Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[Polymath257]

@Polymath257,




Is these sentenses really all what you can come up with as your comments on my points?

As a Moderator in this Forum, you of all should know that your downletting and personal comments here doesn´t belong in a serious debate.

Try once more to read and give it a serious pondering of what I´m saying in the #456

Read my profile signature before you reply again.

I have focused on the ideas and your misunderstanding of the science. I have been pretty clear what it takes to become a serious scientific theory. I have pointed out that EU fails to do what is required at every turn. I have also pointed out where you clearly misunderstood material that you quoted.

I have read your signature and even agree with it. It was a common saying when I started teaching as a graduate student.

And I *have* answered your post #456. You just didn't like how I responded. The EU viewpoint doesn't have anything to support it. Until it is able to give a precise mathematical model of *anything*, it will remain a crank position. To deny gravity is clearly a crank position.

 

[Native]

#456

I have focused on the ideas and your misunderstanding of the science. I have been pretty clear what it takes to become a serious scientific theory. I have pointed out that EU fails to do what is required at every turn. I have also pointed out where you clearly misunderstood material that you quoted.

I have read your signature and even agree with it. It was a common saying when I started teaching as a graduate student.

I´m pleased you´ve read my signature profil and that it fits to what you once learned

Now try to follow it´s contexts when you reply, which you did´nt in the sentense above with your:

"your misunderstanding" - "pointed out that EU fails" - "you clearly misunderstood material that you quoted".

All these statements belongs to the common lack of understanding each others approaches, and even more because there is no common understanding of what consitutes the cosmological truth - As mentioned in my profile signature.

We´ll get nowhere fast unless we respect what is expressed in my profile signature and I rejects furter discussions of more cosmological details before we understand and practice what it´s stating.

 

[Polymath257]

I´m pleased you´ve read my signature profil and that it fits to what you once learned

Now try to follow it´s contexts when you reply, which you did´nt in the sentense above with your:

"your misunderstanding" - "pointed out that EU fails" - "you clearly misunderstood material that you quoted".

All these statements belongs to the common lack of understanding each others approaches, and even more because there is no common understanding of what consitutes the cosmological truth - As mentioned in my profile signature.

Well, *scientific* truth is determined by observation, testing, and making precise predictions that are verified by observation.

EU fails to do that. Because of that failure, it can be dismissed as a serious consideration. And until it manages to give such precise predictions, it will continue to fail to be a serious theory.

On the other hand, as described by the video you gave, the current scientific theory involving gravity and dark matter *does* give specific predictions that are verified by observation. That is *why* it is a serious scientific theory.

 

[Native]

Well, *scientific* truth is determined by observation, testing, and making precise predictions that are verified by observation.

I know and it is not neccesary to repeat this common knowledge of method.

EU fails to do that. Because of that failure, it can be dismissed as a serious consideration. And until it manages to give such precise predictions, it will continue to fail to be a serious theory.

There you go again judging a EM theory out of order instead of pondering over what I wrote about the other fundamental forces but gravity in the #456

On the other hand, as described by the video you gave, the current scientific theory involving gravity and dark matter *does* give specific predictions that are verified by observation. That is *why* it is a serious scientific theory.

I give you that much:
The concept of gravity seemingly does work in the Solar System realms, but not because it is a force (as Einstein stated too) but because the Newtonian calculations are embedded and superimposed in Keplers geometric calculations of the celestial motions.

Hand on your hearth here:
It´s quite another thing when it comes to the Extra Solar system realms.

In these areas the current scientific theory does seemingly work because gravity scientists inserts an unseen, undirectly observed and unexplained "dark matter" and don´t include the other 3 fundamental forces in their considerations and explanations.

I know! "This is the scientific method", but it doesn´t get us anywhere closer to a common understanding, because several of the other fundamental forces and their explainable possibilities, are left our of the theory.

The big question here is whether this uncertain concept of "dark matter" leads to much else but further ad hoc confirming of the idea of "dark matter".
I´m sure that the seemingly needed concept of dark matter can be solved if looking at the fundamental forces differently as I expressed in the #456

Take the 3 fundamental forces but gravity, and make them 1. Or in other words of marketing announcement: Take 3 and get 1 for free - and get rid of the 4.th, and it´s connected ideas.

 

[Polymath257]

I know and it is not neccesary to repeat this common knowledge of method.

