structure formation and before decoupling, radiation dominated over baryonic matter. Overdensities of photon and baryon plasma smaller than the Hubble distance could not collapse (because the Jeans length is comparable to the Hubble distance); but radiation couldn't dominate dark matter during this period.

These perturbations in baryon density are why we have the structures we have at all; and if it weren't for dark matter, we would see something completely different. Same is true for the baryon acoustic oscillations I posted about in the other thread.

One thing I learned even very recently is that most things that are touted as the best evidence for dark matter -- despite being very good -- are actually not. The very formation of structure itself, and the BAO detected by measuring the CMB, are pretty incontrovertible that there is something massive that is not baryonic and doesn't self-interact or interact with light. That is by definition dark matter. It doesn't tell us what KIND of dark matter it is, but still, there it is.

 

[Native]

There's another thread where I posted in some more detail why we know very certainly there is dark matter. If you want to talk about dark energy, that's actually in my field of research and I can get quite in depth about that.

Thanks, I´ve noticed that

Dark matter and dark energy aren't as ad hoc as you make them out to be.

Aren´t hey?

Newton´s celestial motion was contradicted in the galactic scales - an ad hoc "dark matter" was invented.
First scientist had one specific velocity perception of an expanding Universe - then they ad hoc added "dark energy" because of a new measurement method.
The assumed Big Bang had initially one specific power of expansion - now the scientist have the ad hoc perception of an increasing velocity "dark energy".

They keep on adding and adding and forget to deal with their very standard approaches which causes the need for these ad hoc adding's in the first place.

 

[rational experiences]

Our consciousness owns death we leave.

It gets recorded by our experience we die.

O earth ended created.

O science says is what we stand on in space.

Dark.

Atmosphere to conscious awareness actually does not exist.

So he says only darkness is reality can't change it.

Cause is not creation.

Heavens was a cause.

O why science said there was nothing beyond O held mass as what owns change.

 

[Meow Mix]

They keep on adding and adding and forget to deal with their very standard approaches which causes the need for these ad hoc adding's in the first place.

Ok, so by the strictest definition, any amending of theory in the face of new evidence is technically ad hoc. But I don't think that's a problem in the same way that, say, a lot of string theory is ad hoc. This is because yes, scientists are reacting to new information, but they are doing so using that new information; not just piling new ideas on top of an already untested idea (*cough*string theory*cough*).

For instance in the 90's when we discovered dark energy, we fully expected to find Type 1a's at certain redshifts to be a certain distance away. Lambda as a density parameter was always a part of Friendmann's equations (because it falls out of Einstein's and he introduced lambda as a cosmological constant). Lambda has other possible meanings than a cosmological constant, largely depending on the equation of state parameter, but the important part is that before we discovered dark energy, we already had a lambda term in our Friedmann equations. It was just always assumed it was going to be zero.

In fact my professors have commented about how it would be touched on briefly in classes, and they would basically say "by the way this thing might exist, but we're pretty sure it doesn't," and that would be that.

Until, it turns out, that lambda is non-zero. Which it certainly isn't. Here is another one of my slides:

[GALLERY=media, 9472]A3 by Miss Meow Mix posted Jun 18, 2021 at 4:36 AM[/GALLERY]

The line where the orange meets the blue is where we thought we were in the universe, until we started looking at supernovae at very high z. It is uncontestable that the universe is accelerating its expansion with the current data.

 

[Native]

It is uncontestable that the universe is accelerating its expansion with the current data.

No it is not. This is just a standing theory based on some assumptions of "candle light star" measurements - which is cosmological non sense as one logically cannot decide distances by luminosity.

Your data may be correct, but your theory can be totally wrong.

Also: Just think of the logics of from where an increasing velocity force could have come from.

 

[Meow Mix]

No it is not. This is just a standing theory based on some assumptions of "candle light star" measurements - which is cosmological non sense as one logically cannot decide distances by luminosity.

Your data may be correct, but your theory can be totally wrong.

Also: Just think of the logics of from where an increasing velocity force could have come from.

We can decide distances based on luminosity if we have a standard candle, and Type 1a's are pretty good about this. We can calibrate remarkably well for peak luminosity (here's another one of my slides):

[GALLERY=media, 9473]A4 by Miss Meow Mix posted Jun 18, 2021 at 5:27 AM[/GALLERY]

We can use spectropolarimetry to test out kinks from things like the partner object being between the supernova and Earth observation as well.

Not only do we have standard candles (of which Type 1a's are only one), we have standard rulers too, in the BAO clusters.

Thinking about dark energy as an "increasing velocity force" is not correct. It's not an acceleration in the Newtonian sense.

 

[Native]

Thinking about dark energy as an "increasing velocity force" is not correct. It's not an acceleration in the Newtonian sense.

Either way we´re talking of an idea of increasing expansion velocity - without being able to explain why.

IMO, this somewhat unscientific idea, derives from false distance measuring methods et all, of which the simple dispersion of light in cosmos can twist all cosmic candle light rules and distances.

 

[ecco]

In my opinion you are not even communicating properly. Didn´t I told you to await my replies to your single posts instead of your constant "carpet bombing" approach?

