Is the moon getting nearer ?

[ratiocinator]

Apropos the "predictive powers of current theories", this is somewhat irrelevant and in vane to me, since my basic thinking goes against most of the standing theories.

And here we are back at the point you keep ignoring. The predictive power of our current theories is something you need to explain, if you're going to say they are wrong.

You need to think about why totally wrong assumptions make such accurate predictions.

Regarding "solving one or more af these problems" it´s quite another case, but of course it´s up to others to grasp my explanations and see if these explanations possibly could solve some problems.

Why should it be up to anybody else?

So, just to summarise: you're absolutely convinced that current science has got things wrong and you cite problems with cosmology as 'evidence' for this. However, you can't explain why these totally wrong theories make such accurate predictions, you can't use your own ideas to reproduce the successful results of these wrong theories, and you've got no clue as to how your ideas can solve the problems you've given as 'evidence' that current science is wrong.

So, I'm confused, what on earth makes you think you're right?

 

[gnostic]

I´ve asked you several times now for you to come up with firm and DIRECT EVIDENCE for "dark matter", so just get going. Remember to describe the cause of hypothesizing "dark matter" in the first place.

I don´t care the least about your personal texts analysis here. Find som factual parts in the discussions and come up with some reasonable arguments.

I just thought it was important to know WHY the scientists added this hypothetical and metaphysical substance.
Well, I don´t give a daim if you post it or not.

No, I´m not ignoring the factual scientific observations. I´m just questioning the consensus causal explanations.

I was well aware that my former conclusive comment was simplistic. Of course there is much more to it than the continental pushing on the seas as for instants atmospheric pressure and wind.

But the most interesting is in fact what you quote here:



Of course there are concrete tidal connections between the Earth and the Moon and the Earth and the Sun, but not for the dogmatic consensus reasons of "gravity", which obviously has lost it´s assumed influences right outside the Earth atmosphere.

The Earth was once formed out from the Sun and the Moon was once formed out of the Earth, but not as "cosmic bits from a Solar explosion" which assumingly should have formed the planets afterwards via the assumed "gravitational forces.

The formation of planets out of the Sun took place when minor spheres was centrifugally dispersed away from the rotating Sun and the same was the cases with the planetary Moons born out of their mother planets. (This is the real cause for the still increasing distances between the Earth and the Sun and between the Earth and the Moon)

The mentioned formations took place when the rotating and initial Solar Sphere was molten hot for some 4.6 bill. years ago, and this formation STILL is "ringing" on the Earth´orbital and rotational rhythms of the seas.

BTW: I give you this: For several reasons, mostly because of personal and emotional continues mud casting and nitpicking comments from some debaters, (not from you), I lost the track of your former questions, sorry.

You may ask for concrete evidences or direct evidences from others here and so forth, but for you asking for them (evidences) is quite disingenuous coming from you, because I think you really don’t understand what constitute as scientific evidence and what isn’t scientific evidence.

1. In your mind, what is “scientific” evidence?
2. How would you determine as evidence and not evidence?
3. How would you know if the evidences are associated with a specific falsifiable hypothesis or scientific theory?
4. Are only “direct” evidences ever used? Can “indirect” evidences be used in science?

The last questions (point 4) are the one that I really want from you, because I really don’t think you really how important indirect evidences can be.

All my questions are important, but I really want to know your take on point 4.

 

[Native]

So, just to summarise: you're absolutely convinced that current science has got things wrong and you cite problems with cosmology as 'evidence' for this. However, you can't explain why these totally wrong theories make such accurate predictions, you can't use your own ideas to reproduce the successful results of these wrong theories, and you've got no clue as to how your ideas can solve the problems you've given as 'evidence' that current science is wrong.

So, I'm confused, what on earth makes you think you're right?

As an example, take the Newtonian laws of celestial motions. Scientists were surprised over the discovery of the galactic rotation "anomaly" which in fact sort of contradicted the predictions of celestial motions et all.

This led to the hypothesis of "dark matter" which I´m sure you know all about. Scientists thought that there must be a hidden force to hold the stars in the galaxy since the observed orbital motions would sling the stars OUT of the galaxy.

Even this scientific statement goes against the scientific idea - and Standard Prediction - that there are "heavy black holes" in the centers of galaxies which holds all stars in their locations and orbital motion around the galactic centers.

Instead of contemplating other possible solutions to this outgoing motion phenomena in the galaxies, scientists just held onto the text book lectures. In fact, the ONLY possible explanation to the galactic rotation curve, is that the formational motion in our galaxy actually goes from inside out.