There you go again judging a EM theory o ut of order instead of pondering over what I wrote about the other fundamental forces but gravity in the #456

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/newton-the-last-of-the-magicians.217791/page-23#post-6018034

It isn't out of order to require predictions that match observation.

I give you that much:
The concept of gravity seemingly does work in the Solar System realms, but not because it is a force (as Einstein stated too) but because the Newtonian calculations are embedded and superimposed in Keplers geometric calculations of the celestial motions.

Um, no. That isn't what happens in Newton's theory. Newton's theory has essentially two equations: F=ma, and F=GMm/r^2.

With those two equations, Newton can *derive* Kepler's laws mathematically. But it goes much farther than that: Newton's laws can derive the *deviations* from Kepler's laws by taking into account the other planets and their masses and resulting gravity.

Where does EU even get to the Kepler approximation?

Hand on your hearth here:
It´s quite another thing when it comes to the Extra Solar system realms.

In these areas the current scientific theory does seemingly work because gravity scientists inserts an unseen, undirectly observed and unexplained "dark matter" and don´t include the other 3 fundamental forces in their considerations and explanations.

Exceptt hat it *does* work when that is added in and in incredible detail. That is what the video *you* gave shows.

And I don't know why you think that the other forces are ignored. They are used *when appropriate*, for example in the plasmas in HII regions, or close to pulsars, or even in the accretion disks of black holes. E&M is used in those cases and works very well in the appropriate contexts. But it fails to give a description of the overall motion of the galaxy, for example.

I know! "This is the scientific method", but it doesn´t get us anywhere closer to a common understanding, because several of the other fundamental forces and their explainable possibilities, are left our of the theory.

Well, the strong and weak forces are *nuclear* forces and don't have much effect outside of individual atoms. The E&M force *is* used where appropriate. And gravity is used where *it* is appropriate. You want to ignore one of the forces while failing to explain the phenomena currently explained by that force.

I'm sorry if you disagree with how science is actually done. But yes, it requires specific predictions that agree with observation. And that is *all* that is required. Until and unless EU can do this, it simply isn't a contender in anything scientific.

The big question here is whether this uncertain concept of "dark matter" leads to much else but further ad hoc confirming of the idea of "dark matter".
I´m sure that the seemingly needed concept of dark matter can be solved if looking at the fundamental forces differently as I expressed in the #456

What you gave in #456 is at best an outline, not an actual treatment of the sort required. You want to claim that dark matter isn't required when you ignore gravity, *give details*.

Take the 3 fundamental forces but gravity, and make them 1. Or in other words of marketing announcement: Take 3 and get 1 for free - and get rid of the 4.th, and it´s connected ideas.

Provide details. You have a few vague ideas here about what should be done. OK, do it. Until you (or someone) manages to do so, the EU viewpoint will remain a crank idea.

 

[gnostic]

It isn't out of order to require predictions that match observation.



Um, no. That isn't what happens in Newton's theory. Newton's theory has essentially two equations: F=ma, and F=GMm/r^2.

With those two equations, Newton can *derive* Kepler's laws mathematically. But it goes much farther than that: Newton's laws can derive the *deviations* from Kepler's laws by taking into account the other planets and their masses and resulting gravity.

Where does EU even get to the Kepler approximation?



Exceptt hat it *does* work when that is added in and in incredible detail. That is what the video *you* gave shows.

And I don't know why you think that the other forces are ignored. They are used *when appropriate*, for example in the plasmas in HII regions, or close to pulsars, or even in the accretion disks of black holes. E&M is used in those cases and works very well in the appropriate contexts. But it fails to give a description of the overall motion of the galaxy, for example.



Well, the strong and weak forces are *nuclear* forces and don't have much effect outside of individual atoms. The E&M force *is* used where appropriate. And gravity is used where *it* is appropriate. You want to ignore one of the forces while failing to explain the phenomena currently explained by that force.

I'm sorry if you disagree with how science is actually done. But yes, it requires specific predictions that agree with observation. And that is *all* that is required. Until and unless EU can do this, it simply isn't a contender in anything scientific.



What you gave in #456 is at best an outline, not an actual treatment of the sort required. You want to claim that dark matter isn't required when you ignore gravity, *give details*.


Provide details. You have a few vague ideas here about what should be done. OK, do it. Until you (or someone) manages to do so, the EU viewpoint will remain a crank idea.

All Native’s focus on EM while denying the existence of all other fundamental forces only demonstrated his one-sided conspiracy theory.

