Is the moon getting nearer ?

[Native]

I understand it can be frustrating trying to defend ridiculous positions, but you really need to try to keep your emotions in check.

Ecco,
It´s a genuine quality of life in all ancient cultures to pay respect for the Elders and their knowledge in the society, and I´m going onto my 74 year birthday in Marts and I´ll take NO DISRESPECT from anybody!

 

[Native]

This is about an unusual object and the conclusions are based on accepted theories. This isn't about new physics. The whole interpretation of the data depends on gravity. Here is the paper it's based on - it might give you some idea how much work, goes into understanding this sort of thing.

A Galaxy-scale Fountain of Cold Molecular Gas Pumped by a Black Hole (pdf)

Thanks

Still, in the quoted link above link by me, they use the conventional concepts of a "heavy black hole" singularity which don´t exist anywhere in cosmos.

And they STIIL interpret the galactic hole as the speculative conventional singularity even if they directly observe motions going both towards the center and away from the center in a circuital motion.

They STIIL don´t grasp what is going on - because they are having troubles with leaving the outdated gravity dogmatic way of thinking regarding the formation in galaxies. But they are on the right track

I´ll take at closer look at your provided Arxiv link, thank you.

 

[ecco]

In the discussion here, the question of how we are gathering knowledge, is very often on the "hot board" and for my part it´s often very difficult to be heard and taken seriously because I trust very much my intuitive skills

There is much to be said for intuition as a starting point. But as the old saw rightfully states: Sucess is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.

In terms of grasping the real world, that could be: Knowledge is 1% intuition and 99% real research.

Based on your postings it's more like 25% intuition and 75% wishful thinking. Maybe that's why you don't get taken seriously.

 

[exchemist]

There is much to be said for intuition as a starting point. But as the old saw rightfully states: Sucess is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.

In terms of grasping the real world, that could be: Knowledge is 1% intuition and 99% real research.

Based on your postings it's more like 25% intuition and 75% wishful thinking. Maybe that's why you don't get taken seriously.

Eh? I was under the impression there was at least 10% visceral hatred of science in the mix.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The idea of a "heavy black singularity hole in the galactic centers" is ridiculous. I´s somewhat just like the eye of a hurricane with a funnel of motion. It´s just pathetic that modern cosmology and astrophysics cannot come up with causal explanations when matters flow in an electromagnetic circuit in galaxies.

Hardly. We can observe stars rotating around it. And we can calculate its mass from those orbits. What is your explanation for that motion?

Care to be updated? Galaxies may have formed inside out -
Gaia-ESO data show Milky Way may have formed ‘inside-out’, and provide new insight into Galactic evolution

I already explained how that article refuted your claim. Posting it again is merely shooting yourself in the foot.

It´s VERY hard for you to learn anything new which doesn´t figure in dogmatic consensus textbook, isn´t it? You don´t grasp that I´m talking about alternative cosmological perceptions and explanations, but you automatically react with rejections without even contemplating what you are reading.

I´really cannot take your comments - especially the personal ones - and replies as a serious and open minded discussion.

If you keep on with your unpleasant and disrespectful attitudes, I´ll just press "Ignore Subduction Zone".

You are merely projecting again. Those are your flaws. You made this personal by denigrating the works of others and not properly supporting your views. I have been more than respectful with you. It is rude and arrogant to ignore corrections. It is rude and arrogant to denigrate the work of others when one has nothing in response.

 

[ecco]

There you/we go again!

I ask you the SHUT UP when you ridicule "my positions" and you still are throwing ridiculous mud. Can you change your attitudes at all? If not just SHUT UP!

I'll not be censored by you. I'll point out fallacies when they are posted, by you or anyone else.

I'll also take this opportunity to point out your hypocrisy in alleging that I am rude and then telling me to SHUT UP.

 

[exchemist]

I'll not be censored by you. I'll point out fallacies when they are posted, by you or anyone else.

I'll also take this opportunity to point out your hypocrisy in alleging that I am rude and then telling me to SHUT UP.

The needle on my fruitcake-ometer is nudging the edge of the bats**t zone.......

 

[ecco]

Ecco,
It´s a genuine quality of life in all ancient cultures to pay respect for the Elders and their knowledge in the society, and I´m going onto my 74 year birthday in Marts and I´ll take NO DISRESPECT from anybody!

So you think because you are 74 that you are my elder. That is exactly the kind of assumption that you seem to apply to much of your worldview. You make a WAG (wild a$$ed guess) and then you start to believe it and then you base everything on the WAG even though it may be completely wrong.