This outgoing motion in the galactic formation explains very logically the observed galactic rotation curve. (My Prediction # 1)

As our Solar System is an integrated part of the galactic rotation it´s also logical to assume that our Solar System once was formed in the swirling galactic center from where it left (the outgoing motion) as a huge singe molten sphere, from where the planets were centrifugally slung away as larger and minor spheres on the coming Solar System´s way out through the galactic bars and further out to the actual position. (My Prediction # 2)

Furthermore, and when still molten hot, the planetary spheres again gave birth to their planetary Moons. (My Prediction # 3)

This initial OUTGOING MOTION from the galactic center, to the separation of Planets and their Moons both confirms the observed galactic rotation curve and motion as a general outgoing galactic formative motion and at the same time it contradicts the Newtonian gravity laws of celestial motions in our Solar System. The motions of planets and their moons has nothing to do with Newtons celestial laws at all. Al motions in our Solar System were already determined when the Solar System was formed in the swirling galactic center. (My Prediction # 4)

In generally:
It´s somewhat easy for modern cosmologists to "get everything seemingly right" when they use unseen and directly undetected ad hoc "dark this or that" in order to - SEEMINGLY - make their stories trustworthy and believable. With such a "scientific ad hoc method", they can get anything to SEEMINGLY fit very well together.
--------------------------
EDIT Jan. 9 2019
It seems - at last - that scientists are on the brink of grasping the electromagnetically circuit of formation in galaxies.

Quote from - https://phys.org/news/2018-11-galax...nzBifmXE4D7Y5oJJB0kM7s_ePCJaARnepXw41UzMgMGRA

"The supermassive black hole at the center of this giant galaxy acts like a mechanical 'pump' in a water fountain," said Grant Tremblay, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and lead author on the paper. "This is one of the first systems in which we find clear evidence for both cold molecular gas inflow toward the black hole and outflow or uplift from the jets that the black hole launches".

My comment:
Fine! But then they really should drop the very concept and speculative idea of "a heavy black hole"" Where there both are an inflow and outflow, we´re talking of a circuit of formation and a funnel of motion.

Furthermore:
"According to the researchers, this entire system operates via a self-regulating feedback loop. The infalling material provides power for the fountain as it "drains" toward the central black hole, like water entering the pump of a fountain. (Edit = A funnel of flow)

This infalling gas then causes the black hole to ignite with activity, launching high-velocity jets of super-heated material that shoot out of the galaxy. As it travels, this material pushes out clumps and streamers of gas into the galaxy's expansive halo, where it eventually rains back in on the black hole, triggering the entire process anew”.

My comment:
This is for the time being the closest and most precise scientific explanation I´ve read of, which confirms my perception of the circuital and spherical formation via the forces of electromagnetism in our Milky Way - and assumingly in all other galaxies as well.

The "scientific shocking" part is, that we can come to the very same scientific conclusions out from the most specific descriptions of the ancient Stories of Creation in many cultures all over the world.

In the Egyptian Story of Creation, the Ogdoad, the (eternal basic elements) are set in a swirling motion which results in the central "first fiery entity" from where everything is created in the ancient known part of the Universe, our Milky Way galaxy. This first Light of Creation in the Ogdoad telling, is named (Atum)-Ra.

Note: The Egyptian god Ra is usually interpreted by scholars to represents the Sun, but as (Atum)-Ra is closely connected the the Egyptian Mother Goddes, Hathor, in 3.200 BC as the Milky Way goddess, with (Atum)-Ra as her "father" - then Ra of course doesn´t represent the Sun at all. Our Sun hasn´t logically and scientifically created the Milky Way. So (Atum)-Ra represent the First Central Light in our Milky Way and NOT the Sun.

Illustrations of the Global Mother Goddess here

Read of more Milky Way Mythology on the Mytho-Cosmological website here - Ancient Science. The Ancient and native Way of Knowledge

 

[Subduction Zone]

As an example, take the Newtonian laws of celestial motions. Scientists were surprised over the discovery of the galactic rotation "anomaly" which in fact sort of contradicted the predictions of celestial motions et all.

This lead to the hypothesis of "dark matter" which I´m sure you know all about. Scientists thought that there must be a hidden force to hold the stars in the galaxy since the observed orbital motions would sling the stars OUT of the galaxy.