 

[ecco]

Just get rid of the stupid dark ghosts and use the working EM model without it and its connections to the Newtonian Apple-Pie fantasies which even Einstein rejected as a force at all.

Einstein was wrong many times, as he himself admitted.

I guess it was nothing that tripped the sensors...

In February 2016, the Advanced LIGO team announced that they had detected gravitational waves from a black hole merger.[4][5][6] The 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for this work.


​

Where is a working simulator of the solar system using EM instead of gravity? Still waiting.

 

[ecco]

My emphasis

It is so easy to say that one does not care that one's model is worthless. but then why have such a belief in the first place? Is it only so that one can think that they have some unearned superiority? What is the motivation of some people to not only believe in nonsense, but attempt to defend the indefensible?

An answer to that question would do more to understanding nature than the discovery of what lies at the other end of black holes.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
I know and it is not neccesary to repeat this common knowledge of method.

There you go again judging a EM theory o ut of order instead of pondering over what I wrote about the other fundamental forces but gravity in the #456

It isn't out of order to require predictions that match observation.

No it´s not at all. It´s the same what cosmological scientists do when they predict observations which match their calculations which isn´t yet confirmed in the sense and concept of a Theroy of Everything.

You/we have to have the basic dea at the stage and leave the consensus ideas before we can go any further.

And I don't know why you think that the other forces are ignored. They are used *when appropriate*, for example in the plasmas in HII regions, or close to pulsars, or even in the accretion disks of black holes. E&M is used in those cases and works very well in the appropriate contexts. But it fails to give a description of the overall motion of the galaxy, for example.

I´m not the one who say the other EM and Strong and Week forces is ignored in their own! I´m just saying that they are all needed as understood as 1 in order to understand the overall cosmological conditions.

You know as well as I, that it is the big problem in modern cosmology to unite all fundamental forces and then there is no other solution but to get them united, which really is possible in this way:

The EM forces contains both the Strong and Week force just by the different charges of the EM force working in all levels of formation, included the most important area of plasma level of formation.

Well, the strong and weak forces are *nuclear* forces and don't have much effect outside of individual atoms. The E&M force *is* used where appropriate. And gravity is used where *it* is appropriate. You want to ignore one of the forces while failing to explain the phenomena currently explained by that force.

No I don´t! Read my former comment just above here. You are referring to the divsion of forces and it´s uses, and I´m focusing on the assembling of forces.

What you gave in #456 is at best an outline, not an actual treatment of the sort required. You want to claim that dark matter isn't required when you ignore gravity, *give details*.

The details gives itself when you manage to accept the basic concepts and the preliminary explanations in the #456 in the first hand. That is your prime challenge in our discussions.

I said:
Take the 3 fundamental forces but gravity, and make them 1. Or in other words of marketing announcement: Take 3 and get 1 for free - and get rid of the 4.th, and it´s connected ideas.

Provide details. You have a few vague ideas here about what should be done. OK, do it. Until you (or someone) manages to do so, the EU viewpoint will remain a crank idea.

There you go again avoiding to think seriously over the explanation and at the same time violating the context in my profile signature.

"a crank idea" violates the profile context, and I reject to give further details as long as you violates the profile context.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
I know and it is not neccesary to repeat this common knowledge of method.

There you go again judging a EM theory o ut of order instead of pondering over what I wrote about the other fundamental forces but gravity in the #456

No it´s not at all. It´s the same what cosmological scientists do when they predict observations which match their calculations which isn´t yet confirmed in the sense and concept of a Theroy of Everything.

You/we have to have the basic dea at the stage and leave the consensus ideas before we can go any further.

I´m not the one who say the other EM and Strong and Week forces is ignored in their own! I´m just saying that they are all needed as understood as 1 in order to understand the overall cosmological conditions.

You know as well as I, that it is the big problem in modern cosmology to unite all fundamental forces and then there is no other solution but to get them united, which really is possible in this way:

The EM forces contains both the Strong and Week force just by the different charges of the EM force working in all levels of formation, included the most important area of plasma level of formation.

Then provide details. Use your theory to calculate the decay time of a muon. What you say is directly AGAINST all of known particle physics, but if you claim to have a better description, then please provide details. What you gave here is a *goal*, not an achievement

.
No I don´t! Read my former comment just above here. You are referring to the divsion of forces and it´s uses, and I´m focusing on the assembling of forces.

The details gives itself when you manage to accept the basic concepts and the preliminary explanations in the #456 in the first hand. That is your prime challenge in our discussions.

