Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[ecco]

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.

Please provide the names of a couple of them so that we can do our own research and determine if your assertion has any validity. Please provide details of articles that have been submitted to and rejected for peer review.

 

[Polymath257]

@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).

Well, you would have to show how the F=GMm/r^2 force law is mimicked when there is no gravity. That is the basis of all the solar system calculations and without gravity, even 'overhalued and re-explained' would seem unlikely to give this precise dynamics.

On what basis are the same calculations done without gravity?

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

Again, the goal isn't difficult to understand. I'm very skeptical whether it can be achieved.

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.

Lots of trigger words here without much actual meaning. What, precisely, do you mean by 'electric helical currents' and why do they give rise to 'perpendicular magnetic fields'? Perpendicular to what, precisely? More specifically, a helical current would mean, in my view, a current moving in a helix around some line. That is what is produced *by* a magnetic field, but the magnetic field produced by such a current would swirl around the helix and NOT be perpendicular to anything obvious.

Next, what is the phrase 'spherical circuit' supposed to mean? And why would that be produced by those 'perpendicular magnetic fields'? More specifically, the phrase 'spherical circuit' has no clear meaning that I can see. Do you mean the charges in the circuit are limited to being on a sphere? Or that the effect is one of a rotating sphere with charges attached?

And then, what do you mean by 'all kinds of micro- and macoro- formation'? This seems to be very unclear.

And, just to let you know, a bit of math based on, say, Maxwell's equations (the E&M equations) would be quite helpful here.

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

Um, no. Electric charges and magnetic polarities are different than what either the weak or the strobg force operate upon. For example, the charge of a proton is the same as that of an electron, but the strong force acts on protons binding them into nuclei while not acting on electrons at all. This isn't just an effect of differing magnetic aspects either.

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.

What 'plasma realms of atoms'? Again, this appears to be trigger words with no real meaning. A plasma is a macroscopic distribution of charges. Nothing as small as an atom qualifies, at least as long as electrons are bound to the nuclei. And the phrase 'charge of nuclear formation' seems like nonsense. COuld you be more clear what this posed to mean? Do you mean 'formation' as a 'structure' or do you mena that nuclei are being formed at the center of the galaxy? And why are gamma rays evidence of this? Show how the theory predicts such gamma rays, what their spectral properties should be and that these properties agree with what is observed.

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.

An interesting claim. Can you demonstrate such electric or magnetic fields? For example, finding some sort of synchrotron radiation or shifts in spectral lines?

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.

Why would such a gas fall together without gravity? Why would it produce as much energy as we see coming from the sun? And over such a period of time? Give details about the energy dynamics.

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.

Please provide details showing this would happen from an E&M description. This is very far from obvious. Again, math based on Maxwell's equations would help a lot. Do E&M forces affect plasmas? Of course! Do they affect them in the way necessary for your description to work? Hardly clear.

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.

See above questions on 'helical electric currents' and 'spherical circuits'. Until that is clarified, this paragraph cannot be interpreted.

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.

Show that E&M forces would, indeed, assemble such a critical amount at some center. And, if you are invoking weight without grhere needs to be some explanation about that. A detailed treatment of the dynamics explaining why anything would be 'centrifugally flung away' is also relevant. Again, this shoudl be done purely from an E&M description.


Well, this is enough to get you started. At this point, there is a lot of verbiage, but not many details. Also, there is a lot of, well, non-standard terminology that needs to be explained further.

Some mathematical details would be very helpful for your viewpoint. Care to provide them?

 

[joelr]

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.

I don't care what your sig says, your actions are the exact opposite of your sig?

Your profile quote is the thing you yourself are violating the most!?! Far more than anyone else.
Everyone backs up the sentiments of cosmology - "we don't know what dark matter is".

Meanwhile you insist you have the truth by simply following what EU (not a theory just ideas) says and merging 3 fundamental forces? This hypocritical behavior has rendered your position to be the opposite of what the quote says.
So no, you don't get to invoke that quote.