Even this scientific statement goes against the scientific idea - and Standard Prediction - that there are "heavy black holes" in the centers of galaxies which holds all stars in their locations and orbital motion around the galactic centers.

This a bit rambling and I need to break in. When making claims such as this you should support it with valid links. Second, the idea of a Black Hole was predicted for several reasons but rejected as the cause of Galactic motion. If I recall correctly the observed rotations do not match that of a single black hole. So it was largely rejected rather early on. And here is a more recent article on how the lack of gravitational lensing that such a model predicts:

Black holes can't explain dark matter

You do realize that there is no doubt about a giant black hole in the center of the Milky Way, don't you? I can support that claim as well. It is not large enough to cause the rotation that is obverved.

Instead of contemplating other possible solutions to this outgoing motion phenomena in the galaxies, scientists just held onto the text book lectures. In fact, the ONLY possible explanation to the galactic rotation curve, is that the formational motion in our galaxy actually goes from inside out.

This outgoing motion in the galactic formation explains very logically the observed galactic rotation curve. (My Prediction # 1)

Actually it doesn't. That is mere hand waving on your part. A hand waved prediction based upon an article that you did not understand makes for a very poor prediction.

As our Solar System is an integrated part of the galactic rotation it´s also logical to assume that our Solar System once was formed in the swirling galactic center from where it left (the outgoing motion) as a huge singe molten sphere, from where the planets were centrifugally slung away as larger and minor spheres on the coming Solar System´s way out through the galactic bars and further out to the actual position. (My Prediction # 2)

No, no, no. Like I said, you did not understand that article. That article says nothing about stars forming in the center of the Galaxy and moving out. What it implies is that the matter would have been taken in by the galaxy from a larger area and that moved outward as more matter was added.

Furthermore, and when still molten hot, the planetary spheres again gave birth to their planetary Moons. (My Prediction # 3)

This initial OUTGOING MOTION from the galactic center, to the separation of Planets and their Moons both confirms the observed galactic rotation curve and motion as a general outgoing galactic formative motion and at the same time it contradicts the Newtonian gravity laws of celestial motions in our Solar System. The motions of planets and their moons has nothing to do with Newtons celestial laws at all. Al motions in our Solar System were already determined when the Solar System was formed in the swirling galactic center. (My Prediction # 4)

In generally:
It´s somewhat easy for modern cosmologists to "get everything seemingly right" when they use unseen and directly undetected ad hoc "dark this or that" in order to - SEEMINGLY - make their stories trustworthy and believable. With such a "scientific ad hoc method", they can get anything to SEEMINGLY fit very well together.

But they don´t fool me at all. Not even after constantly being bullied by some unpleasant debaters here.

OK. I also give the debaters this: I very well can understand your claims of not posting long tirades of mathematical calculations - to which I really don´t care at all. My advances lays on the intuitive and visionary skills overlooking the cosmological connections and NOT on the boring calculations.´

And more handwaving nonsense that you cannot support or test in any way. Your so called predictions are worthless. You complain about ad hoc, but that is all that you have. Tell me what reasonable test would refute your "predictions"?

 

[Native]

1. Are only “direct” evidences ever used? Can “indirect” evidences be used in science?

The last questions (point 4) are the one that I really want from you, because I really don’t think you really how important indirect evidences can be.

All my questions are important, but I really want to know your take on point 4.

No to the first half part in the quoted point.

As for your point 4:
No direct evidences are of course also used.

Yes it can, if the circumstantial evidences is used logically to fit the entire theory - which it don´t regarding the full explanation of the formativ and circuital motions the galactic realms. Here the circumstantial evidences are polluted and darkened with "dark this and that" ad hoc assumptions which not yet can be directly observed, and IMO never can be found.

Besides this; When interpreting the circumstantial evidences in the central galactic realms as a circuital formative motion, there is no needs for these darkening inventions at all.

 

[Native]

And more handwaving nonsense that you cannot support or test in any way. Your so called predictions are worthless. You complain about ad hoc, but that is all that you have. Tell me what reasonable test would refute your "predictions"?

To me, you aren´t here at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As an example, take the Newtonian laws of celestial motions. Scientists were surprised over the discovery of the galactic rotation "anomaly" which in fact sort of contradicted the predictions of celestial motions et all.

This led to the hypothesis of "dark matter" which I´m sure you know all about. Scientists thought that there must be a hidden force to hold the stars in the galaxy since the observed orbital motions would sling the stars OUT of the galaxy.