I have now several loose ends hanging in our discussion - and now I even wonder if you´re polite enough to deserve answers at all.

I certainly didn't intend to get ahead of you. I do understand that you were replying to other people besides me. So, just let me know when you have finished responding to my previous posts. Until then, I will politely remain silent.

If I take the loose ends up - you can in the mean time ponder why it is that "gravity" is the main problem in order to find a Theory of Everything - despite millions of cosmic "gravity PC simulations and animations".

Actually, I'll let the new kitten @Miss Meow Mix address those kinds of questions as she has far more knowledge there than I do.

Your biggest obstacle is still trying to explain why your EM theories cannot provide simple evidence like a simulation of the orbits of the planets. You really have not been able to provide any reasons why you (or any EMers) can't do this.

I know you can't because your theories are nonsense. Your theories cannot explain something that was successfully explained with gravity 350 years ago.





ETA: You also never explained why there is no difference in barometric pressure on the forward facing side of the earth compared to the backward facing side.

 

[night912]

No it is not. This is just a standing theory based on some assumptions of "candle light star" measurements - which is cosmological non sense as one logically cannot decide distances by luminosity.

Explain your reasoning behind your assertion.

Your data may be correct, but your theory can be totally wrong.

Also: Just think of the logics of from where an increasing velocity force could have come from.

It's irrational to think that you can make a logical conclusion regarding "velocity" if you're ignorant of what "velocity" is.

And here's the simple answer. If you want to increase your velocity, all you have to do is change directions so that you're not going in a straight line.

 

[Meow Mix]

Either way we´re talking of an idea of increasing expansion velocity - without being able to explain why.

IMO, this somewhat unscientific idea, derives from false distance measuring methods et all, of which the simple dispersion of light in cosmos can twist all cosmic candle light rules and distances.

It's not a velocity. If it were a velocity, it would violate GR. This is well understood.

The simple way to put it is that space itself expands, this comes directly from GR. We see this in redshift of light from distant sources. People mistakenly characterize the redshift as a Doppler effect, but it's not. The Doppler effect would be if an object is moving away while emitting light, and there are some similarities, but it's more that the space between the peaks and troughs of the EMR is stretched during transit.

Edit: to be more clear (I guess), there is SOME red/blue shifting coming from the actual motion of galaxies, which we call peculiar motion.

But peculiar motion is negligible at high redshifts.

 

[Meow Mix]

Actually, I'll let the new kitten @Miss Meow Mix address those kinds of questions as she has far more knowledge there than I do.

^.^ I'm a returning member, just got my new account merged with the old one today (as I'd forgotten all login information, ha!)

The question was:

If I take the loose ends up - you can in the mean time ponder why it is that "gravity" is the main problem in order to find a Theory of Everything - despite millions of cosmic "gravity PC simulations and animations".

We must distinguish between ToE (theory of everything) and GUT (grand unified theory). Gravity is more the issue for GUT, with the idea being that some time before the electroweak force split, gravity had a similar symmetry breaking as the universe cooled. That is not my field, I only know what I've picked up in classes about it.

ToE's can include GUTs and quantum gravity (usually string theory or loop quantum gravity, or information theoretic gravity, any number of things), but are about much more than gravity itself.

Gravity is a problem because quantum mechanically, gravitons self-interact and are their own antiparticles. Then there's the potential for supersymmetry. That's immensely complex. It doesn't capture the spirit of how I wish I had the skill to elucidate it, but it could be said it's more of an engineering problem (I mean this abstractly, as in "we can't simulate the thing without stupifying amounts of computing power that we don't have") than a theoretical problem. Though it is still a theoretical problem at the end of the day.

But this is largely because of the way GR and QM are formulated. They don't play nice with one another, and there is a lot to talk about to get into why. We don't know if strings or fields are fundamental, we don't know if there's a duality and whether it only matters that you're consistent one way or the other, etc. We don't know in QM what to abandon, because some things we must abandon, be it realism, locality, multitudinism. The issues are very deep.

But the issues aren't damning in the sense like you (Native) are saying to toss the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No it is not. This is just a standing theory based on some assumptions of "candle light star" measurements - which is cosmological non sense as one logically cannot decide distances by luminosity.

It is a principle manner in which distances that are described by the video in your OP are determined. So when you watch such videos that talk about stellar and astrophysical distances and lengths and show you pictures of stellar structure or of the configurations of stars in galaxies or of galaxies or really of anything, remember that they are using this "cosmological non sense" in the process. Or rather, more typically, they are deciding when and how to use the work others have done in determining these distances while ignoring how when it is not particularly convenient.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

^.^ I'm a returning member

That's putting it mildly!
Welcome back, you've been missed!

 

[Native]

Subject: Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology descriptions & Predictions of the Webb Space Telescope observations.

Notification: I´m an independent proponent of an Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology and I don´t accept the mythical interpretation part in the ThunderboltsProject Society.

In this video, the Thunderbolts Chief Science Advisor, Wal Thornhill, predicts the James Webb Space Telescope will support the research of Halton Arp and his views on the consensus redshift distance measuring methods.

Wal Thornhill also explains several other cosmological issues related to the ideas of EU and PC to which I generally agree.