Beyond that no one has even been disrespectful? You've made up that fantasy. Polymath simply pointed out your glee was mis-placed (it was, you were wrong, deal with it) and has been saying to link to an actual theory.
You have some fantasy that that is disrespectful, it isn't.

No one is dis-respectful, science always admits they don't know stuff.
The only person who thinks they have all the answers is you.

 

[joelr]

@joelr,

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.

Heresay, provide examples.

 

[joelr]

@joelr,

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

You misunderstand, By "who cares" I mean you haven't posted a theory just a speculation. Everyone is waiting for a theory. Your speculation proves nothing. I could write up a EU model that uses the power of the holy spirit that would be just as informative and just as probable.

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.

Yes gravity and cloud collapse is a theory. It's also tested.
EU is neither.
One again there you go violating your signature.
You're not saying you "might" have an alternate, your insisting your right but have no theory to back it up.
It's the ultimate in arrogance. Take that sig off your posts and replace it with "I know everything and I don't need math to back it up"

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

You don't know math or modern physics at all so I hardly see how that would matter?
Newton didn't know what gravity was, just now it worked. What is your point here?

Read

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

Dude! We've seen this, I already posted on this? It's a bunch of words, no equations to show or make any predictions. It's nothing?!
Post a theory! Some of these words DON"T MAKE SENSE?

My response was EXPLAIN CLOUD COLLAPSE WITHOUT GRAVITY.

Here are the basics:

"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."


Take out gravity and show EU fixing the problem.

Here is a paper to guide you:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090997712000090

Go through that, take out any gravitational equations, modify everything else and explain.
Yes clouds do collapse in space. There is a word for this

A STAR.


another phenomenon which we have mathematical models to explain.

 

[joelr]

Well, you would have to show how the F=GMm/r^2 force law is mimicked when there is no gravity. That is the basis of all the solar system calculations and without gravity, even 'overhalued and re-explained' would seem unlikely to give this precise dynamics.

On what basis are the same calculations done without gravity?



Again, the goal isn't difficult to understand. I'm very skeptical whether it can be achieved.


Lots of trigger words here without much actual meaning. What, precisely, do you mean by 'electric helical currents' and why do they give rise to 'perpendicular magnetic fields'? Perpendicular to what, precisely? More specifically, a helical current would mean, in my view, a current moving in a helix around some line. That is what is produced *by* a magnetic field, but the magnetic field produced by such a current would swirl around the helix and NOT be perpendicular to anything obvious.

Next, what is the phrase 'spherical circuit' supposed to mean? And why would that be produced by those 'perpendicular magnetic fields'? More specifically, the phrase 'spherical circuit' has no clear meaning that I can see. Do you mean the charges in the circuit are limited to being on a sphere? Or that the effect is one of a rotating sphere with charges attached?

And then, what do you mean by 'all kinds of micro- and macoro- formation'? This seems to be very unclear.

And, just to let you know, a bit of math based on, say, Maxwell's equations (the E&M equations) would be quite helpful here.



Um, no. Electric charges and magnetic polarities are different than what either the weak or the strobg force operate upon. For example, the charge of a proton is the same as that of an electron, but the strong force acts on protons binding them into nuclei while not acting on electrons at all. This isn't just an effect of differing magnetic aspects either.



What 'plasma realms of atoms'? Again, this appears to be trigger words with no real meaning. A plasma is a macroscopic distribution of charges. Nothing as small as an atom qualifies, at least as long as electrons are bound to the nuclei. And the phrase 'charge of nuclear formation' seems like nonsense. COuld you be more clear what this posed to mean? Do you mean 'formation' as a 'structure' or do you mena that nuclei are being formed at the center of the galaxy? And why are gamma rays evidence of this? Show how the theory predicts such gamma rays, what their spectral properties should be and that these properties agree with what is observed.




An interesting claim. Can you demonstrate such electric or magnetic fields? For example, finding some sort of synchrotron radiation or shifts in spectral lines?



Why would such a gas fall together without gravity? Why would it produce as much energy as we see coming from the sun? And over such a period of time? Give details about the energy dynamics.