I'll accept the 'preliminary explanations' when details are provided that agree with observation. That is the *only* standard.

I said:
Take the 3 fundamental forces but gravity, and make them 1. Or in other words of marketing announcement: Take 3 and get 1 for free - and get rid of the 4.th, and it´s connected ideas.

OK, provide details. Show how to explain the motions of the solar system in your theory. Show how to explain the motions in our galaxy using your theory. Not in vague generalities, but in detail.

There you go again avoiding to think seriously over the explanation and at the same time violating the context in my profile signature.

"a crank idea" violates the profile context, and I reject to give further details as long as you violates the profile context.

You won't give details because you *can't* provide details. And until details are given, it remains a crank idea.

 

[Native]

You won't give details because you *can't* provide details. And until details are given, it remains a crank idea.

I were started on commenting on your post above - until I read this once again violation of the profile context and then I just removed my initial replies in this post.

I´ve had it to up over my head when it comes to such suggestive comment of what "I will or not or can or not", and downletting comments on a general EU theory, wich we even yet have discussed so far.

 

[Polymath257]

I were started on commenting on your post above - until I read this once again violation of the profile context and then I just removed my initial replies in this post.

I´ve had it to up over my head when it comes to such suggestive comment of what "I will or not or can or not", and downletting comments on a general EU theory, wich we even yet have discussed so far.

Then give testable details. EU hasn't been able to do so. That is why it isn't a scientific theory.

This isn't 'downletting'. It is simply stating a fact about the EU viewpoint. Unless and until it can give precise predictions that can be verified by observation, it will remain a crank viewpoint.

Now, *if* you can provide details and those details make precise preditions that can be verified, then the view can be taken seriously.

So, where do you want to start? Maxwll's equations? Go for it! Postulate any charge distribution, any plasma, any magnetic fields you want. And then, from those postulates, derive the motions of the planets, or maybe the stars in our galaxy. If you can do so, you win! It really is that simple.

 

[Polymath257]

I were started on commenting on your post above - until I read this once again violation of the profile context and then I just removed my initial replies in this post.

I´ve had it to up over my head when it comes to such suggestive comment of what "I will or not or can or not", and downletting comments on a general EU theory, wich we even yet have discussed so far.

I get the impression you think I don't know what you want to do. You would like to eliminate gravity by unifying the three other recognized forces and do it in such a way that the motions inside the solar system are directed by the outflow from the center of our galaxy. This includes the elimination of dark matter and dark energy as well.

Is that basically correct?

If so, all I have to say is that I am waiting for details.

 

[Native]

@Polymath257,

I get the impression you think I don't know what you want to do. You would like to eliminate gravity by unifying the three other recognized forces and do it in such a way that the motions inside the solar system are directed by the outflow from the center of our galaxy. This includes the elimination of dark matter and dark energy as well.

Is that basically correct?

First: I "don´t want to eliminate gravity" - it eliminates itself when uniting the other three forces and the same goes for the concept of "dark matter", used in in connection with the discovery of the galactic rotation.

(The gravitational calculations in the Solar System is not eliminated, but the very concept itself has to be seriously overhauled and re-explained).

Otherwise you are pretty much on the spot, and thanks for confirming this.

First some basic difinitions.

About the general United Electro Magnetic = UEM

Electric helical currents creates perpendicular magnetic fields, which makes a spherical circuit of flow and this works in all kinds of micro- and microcosmic formation.

The question of "strong and weak force" is just a question of having different EM charges and magnetic polarities.

The EMU has it´s strongest formative function in the plasmatic realms of atoms. The EM force reveals a charge of nuclear formation in the centers of galaxies where strong gamma rays is evidence of such a formation.

The discovered web in the Universe reveals strings of EM connections where galaxies are formed in the more luminous dots.

The lines in this web consists of electric currents and in the more luminous dots, magnetic fields especially forms galaxies.

A Natural Philosophic description of the formative motions in our Milky Way

The Standard formation of the Solar System goes like this: A cloud of dust and gas falls together and heat up dust and gas which becomes the EM Sun etc.

The same descriptive process takes place where galaxies are formed, but the EM explanation of course use the EM qualities to form the galaxy. This happens where a standing electric current affects the plasma of particles and gases in the cosmic cloud.

The very electric and helical current sets the particles and gases in a whirling motion and the perpendicular whirling magnetic field creates a spherical magnetic circuit which creates the galactic disk by assemble the particles and gases into the center in the galaxy where it heats up until the level of the nuclear forces.