 

[ecco]

Eh? I was under the impression there was at least 10% visceral hatred of science in the mix.

I may have oversimplified.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A very short video showing the rotation around the black hole in the center of our galaxy:

 

[Native]

ratiocinator said: ↑
This is about an unusual object and the conclusions are based on accepted theories. This isn't about new physics. The whole interpretation of the data depends on gravity. Here is the paper it's based on - it might give you some idea how much work, goes into understanding this sort of thing.

A Galaxy-scale Fountain of Cold Molecular Gas Pumped by a Black Hole (pdf)
---------------------
Just by reading the linked abstract I´m convinced and really supported in my perception of my overall cosmological knowledge.
---------
From the Abstract:
"We present ALMA and MUSE observations of the Brightest Cluster Galaxy in Abell 2597, a nearby (z = 0.0821) cool core cluster of galaxies. The data map the kinematics of a three billion solar mass filamentary nebula that spans the innermost 30 kpc of the galaxy’s core. Its warm ionized and cold molecular components are both cospatial and comoving, consistent with the hypothesis that the optical nebula traces the warm envelopes of many cold molecular clouds that drift in the velocity field of the hot X-ray atmosphere. The clouds are not in dynamical equilibrium, and instead show evidence for inflow toward the central supermassive black hole, outflow along the jets it launches, and uplift by the buoyant hot bubbles those jets inflate. The entire scenario is therefore consistent with a galaxy-spanning “fountain”, wherein cold gas clouds drain into the black hole accretion reservoir, powering jets and bubbles that uplift a cooling plume of low-entropy multiphase gas, which may stimulate additional cooling and accretion as part of a self-regulating feedback loop. All velocities are below the escape speed from the galaxy, and so these clouds should rain back toward the galaxy center from which they came, keeping the fountain long-lived. The data are consistent with major predictions of chaotic cold accretion, precipitation, and stimulated feedback models, and may trace processes fundamental to galaxy evolution at effectively all mass scales".

My comment:
We are talking of a circuital and spherical motion which just and only can be achieved by the force and qualities of Electromagnetism and it´s motions in/of opposite polarities which is complementary.

Extract from the abstract:
"All velocities are below the escape speed from the galaxy, and so these clouds should rain back toward the galaxy center from which they came, keeping the fountain long-lived".

Excellent indeed:
Even if the entire scenario shows up with both the inward and outwards turning motions, the overall motions are kept "inside" the galactic realms i.e in a cyclical motion of formation. This kind of formation even take place in the smallest cells.

This of course means - certainly to me at least - that the formational forces goes both inwards and outwards, and it fits very well with my claims in my former explanation about the formation of our Solar System being created in the center of our galaxy from where it left centrifugally out to it´s actual position.

Furthermore and "mythically speaking": (Despite anyone like it or not)
The Ancient knowledge of The Circle of Life", our ancestors knew "from where we came and to where we go" - and it is commonly known that people who have experienced a near death situation, initially moved spiritually inside a cosmic whirling funnel where many met the Cosmic Light of Creation.

This cosmic and whirling Light of Creation of course also fits very well with my former mythical explanations in #436 post above of the Egyptian "first fiery light" of (Atum)-Ra, the central and swirling Light of the Milky Way and the creator of all things in our galaxy, included our Solar System.

My Conclusion:
I´m having no troubles of accepting the abstracts in this arxiv article. I understand both the scientific explanations and I´m just thrilled and exited that the Ancient and Cultural Knowledge of Creation is recognizable as a solid wisdom of everything. (Pardon my very convinced statement)

PS: I of course have more work to do studying the rest of the article, but more on this later - eventually.

 

[Native]

So you think because you are 74 that you are my elder. That is exactly the kind of assumption that you seem to apply to much of your worldview. You make a WAG (wild a$$ed guess) and then you start to believe it and then you base everything on the WAG even though it may be completely wrong.

Grow up and leave your kindergarten attitudes.

 

[Native]

The needle on my fruitcake-ometer is nudging the edge of the bats**t zone.......

Yet another mud thrower in this kinder garden.

 

[ecco]

So you think because you are 74 that you are my elder. That is exactly the kind of assumption that you seem to apply to much of your worldview. You make a WAG (wild a$$ed guess) and then you start to believe it and then you base everything on the WAG even though it may be completely wrong.

Grow up and leave your kindergarten attitudes.

It wasn't my kindergarten attitude that assumed that you are my elder and, therefore and for no other reason, you deserved my respect. That came from you.