Please provide details showing this would happen from an E&M description. This is very far from obvious. Again, math based on Maxwell's equations would help a lot. Do E&M forces affect plasmas? Of course! Do they affect them in the way necessary for your description to work? Hardly clear.



See above questions on 'helical electric currents' and 'spherical circuits'. Until that is clarified, this paragraph cannot be interpreted.



Show that E&M forces would, indeed, assemble such a critical amount at some center. And, if you are invoking weight without grhere needs to be some explanation about that. A detailed treatment of the dynamics explaining why anything would be 'centrifugally flung away' is also relevant. Again, this shoudl be done purely from an E&M description.


Well, this is enough to get you started. At this point, there is a lot of verbiage, but not many details. Also, there is a lot of, well, non-standard terminology that needs to be explained further.

Some mathematical details would be very helpful for your viewpoint. Care to provide them?

Native answer all of these questions because I did not understand any of that verbage either?
Sphero-Plasmatic perpendicular magnetic fields in the plasma realm.....

These are crazy person words.


And again explain cloud collapse without gravity.

And stop referencing your sig while you continue to ignore it.

 

[Native]

@joelr,

Your profile quote is the thing you yourself are violating the most!?! Far more than anyone else.

Why would I be THAT stupid!? My "profile quote" is NOT a quote, but my very own sentenses.

When you´ve changed your conventional partisan attitudes and open up for a more universal points of views, you can resume all your comments and questions and maybe I´ll get back to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@joelr,

Why would I be THAT stupid!? My "profile quote" is NOT a quote, but my very own sentenses.

When you´ve changed your attitudes, you can resume all your comments and questions and maybe I´ll get back to you.

Just as you do not understand the scientific method you probably do not understand how you violate your own profile quote.

Discuss instead of rant.

 

[Native]

@Polymath257.
It´s really interesting how our actual personal associations affects our ways of percieving, understanding and replying

When I, for instants, writes about electromagnetism, I have a inner picture before me of this:

Magnetism - Wikipedia
The phenomenon of magnetism is "mediated" by the magnetic field. An electric current or magnetic dipole creates a magnetic field, and that field, in turn, imparts magnetic forces on other particles that are in the fields.

Which is why I describes my explanations predominantly with terms from Natural Philosophy. Others with a cosmological interest maybe have Maxwell´s Equations before them

Well, you would have to show how the F=GMm/r^2 force law is mimicked when there is no gravity. That is the basis of all the solar system calculations and without gravity, even 'overhalued and re-explained' would seem unlikely to give this precise dynamics.

If I should have to show how the EM works in the Solar System, I should start out with an EM formation in our Milky Way center, as it it here the Solar system is formed IMO, and of course and logicaly I would´t use your gravitational equation in order to explain how the EM works anywhere.

I don´t think it is too much to claim that it is a general cosmological understanding of "Newtons gravity" doesn´t work in the cosmic scale, so it would be a contradictive idea of using the "F=GMm/r^2 force law" to explain the Solar system formation from within the galactic center.

I wrote:
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.

Lots of trigger words here without much actual meaning. What, precisely, do you mean by 'electric helical currents' and why do they give rise to 'perpendicular magnetic fields'? Perpendicular to what, precisely? More specifically, a helical current would mean, in my view, a current moving in a helix around some line. That is what is produced *by* a magnetic field, but the magnetic field produced by such a current would swirl around the helix and NOT be perpendicular to anything obvious.

A standing electric current induces a perpendicular magnetic field of the current direction.

As for the "helix term", this is just an expression of the wave pattern of the electric current.

Next, what is the phrase 'spherical circuit' supposed to mean? And why would that be produced by those 'perpendicular magnetic fields'? More specifically, the phrase 'spherical circuit' has no clear meaning that I can see.

Our Sun and Earth are spherical and the magnetism works in these spheres. In the galactic realms the magnetic field has a more flat circuit - which creates the very disk.

And then, what do you mean by 'all kinds of micro- and macoro- formation'? This seems to be very unclear.