When the EM forces have assembled "a critical amount of particles and gases" in a glowing hot sphere in the center, the weight of this sphere overcome the EMU forces in the galactic center and is centrifugally slung away from the center and out through the galactic bars and out in the galactic surroundings, still having the rotational velocity from the galactic center.

(This formative motion and dispersion can be compared with a two arm rotation garden sprinkler, where the droplets are spread out).

Very early out from the galactic center, this sphere divides up in planets, where the lightest planets are divided first and the heavier latest. Further on, the planetary moons are divided out from their mother planets.

This outgoing formative motion in our galaxy confirms the discovered galactic rotation graphic curve, hence it contradicts the need of "dark matter" in the galactic realms.

This outgoing motion from the dispersive formation is STILL going on in the Solar System with increased distances between, for instants, the Sun and Earth and between the Earth and Moon. This increasing distance is gravitationally explained as "gravitational frame dragging", but it really is the still expansive motion derived from the formation in the galactic center.

Regarding "Gravity" in the Solar System
Of course we all feel weight but this weight is the result of EM forces which are binding atoms and molecules etc. together in our body. Above this feeling of weight, we also are under infuence of the weight of gases in the atmosphere.

It was this weight of the gaseous atmosphere which caused the Newtonian apple to fall to the ground and got him the speculate on the gravitaional force as such.

The higher we can move up in the air and atmosphere the lesser weight we feel and when we are enough away from the Earth atmosphere, we are almost weightless and the Newtonian gravity is mostly gone.

At the end of these explanations, just a single explanation of space flight and "gravitational slingshot". When a spacecraft needs some extr
ra velocity it can use other planets to gain this velocity.

It dosn´t happen because the planets are dragging on the spacecraft, but simply because the scientists uses the whirling slipstream of the planet, just like birds uses such slipstreams in formations.

This slipstream "slingshot" of spacecrafts of course also indicates that the space isn´t empty.

Preliminary UEM Conclusions and Predictions:

1) Our Solar System is formed in the Milky Way center.
2) "Dark matter" is ruled out.
3) Gravity isn´t a force.
4) The UEMU (United Electro Magnetic Universe) is the 1 Fundamental Force with different charges and ranges.
5) By counting on the stronger EM forces, no matter is needed in the Universe.
6) The Universe is eternal and its contents changes eternally between formation, dissolution and re-formation. ("Steady State Universe")
7) Big Bang newer happend.
8) Distance measures in the Universe is false.

The united UEM force governs the Universe by different charges and ranges. "Gravity" is not a fundamental force.

Generally
Remember this: I don´t discard the scientific calculations regarding something in the Solar System. I just claim that these calculations could be done on the works of the Keplerian geometrics together with my other explanations above on the Solar System "gravitational matters".

Besides these explanations, I will not go into further specific discussions but the formation and motions in our Milky Way and the very Solar System.

OK, this was my initial and preliminary explanation and I´ll hold my cosmological horses for now, and await some serious responses on the contents.

 

[joelr]

@joelr,

JoelR
Except from your "So it's completely hilarious that you are using this to back up any part of your position?", I agree in this.

I don´t need your downletting personal comments on my attempts to find a common understanding of cosmology! In my attempts to find "tale and head" in the cosmological realms, I of course take any hints which points either ways in order to confirm or reject any claims and consensus ideas, including my own concepts.

Excuse me for not commenting on the rest of your reply. Instead I´ll forward you to my answer to Polymath257 above here:

Please read my comment here -
#456

From the contents there, we can take a new approach to our conversations.

There you go, you can't answer as to why you insist EU is correct while at the same time saying it's wrong to insist theories are correct.

You want scientists to say "they don't know", which is exactly what they say. Meanwhile you say all cosmology is wrong and EU is correct?

And you can't account for the enormous success of general relativity.

If you don't want personal comments then don't write in forums. Because all posts contain personal comments. If you are too frail to hear that your glee was mis-placed then I would re-consider conversations like this.

The dark matter question is solved by unifying the 3 other fundamental forces.

You are parroting words with no understanding of what they mean. You might as well say the dark matter question will be solved when Moses gives me the equations.

You don't work with fundamental forces and you can not propose a model that includes dark matter.

 

[joelr]

@joelr,

How can a lecture of discerning scientific methods be a strawman?