You draw unwarranted conclusions.
I point out they are baseless.
You accuse me of being childish.

That's laughable.

 

[Native]

BTW:
As the The Abell 2597 is a cluster of galaxies, it apparently doesn´t have a clear outlook as the Milky Way with its barred structure and it´s swirled open arms.

Agreed! it is indeed a huge task of work which is invested in the Arxiv article!

IMO galaxies comes in two basic structure as the description of the Milky Way, representing the barred structure and an overall outgoing formation from the center which luminosity is lesser because of the decreasing formation process in the center. This galactic type also represent a mature or old galaxy.

The other general galactic type has a higher central luminosity, tight swirled arms and no barred structure. representing an young galactic type with at high rate of central formation, indicating an overall inwards going motion.

In both areas, it is obvious to me that the only fundamental force which can make the described patterns of motion is the Electromagnetism as it works on and with cosmic clouds of ionized plasma. In my opinion it is this force which governs all formations in our Universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

BTW:
As the The Abell 2597 is a cluster of galaxies, it apparently doesn´t have a clear outlook as the Milky Way with its barred structure and it´s swirled open arms.

Agreed! it is indeed a huge task of work which is invested in the Arxiv article!

IMO galaxies comes in two basic structure as the description of the Milky Way, representing the barred structure and an overall outgoing formation from the center which luminosity is lesser because of the decreasing formation process in the center. This galactic type also represent a mature or old galaxy.

The other general galactic type has a higher central luminosity, tight swirled arms and no barred structure. representing an young galactic type with at high rate of central formation, indicating an overall inwards going motion.

In both areas, it is obvious to me that the only fundamental force which can make the described patterns of motion is the Electromagnetism as it works on and with cosmic clouds of ionized plasma. In my opinion it is this force which governs all formations in our Universe.

The problem with electromagnetism is that there is no evidence for it as a source of such structures. Also, unlike gravity, there are positive and negative charges so that they tend to balance out. On a large scale electromagnetic forces are very minor due to this. Gravity on the other hand is a force that only adds. There is no "anti-gravity". As a result, even though it is a weaker force by orders of magnitude it is the dominant force when it comes to the universe as a whole.

 

[Native]

The problem with electromagnetism is that there is no evidence for it as a source of such structures. Also, unlike gravity, there are positive and negative charges so that they tend to balance out. On a large scale electromagnetic forces are very minor due to this. Gravity on the other hand is a force that only adds. There is no "anti-gravity". As a result, even though it is a weaker force by orders of magnitude it is the dominant force when it comes to the universe as a whole.

I´m fully aware of this standard answer and I don´t buy it at all. The most obvious evidence of electromagnetic activity is of course the strong galactic gamma ray jets out from the galactic poles. And where there is electric current, you know there also is a perpendicular magnetic field and it is this field which creates the flattish galactic disks.

Your reply is the most given answer from Standard Cosmologists: "Oh yes, electromagnetism can be found all over in the Universe, but it doesn´t do anything" - even that the assumed "fundamental force of gravity" is the weakest of all fundamental forces.

Regarding your comment about "Gravity on the other hand is a force that only adds", this hypothesis is factually and per Standard Model definition itself of "gravity", is directly wrong.

It isn´t gravity which binds atoms together in the Universe is it? Besides this, your statement are contradictionary since "gravity in the Standard Model can be that strong that it assumingly explodes even celestial objects".

"Gravity on the other hand is a force that only adds", eh? Even in this sense "gravity" contradict itself. And so do you believing in this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I´m fully aware of this standard answer and I don´t buy it at all. The most obvious evidence of electromagnetic activity is of course the strong galactic gamma ray jets out from the galactic poles. And where there is electric current, you know there also is a perpendicular magnetic field and it is this field which creates the flattish galactic disks.

Your reply is the most given answer from Standard Cosmologists: "Oh yes, electromagnetism can be found all over in the Universe, but it doesn´t do anything" - even that the assumed "fundamental force of gravity" is the weakest of all fundamental forces.

Regarding your comment about "Gravity on the other hand is a force that only adds", this hypothesis is factually and per Standard Model definition itself of "gravity", is directly wrong.

It isn´t gravity which binds atoms together in the Universe is it? Besides this, your statement are contradictionary since "gravity in the Standard Model can be that strong that it assumingly explodes even celestial objects".

"Gravity on the other hand is a force that only adds", eh? Even in this sense "gravity" contradict itself. And so do you believing in this.

That is only because you can't do the math. For anyone that can it becomes obvious rather quickly that electromagnetism is not the answer.