I´m just claiming the EM to work everywhere.

What 'plasma realms of atoms'? Again, this appears to be trigger words with no real meaning. A plasma is a macroscopic distribution of charges.

All kinds of gaseous areas are in the plasma stage and can be ionized, as for instants with the aurora lights on the Earth. In cosmic scales this can happend when a cosmic cloud is ionized by electric currents and its magnetic fields.

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

Um, no. Electric charges and magnetic polarities are different than what either the weak or the strobg force operate upon. For example, the charge of a proton is the same as that of an electron, but the strong force acts on protons binding them into nuclei while not acting on electrons at all. This isn't just an effect of differing magnetic aspects either.

Different EM charges are working in different wavelenghts = strenghts, which provides "weak and strong" forces.

Apart from this cosmological scale, there are other EM scales, for instants bio-EM and chemical-EM scales.

I wrote:
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.

An interesting claim. Can you demonstrate such electric or magnetic fields? For example, finding some sort of synchrotron radiation or shifts in spectral lines?

So far, modern cosmology just is in the beginning of such discoveries, but there are lots of EM hints as shown here:

NON of these cosmic discoveries were possible without the EM waves which is measurable from all over in the visible Universe. Thats the BIGGEST HINT and really the BIGGEST UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE for an Electric Universe as such.

Of course there are cosmological models which contains the impression, that EM "is everywhere", but "it doesn´t do anything" - which really is the very same as denying the factual telescopic measurements and images of cosmic motions in cosmos as the measurements are results from the very motions themselves.

The video notions of heigh gamma ray energies streaming out from "black holes", rapidly rotations of "neutron stars" and "super nova explosions" - all belongs to the EM explanations of formation of the galaxies; of rapid magnetic motions in stars (not the star itself) and of electromagnetic discharges from stars.

There are NO mysteries at all - just different scientific ways and approaches of looking at and interpretating at the observations.

I wrote:
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.

Why would such a gas fall together without gravity? Why would it produce as much energy as we see coming from the sun? And over such a period of time? Give details about the energy dynamics.

It would so when affected by an electric current because of the attractive part in the magnetism in the EU.

Well, this is enough to get you started. At this point, there is a lot of verbiage, but not many details. Also, there is a lot of, well, non-standard terminology that needs to be explained further.

I hope to have cleared some of "non-standard" terms here and illustrated these.

As for the details, you have to remember my primary approach of providing philosophical explanations and ideas in order to describe the overall issues clearly before going into details. Otherwise we are in the risks for continuing clashes of perspectives.

I sort of am in the process of making an overall abstract of my thougths in the first place and hopefully this can end up as a theory with further details. In the meantime you and other debaters are welcome to check the relevant calculations (from the relevant forces) if these are the main approaches for you.

 

[Native]

@joelr
Polymath257 said: ↑

Well, you would have to show how the F=GMm/r^2 force law is mimicked when there is no gravity. That is the basis of all the solar system calculations and without gravity, even 'overhalued and re-explained' would seem unlikely to give this precise dynamics.

On what basis are the same calculations done without gravity?

Again, the goal isn't difficult to understand. I'm very skeptical whether it can be achieved.

Lots of trigger words here without much actual meaning. What, precisely, do you mean by 'electric helical currents' and why do they give rise to 'perpendicular magnetic fields'? Perpendicular to what, precisely? More specifically, a helical current would mean, in my view, a current moving in a helix around some line. That is what is produced *by* a magnetic field, but the magnetic field produced by such a current would swirl around the helix and NOT be perpendicular to anything obvious.

Next, what is the phrase 'spherical circuit' supposed to mean? And why would that be produced by those 'perpendicular magnetic fields'? More specifically, the phrase 'spherical circuit' has no clear meaning that I can see. Do you mean the charges in the circuit are limited to being on a sphere? Or that the effect is one of a rotating sphere with charges attached?

And then, what do you mean by 'all kinds of micro- and macoro- formation'? This seems to be very unclear.