Because they pretend like science is religion and has a set of laws that will never change and everyone is set in their ways and that is a lie.
They are creating a false narrative, a problem with science, then giving a way to push past this problem. But it's not real. It's one of the many conspiracy theories non-scientists can get into and have a nice time pretending they know something special that all science can't figure out.

EU can join the party and be considered when it actually makes a theory, a mathematical model that makes all the predictions the standard model does but goes even further to explain dark matter.
Right now it's no different than saying - "we can include dark matter into the standard model by revelations from Jesus."

No it's worse than that because it's also saying "oh and gravity isn't real...."

 

[joelr]

@Polymath257,

First: I "don´t want to eliminate gravity" - it eliminates itself when uniting the other three forces and the same goes for the concept of "dark matter", used in in connection with the discovery of the galactic rotation.

(The gravitational calculations in the Solar System is not eliminated, but the very concept itself has to be seriously overhauled and re-explained).

Otherwise you are pretty much on the spot, and thanks for confirming this.

First some basic difinitions.

The lines in this web consists of electric currents and in the more luminous dots, magnetic fields especially forms galaxies.

A Natural Philosophic description of the formative motions in our Milky Way

The Standard formation of the Solar System goes like this: A cloud of dust and gas falls together and heat up dust and gas which becomes the EM Sun etc.

The same descriptive process takes place where galaxies are formed, but the EM explanation of course use the EM qualities to form the galaxy. This happens where a standing electric current affects the plasma of particles and gases in the cosmic cloud.

The very electric and helical current sets the particles and gases in a whirling motion and the perpendicular whirling magnetic field creates a spherical magnetic circuit which creates the galactic disk by assemble the particles and gases into the center in the galaxy where it heats up until the level of the nuclear forces.
ative motion and dispersion can be compared with a two arm rotation garden sprinkler, where the droplets are spread out).

Very early out from the galactic center, this sphere divides up in planets, where the lightest planets are divided first and the heavier latest. Further on, the planetary moons are divided out from their mother planets.
.

Who cares? Bunch of words?

Show a paper that mathematically explains how we will get cloud collapse without gravity.

"An interstellar cloud of gas will remain in hydrostatic equilibrium as long as the kinetic energy of the gas pressure is in balance with the potential energy of the internal gravitational force. Mathematically this is expressed using the virial theorem, which states that, to maintain equilibrium, the gravitational potential energy must equal twice the internal thermal energy. If a cloud is massive enough that the gas pressure is insufficient to support it, the cloud will undergo gravitational collapse. The mass above which a cloud will undergo such collapse is called the Jeans mass. The Jeans mass depends on the temperature and density of the cloud, but is typically thousands to tens of thousands of solar masses. During cloud collapse dozens to ten thousands of stars form more or less simultaneously which is observable in so-called embedded clusters. The end product of a core collapse is an open cluster of stars."

so take out the gravitational force and show how EM makes up for this.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090997712000090

 

[Native]

There you go, you can't answer as to why you insist EU is correct while at the same time saying it's wrong to insist theories are correct.

You want scientists to say "they don't know", which is exactly what they say. Meanwhile you say all cosmology is wrong and EU is correct?

And you can't account for the enormous success of general relativity.

If you don't want personal comments then don't write in forums. Because all posts contain personal comments. If you are too frail to hear that your glee was mis-placed then I would re-consider conversations like this.

You can imagine what you like. My rejection was just and only because I demand a fair and respectfull tone in my threads.

We are NOT on Facebook here but in a Religious Forum!

Just read my profile signature before you reply on anything.

 

[Native]

@joelr,

Because they pretend like science is religion and has a set of laws that will never change and everyone is set in their ways and that is a lie.

I know of many academic educated scientists who have left the convensus cosmology and NO of these have any chances in the Peer Review system or in the scientific magazines.

This is why they discuss the topic of how the standing scientific system works and nothing else.

 

[Native]

@joelr,

Who cares? Bunch of words?

Well, you are free to leave the thread if you dont care.

"An interstellar cloud of gas will remain in hydrostatic equilibrium as long as the kinetic energy of the gas pressure is in balance with the potential energy of the internal gravitational force.

This is just theorethical speculations made to fit a force which isn´t there at all. If you have a cloud of gas in space, it will disperse out in the space and NOT ever begin to "fall into itself" by itself.

BTW: Newton didn´t consider his gravity as a fundamental force and so didn´t Einstein - and I certainly don´t either.

so take out the gravitational force and show how EM makes up for this.

Read #474 - "A Natural Philosophic description of the formative motions in our Milky Way".