Even this scientific statement goes against the scientific idea - and Standard Prediction - that there are "heavy black holes" in the centers of galaxies which holds all stars in their locations and orbital motion around the galactic centers.

Instead of contemplating other possible solutions to this outgoing motion phenomena in the galaxies, scientists just held onto the text book lectures. In fact, the ONLY possible explanation to the galactic rotation curve, is that the formational motion in our galaxy actually goes from inside out.

This outgoing motion in the galactic formation explains very logically the observed galactic rotation curve. (My Prediction # 1)

As our Solar System is an integrated part of the galactic rotation it´s also logical to assume that our Solar System once was formed in the swirling galactic center from where it left (the outgoing motion) as a huge singe molten sphere, from where the planets were centrifugally slung away as larger and minor spheres on the coming Solar System´s way out through the galactic bars and further out to the actual position. (My Prediction # 2)

Furthermore, and when still molten hot, the planetary spheres again gave birth to their planetary Moons. (My Prediction # 3)

This initial OUTGOING MOTION from the galactic center, to the separation of Planets and their Moons both confirms the observed galactic rotation curve and motion as a general outgoing galactic formative motion and at the same time it contradicts the Newtonian gravity laws of celestial motions in our Solar System. The motions of planets and their moons has nothing to do with Newtons celestial laws at all. Al motions in our Solar System were already determined when the Solar System was formed in the swirling galactic center. (My Prediction # 4)

In generally:
It´s somewhat easy for modern cosmologists to "get everything seemingly right" when they use unseen and directly undetected ad hoc "dark this or that" in order to - SEEMINGLY - make their stories trustworthy and believable. With such a "scientific ad hoc method", they can get anything to SEEMINGLY fit very well together.

But they don´t fool me at all. Not even after constantly being bullied by some unpleasant debaters here.

OK. I also give the debaters this: I very well can understand your claims of me not posting long tirades of mathematical calculations - to which I really don´t care at all. My advances lays on the intuitive and visionary skills overlooking the cosmological connections and NOT on the boring calculations.

But then again: I blame some debaters here for not being open minded for alternative explanations and for just going into personal comments just because they are used to and intellectually brought up via the standard indoctrination. An approach and attitude which leads the cosmological science far astray - even more. And these attitudes don´t provide any possible solutions to the many unsolved problems in cosmology and astrophysics.

Let's go over that article that you linked. It provides evidence against your belief that the Sun moved out from the center. Please note it pointed out how they know that the galaxy formed from the center out by the age of the stars found. The material in the area within the Sun's orbit are older than those outside of it shown by the metalicity (the amounts of elements heavier than helium) in the stars:

"The stars that lie in the outer regions of the Galactic disc - outside the Solar Circle - are predominantly younger, both ‘metal-rich’ and ‘metal-poor’, and have surprisingly low magnesium levels compared to their metallicity."

If they formed in closer to the center, an area that is magnesium rich, they too would have high amounts of magnesium. They do not. They formed in place as the galaxy grew outwards.

I do like it when people supply the evidence that tells us that their pet idea is wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To me, you aren´t here at all.

That is fine. I will merely continue to correct your amazingly wrong posts.

You really should have taken me up on my kind offer. It was not being rude and you could be a better debater if you knew what you were doing. But then if you knew how science is done, what is and what is not evidence, you would quickly realize that you are wrong. That is why we see this pattern of rude behavior by science deniers. Only those that are set on being ignorant can keep debating. Education ends the debate.

 

[james blunt]

No, they ban you for being a perishing nuisance, who wastes everybody's time with interminable nonsense, just as you are doing on this forum. You were banned less than 24hrs ago, yet again, from The Science Forum, this time under the name Tictoc.

It is astonishing that you evidently think it is OK to lie, brazenly, about your identity and expertise on public forums, e.g. your absurd claim, on The Science Forum, to be giving private lectures about "bioelectricity": The Science Forum. ,
while whining that your genius is unrecognised and that these forums see your "ideas" as a threat. The only threat you pose is gumming up a forum with rubbish, abusing the patience and good faith of scientists who try to explain and correct misunderstandings, and thus degrading its reputation as a place were real science can be discussed. You only get away with it here because this is not a science forum.

I had you on Ignore under your previous name here, Sustainer, but you chose - for some reason - to change it to James Blunt, thereby exposing me once more to your nonsensical posts. Well at least I was able to turn that to some advantage - resulting in your latest ban.