And, just to let you know, a bit of math based on, say, Maxwell's equations (the E&M equations) would be quite helpful here.

Um, no. Electric charges and magnetic polarities are different than what either the weak or the strobg force operate upon. For example, the charge of a proton is the same as that of an electron, but the strong force acts on protons binding them into nuclei while not acting on electrons at all. This isn't just an effect of differing magnetic aspects either.

What 'plasma realms of atoms'? Again, this appears to be trigger words with no real meaning. A plasma is a macroscopic distribution of charges. Nothing as small as an atom qualifies, at least as long as electrons are bound to the nuclei. And the phrase 'charge of nuclear formation' seems like nonsense. COuld you be more clear what this posed to mean? Do you mean 'formation' as a 'structure' or do you mena that nuclei are being formed at the center of the galaxy? And why are gamma rays evidence of this? Show how the theory predicts such gamma rays, what their spectral properties should be and that these properties agree with what is observed.

An interesting claim. Can you demonstrate such electric or magnetic fields? For example, finding some sort of synchrotron radiation or shifts in spectral lines?

Why would such a gas fall together without gravity? Why would it produce as much energy as we see coming from the sun? And over such a period of time? Give details about the energy dynamics.

Please provide details showing this would happen from an E&M description. This is very far from obvious. Again, math based on Maxwell's equations would help a lot. Do E&M forces affect plasmas? Of course! Do they affect them in the way necessary for your description to work? Hardly clear.

See above questions on 'helical electric currents' and 'spherical circuits'. Until that is clarified, this paragraph cannot be interpreted.

Show that E&M forces would, indeed, assemble such a critical amount at some center. And, if you are invoking weight without grhere needs to be some explanation about that. A detailed treatment of the dynamics explaining why anything would be 'centrifugally flung away' is also relevant. Again, this shoudl be done purely from an E&M description.

Well, this is enough to get you started. At this point, there is a lot of verbiage, but not many details. Also, there is a lot of, well, non-standard terminology that needs to be explained further.

Some mathematical details would be very helpful for your viewpoint. Care to provide them?
------------

Native answer all of these questions because I did not understand any of that verbage either?
Sphero-Plasmatic perpendicular magnetic fields in the plasma realm.....

These are crazy person words.

And again explain cloud collapse without gravity.

Read my elaborated explanations to Polymath257 here #489

 

[ecco]

As long as there is no fully accepted consensus of a Theory of Everything, all debaters shall avoid any demeaning personal or systemic comments on what is the cosmologically truth and whether it is understood or not.

Since you say these are your words, I would have to ask what do you think gives you the right to specify what posters are and are not permitted to do?




ETA: Maybe I should have my signature tagline state:

As long as there is no mathematical evidence provided to support EM, all debaters shall avoid making any posts on the subject.​

 

[joelr]

@joelr,

Why would I be THAT stupid!? My "profile quote" is NOT a quote, but my very own sentenses.

When you´ve changed your conventional partisan attitudes and open up for a more universal points of views, you can resume all your comments and questions and maybe I´ll get back to you.

Of course your profile signature is your own quote.

What you ask is a true mystery, I have no idea why you would be that stupid? Yet you are the only person here who continually makes systemic comments on what is the cosmological truth.
Then your signature says to not make systemic comments on what is the cosmological truth?

The only person making definitive cosmological statements with zero theory to back them up?
This is the absolute height of arrogance.

"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."

"Change the cosmological concepts."

"The question of "strong and weak force" is just a question of EM charges. "

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

Then, everytime someone asks for proof you get all butt-hurt and tell them to be more open??
Stop making accusations about people being biased, closed minded and the like. Whining and accusations are for crank theories.

 

[joelr]

tion.

Well, this is enough to get you started. At this point, there is a lot of verbiage, but not many details. Also, there is a lot of, well, non-standard terminology that needs to be explained further.

Some mathematical details would be very helpful for your viewpoint. Care to provide them?
------------

Read my elaborated explanations to Polymath257 here #489

This is not an elaborated explanation? It's a few words with pictures?
It's clear that you have exactly no evidence against gravity so how about a different angle.
Please post to some papers that include predictions that the EU makes.