By the way, no one said that electromagnetism does not do anything. We have simply pointed out that it does not do what you want it to. We can measure the effects of gravity in several ways. it has been directly measured experimentally. In fact the first experiment that measured a value for "G" was called "weighing the Earth" since the mass of the Earth was able to be calculated from the results of that experiment:

Henry Cavendish: Weighing the Earth

And no, just because you do not understand science does not make it contradictory.

The reason that my answer is the "standard one" is because it is the only answer that is supported by evidence. Would you like to go over the concepts of scientific evidence and the scientific method? Understanding the basics would make you a better debater.

 

[Native]

That is only because you can't do the math. For anyone that can it becomes obvious rather quickly that electromagnetism is not the answer.

Regarding the standing discussion about the motions in galaxies, you´ll be welcome to do the big "G" math of the at the same time ingoing and outgoing flow in galaxies. I think you´ll be well better off by using the Electromagnetic laws and the motions in magnetic circuits.

By the way, no one said that electromagnetism does not do anything. We have simply pointed out that it does not do what you want it to

OK, at least you admit and accept EM really is doing something. To the last sentence: Do you mean "we" collectively as in the overall Standing Theories and do you mean "you" as another expression for what "we" want it to do?

Either ways, maybe "we"/"you" just didn´t use the correct methods and forces? Which kind of experiments were done in order to test the EM affects on matters?

We can measure the effects of gravity in several ways. it has been directly measured experimentally. In fact the first experiment that measured a value for "G" was called "weighing the Earth" since the mass of the Earth was able to be calculated from the results of that experiment:

Fine, but when you leave the Earth atmosphere your "G" almost has disappeared, partly because
gravity is the weakest link of all, and partly because it doesn´t do anything, because the "G" on the Earth is confused for the simple atmospheric pressure, which works with the same principle laws as the assumed gravity.

Regarding the estimated weight of celestial bodies it´s fine that they´ve measured the weight of the Earth but when it comes to the cause and energy of the rotational and orbital motions of the Earth big "G" is of no help at all. Which your guru Newton never explained causally, did he?

If you use big "G" in the galactic realms in order to measure the weight of the Milky Way, you are even more in severe troubles. The energetic rotational motion in galaxies exceeds the estimated weight of the stars in the galaxy, which gave rise to the speculation of "missing matter".

That is: Measuring celestial bodies by weakest force "G" gives too much energy = "missing matter" in the Standard Model. If using the significant stronger energy of the Electromagnetism = the more correct energetic force, which fits to the motion of the measured matter of the celestial objects.

Here you/we shall be aware of that the EM fundamental force takes off with working on the cosmic clouds of plasma which is set in a swirling motion in the coming center in galaxies, in where gas and dust are sorted out and assembled into large spheres which become stars and planets which later on, orbits the galactic center out in the galactic arms.

In this way, all objects in the galaxy have gained their rotational and orbital motions via the helical motion in electric current and magnetic fields. Then, logically it is the correct method to measure the motion in galaxies NOT by "G" but by the stronger Electromagnetic force which in fact is the causal reasons for both the formation and motions of everything in galaxies.

I know consensus theories differs between the EM forces, but to me it´s just a question of charge and polarities in order to get the atoms to work all over in the Universe. I don´t differ between the consensus fundamental 3 EM forces. To me there is just the 1 EM working with different charges and polarities and on different plasmatic gases and particles, binding everything together until it dissolves and goes into another stage of creation in an eternal motion.

And no, just because you do not understand science does not make it contradictory.

There you go again. When you - falsely - claimed "gravity to be the only fundamental force which just adds", who are then the person who don´t understand the basic science? If I were in your position, I would take a much more humble approach and be more open minded and respectful for new and logical explanations

The reason that my answer is the "standard one" is because it is the only answer that is supported by evidence. Would you like to go over the concepts of scientific evidence and the scientific method? Understanding the basics would make you a better debater.

Your cosmological "evidences" are mostly circumstantial, some are just assumptions/hypothetical and lots of the latest modern "evidences", are again non proven circumstantial speculations of metaphysical substances of "dark this or that" - which is completely unnecessary when counting on the correct and governing fundamental force of EM.

Would you like to go over the concepts of scientific evidence and the scientific method? Understanding the basics would make you a better debater.