WELL, they originally banned me for just speaking the truth like the rest of the science forums do, so why not wind up the fools that lie and pretend science theory is fact, why does science keep lying to the world , my white lie is nothing compared to that .
Anyway my pc got zapped last night , it is now broke. I am on a tablet and this seems weird.
Come back when you can tell me I am wrong about gravity and light . I suspect I won't see you again.
By the way readers , chemists job is to stop people like me , he is everywhere I go .

 

[Subduction Zone]

WELL, they originally banned me for just speaking the truth like the rest of the science forums do, so why not wind up the fools that lie and pretend science theory is fact, why does science keep lying to the world , my white lie is nothing compared to that .
Anyway my pc got zapped last night , it is now broke. I am on a tablet and this seems weird.
Come back when you can tell me I am wrong about gravity and light . I suspect I won't see you again.
By the way readers , chemists job is to stop people like me , he is everywhere I go .

Me too, though I am about to go on strike for higher wages. I don't get paid enough for this ****.

For your ideas to be "real science" you need to be able to think of a test that it would fail if it was wrong. That is not saying that it is wrong. It is a way to test it that is done for all scientific theories. That is why scientific ideas have respects and yours do not. If a person really believes in his idea he tries to test them.

 

[james blunt]

Me too, though I am about to go on strike for higher wages. I don't get paid enough for this ****.

For your ideas to be "real science" you need to be able to think of a test that it would fail if it was wrong. That is not saying that it is wrong. It is a way to test it that is done for all scientific theories. That is why scientific ideas have respects and yours do not. If a person really believes in his idea he tries to test them.

I Have tests but I have had death threats if I speak out about stuff .

 

[Subduction Zone]

I Have tests but I have had death threats if I speak out about stuff .

Seriously, I think that you are either lying or delusional. None of your ideas merit a death threat from anyone.

 

[james blunt]

Seriously, I think that you are either lying or delusional. None of your ideas merit a death threat from anyone.

Ideas from before not mentioned here, a microwave weapon for example , but I won't give it anyone they not having it .

 

[james blunt]

A black hole device , they not having that either

 

[ecco]

I don´t care the least about your personal texts analysis here. Find som factual parts in the discussions and come up with some reasonable arguments.

If you didn't care, why did you make three posts in a row no smileys?

As to facts and reasonable arguments, there are no facts and reasonable arguments that will have any effect on someone who believes people six-ten thousand years ago knew more about nature than people of today.

 

[ecco]

How sad it is to read of a human who have forgotten the natural ways of getting knowledge. Underestimating the natural human skills is in fact directly self destructive.

Look. Quick. There's a star falling from the sky!

Gronk, can you see those bacteria?
No. What's bacteria?
I guess we'll have to wait for someone to invent a microscope.
What's a microscope?

Simon, can you see that moon around Saturn?
No.
Neither can I. I guess we'll have to wait until someone invents a telescope.
What's a telescope?

I don't underestimate the abilities of our long past ancestors. Likewise, I don't attribute magic, superstitious powers to them.

Tell us again about the natural ways of getting knowledge.

 

[ecco]

and it bores my visionary and intuitive brain to death just to think of doing it.

Perhaps you mean...
and it bored my visionary and intuitive brain to death.

That would explain a lot.

 

[ecco]

I blame some debaters here for not being open minded for alternative explanations

While some of the debaters here do have a very good understanding of cosmology, I believe that none are professional cosmologists.

That raises the question, why are you here? Why are you discussing your theories and concepts with people who can do nothing to advance your cause? Why are you not presenting your ideas to people in the profession?

 

[Subduction Zone]

While some of the debaters here do have a very good understanding of cosmology, I believe that none are professional cosmologists.

That raises the question, why are you here? Why are you discussing your theories and concepts with people who can do nothing to advance your cause? Why are you not presenting your ideas to people in the profession?

Of course one does not have to be an expert when a person claims that the hypotheses of a major branch of science have no evidence at all and are "speculation". One may legitimately claim that the evidence for dark matter is insufficient at this time to accept it blindly, but it is obviously false to claim there is no evidence for the idea.

I think a major part of this is the lay person's inability to understand the non-mathematical definition of "proof" and the scientific definition of "evidence". I won't even bother going past the first piece of evidence until the people denying science get at least a bare bones understanding of what is and what is not evidence.

 

[ecco]

Subduction Zone said: ↑
And more handwaving ... refute your "predictions"?​

To me, you aren´t here at all.

Do you often communicate with entities that really aren't there at all?

That would explain a lot.