Why do you say gravity doesn't work on cosmic scales?



Study validates general relativity on cosmic scale, existence of dark matter
An analysis of more than 70,000 galaxies by University of California, Berkeley, University of Zurich and Princeton University physicists demonstrates that the universe – at least up to a distance of 3.5 billion light years from Earth – plays by the rules set out 95 years ago by Albert Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity.

A partial map of the distribution of galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, going out to a distance of 7 billion light years. The amount of galaxy clustering that we observe today is a signature of how gravity acted over cosmic time, and allows as to test whether general relativity holds over these scales. (M. Blanton, Sloan Digital Sky Survey)

By calculating the clustering of these galaxies, which stretch nearly one-third of the way to the edge of the universe, and analyzing their velocities and distortion from intervening material, the researchers have shown that Einstein’s theory explains the nearby universe better than alternative theories of gravity.
One major implication of the new study is that the existence of dark matter is the most likely explanation for the observation that galaxies and galaxy clusters move as if under the influence of some unseen mass, in addition to the stars astronomers observe.

“The nice thing about going to the cosmological scale is that we can test any full, alternative theory of gravity, because it should predict the things we observe,” said co-author Uros Seljak, a professor of physics and of astronomy at UC Berkeley and a faculty scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who is currently on leave at the Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of Zurich. “Those alternative theories that do not require dark matter fail these tests.”

In particular, the tensor-vector-scalar gravity (TeVeS) theory, which tweaks general relativity to avoid resorting to the existence of dark matter, fails the test.

The result conflicts with a report late last year that the very early universe, between 8 and 11 billion years ago, did deviate from the general relativistic description of gravity.

Seljak and his current and former students, including first authors Reinabelle Reyes, a Princeton University graduate student, and Rachel Mandelbaum, a recent Princeton Ph.D. recipient, report their findings in the March 11 issue of the journal Nature. The other co-authors are Tobias Baldauf, Lucas Lombriser and Robert E. Smith of the University of Zurich, and James E. Gunn, professor of physics at Princeton and father of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.

Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity holds that gravity warps space and time, which means that light bends as it passes near a massive object, such as the core of a galaxy. The theory has been validated numerous times on the scale of the solar system, but tests on a galactic or cosmic scale have been inconclusive....

https://news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/10/general_relativity/

 

[Native]

@joelr,

Of course your profile signature is your own quote

NO it´s NOT a quote! It´s my own words and it´s meaning is just to be open for alternative explanations whitout any personal demeaning comments.

Yet you are the only person here who continually makes systemic comments on what is the cosmological truth.

Don´t confuse descriptive arguments as judgements.

"Change the cosmological concepts."
"The question of "strong and weak force" is just a question of EM charges. "
"The dark matter question is solved by unifying the 3 other fundamental forces."

Just suggestions and arguments. Try to follow the logics and make your own arguments for or against.

Stop making accusations about people being biased, closed minded and the like. Whining and accusations are for crank theories.

Just follow the instructions in my profile signature and don´t violate this with demeaning words as "crank theories".

 

[Subduction Zone]

@joelr,

NO it´s NOT a quote! It´s my own words and it´s meaning is just to be open for alternative explanations whitout any personal demeaning comments.

Don´t confuse descriptive argument as judgements.

Just suggestions and arguments. Try to follow the logics and make your own arguments for or against.

Just follow the instructions in my profile signature and don´t violate this with demeaning words as "crank theories".

If one does not like the term "crank theories" then one should avoid them. Do you want to know why EU is a crank theory?

 

[Native]

@joelr,
Please use a minor font in your posts.

This is not an elaborated explanation? It's a few words with pictures?
It's clear that you have exactly no evidence against gravity so how about a different angle.
Please post to some papers that include predictions that the EU makes.

I was that kind to answer you by forwarding you to my reply to Polymath257 as I saw no need to repeat some explanations to you, but apparently you didn´t get anything out of it for some reason or another.