- Thanks but no thanks. I know the scientific concepts and methods.
- I´ve just showed you that I know the correct and fundamental basics of formation, of which I have excellently and logically argued, if I shall say so myself.
- If taking my explanations seriously and with an open mind, then you maybe will become a better debater yourself.
- Even though, you are not one of the worst in this periodically experienced kinder garden.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Regarding the standing discussion about the motions in galaxies, you´ll be welcome to do the big "G" math of the at the same time ingoing and outgoing flow in galaxies. I think you´ll be well better off by using the Electromagnetic laws and the motions in magnetic circuits.

You would need to show that there was sufficient flow to have an affect on bodies. That has not been observed. In fact your beliefs are far more unsupported than Dark Matter. Why support what is known to be nonsense and oppose an idea that is supported by real evidence?

OK, at least you admit and accept EM really is doing something. To the last sentence: Do you mean "we" collectively as in the overall Standing Theories and do you mean "you" as another expression for what "we" want it to do?

Either ways,<sic> maybe "we"/"you" just didn´t use the correct methods and forces? Which kind of experiments were done in order to test the EM affects on matters?

Hard to say. The people that support this have practically no peer reviewed articles on such tests. They probably did an analysis of the observable flow of plasma from the Sun and found that it was not up to the task. If the people that believe this cannot supporter their claims why should anyone else?

Fine, but when you leave the Earth atmosphere your "G" almost has disappeared, partly because
gravity is the weakest link of all, and partly because it doesn´t do anything, because the "G" on the Earth is confused for the simple atmospheric pressure, which works with the same principle laws as the assumed gravity.

Wrong, at the top of the atmosphere the force of gravity is very close to that at the surface. And please, don't use such terms as "assumed" unless you can prove it.

Regarding the estimated weight of celestial bodies it´s fine that they´ve measured the weight of the Earth but when it comes to the cause and energy of the rotational and orbital motions of the Earth big "G" is of no help at all. Which your guru Newton never explained causally, did he?

He did not need to explain it. He explained merely had to tell us the testable results of his law and his laws were accurate enough to get us to the Moon and back. The electric universe people can't get us to the corner store and back. "Big G" works almost perfectly in our Solar System (there is a minor flaw in his law that was corrected by Einstein, who also knew that the electric universe was bunk).

If you use big "G" in the galactic realms in order to measure the weight of the Milky Way, you are even more in severe troubles. The energetic rotational motion in galaxies exceeds the estimated weight of the stars in the galaxy, which gave rise to the speculation of "missing matter".

That is: Measuring celestial bodies by weakest force "G" gives too much energy = "missing matter" in the Standard Model. If using the significant stronger energy of the Electromagnetism = the more correct energetic force, which fits to the motion of the measured matter of the celestial objects.

Nope, there are not any peer reviewed papers on that. There is no explanation by EU believers, only hand waving.

Here you/we shall be aware of that the EM fundamental force takes off with working on the cosmic clouds of plasma which is set in a swirling motion in the coming center in galaxies, in where gas and dust are sorted out and assembled into large spheres which become stars and planets which later on, orbits the galactic center out in the galactic arms.

In this way, all objects in the galaxy have gained their rotational and orbital motions via the helical motion in electric current and magnetic fields. Then, logically it is the correct method to measure the motion in galaxies NOT by "G" but by the stronger Electromagnetic force which in fact is the causal reasons for both the formation and motions of everything in galaxies.

I know consensus theories differs between the EM forces, but to me it´s just a question of charge and polarities in order to get the atoms to work all over in the Universe. I don´t differ between the consensus fundamental 3 EM forces. To me there is just the 1 EM working with different charges and polarities and on different plasmatic gases and particles, binding everything together until it dissolves and goes into another stage of creation in an eternal motion.



There you go again. When you - falsely - claimed "gravity to be the only fundamental force which just adds", who are then the person who don´t understand the basic science? If I were in your position, I would take a much more humble approach and be more open minded and respectful for new and logical explanations



Your cosmological "evidences" are mostly circumstantial, some are just assumptions/hypothetical and lots of the latest modern "evidences", are again non proven circumstantial speculations of metaphysical substances of "dark this or that" - which is completely unnecessary when counting on the correct and governing fundamental force of EM.



- Thanks but no thanks. I know the scientific concepts and methods.
- I´ve just showed you that I know the correct and fundamental basics of formation, of which I have excellently and logically argued, if I shall say so myself.
- If taking my explanations seriously and with an open mind, then you maybe will become a better debater yourself.
- Even though, you are not one of the worst in this periodically experienced kinder garden.

Okay, too much nonsense and ignorance. When you find a valid source that supports you get back to me. If you have a specific question ask it in a post by itself. Gish Gallops like this are both dishonest and take too much effort to respond to.