Why do you say gravity doesn't work on cosmic scales?

Because Einstein discarded Newtons gravity. And I discards both Einsteins and Newtons ideas of gravity because this concept is partly embedded in the ElectroMagnetic Force and partly in the pressure of the weight of gases in the Earth atmosphere.

Study validates general relativity on cosmic scale, existence of dark matter
An analysis of more than 70,000 galaxies by University of California, Berkeley, University of Zurich and Princeton University physicists demonstrates that the universe – at least up to a distance of 3.5 billion light years from Earth – plays by the rules set out 95 years ago by Albert Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity.

A partial map of the distribution of galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, going out to a distance of 7 billion light years. The amount of galaxy clustering that we observe today is a signature of how gravity acted over cosmic time, and allows as to test whether general relativity holds over these scales. (M. Blanton, Sloan Digital Sky Survey)

By calculating the clustering of these galaxies, which stretch nearly one-third of the way to the edge of the universe, and analyzing their velocities and distortion from intervening material, the researchers have shown that Einstein’s theory explains the nearby universe better than alternative theories of gravity.
One major implication of the new study is that the existence of dark matter is the most likely explanation for the observation that galaxies and galaxy clusters move as if under the influence of some unseen mass, in addition to the stars astronomers observe.

“The nice thing about going to the cosmological scale is that we can test any full, alternative theory of gravity, because it should predict the things we observe,” said co-author Uros Seljak, a professor of physics and of astronomy at UC Berkeley and a faculty scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who is currently on leave at the Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of Zurich. “Those alternative theories that do not require dark matter fail these tests.”

In particular, the tensor-vector-scalar gravity (TeVeS) theory, which tweaks general relativity to avoid resorting to the existence of dark matter, fails the test.

The result conflicts with a report late last year that the very early universe, between 8 and 11 billion years ago, did deviate from the general relativistic description of gravity.

Seljak and his current and former students, including first authors Reinabelle Reyes, a Princeton University graduate student, and Rachel Mandelbaum, a recent Princeton Ph.D. recipient, report their findings in the March 11 issue of the journal Nature. The other co-authors are Tobias Baldauf, Lucas Lombriser and Robert E. Smith of the University of Zurich, and James E. Gunn, professor of physics at Princeton and father of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.

Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity holds that gravity warps space and time, which means that light bends as it passes near a massive object, such as the core of a galaxy. The theory has been validated numerous times on the scale of the solar system, but tests on a galactic or cosmic scale have been inconclusive....
https://news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/10/general_relativity/

Quotes:
1) "One major implication of the new study is that the existence of dark matter is the most likely explanation for the observation that galaxies and galaxy clusters move as if under the influence of some unseen mass, in addition to the stars astronomers observe".

OBS: "Most likely"? "unseen mass"? = just assumptions and more assumptions.

2) In particular, the tensor-vector-scalar gravity (TeVeS) theory, which tweaks general relativity to avoid resorting to the existence of dark matter, fails the test.

3) “Those alternative theories that do not require dark matter fail these tests.”

This is kind of funny. If the scientists didn´t try another theories and cosmological models which don´t require dark matter, these sentenses just becomes circular conclusions and self assuring arguments.

 

[joelr]

@joelr,

NO it´s NOT a quote! It´s my own words and it´s meaning is just to be open for alternative explanations whitout any personal demeaning comments.

Sig/quote - whatever?
Then why aren't you open to alternative explanations?
Calling a theory crank isn't a personal comment.

Don´t confuse descriptive arguments as judgements.

Uh, "gravity is wrong". That is a judgment based on zero theory.
"Just unify the 3 forces"
Uh...just? It's a bunch of hand waving. These are not descriptive arguments at all. You don't seem to realize that the language of physics is math.
Again you violate what your sig says. You can't unify forces because you don't have that level of knowledge. So you should be like " hey would it be possible to unify all the forces to solve dark matter?"

Instead your all arrogant and all-knowing but all you have to back it up are ideas that haven't even been made into a theory yet?
You sig applies to everyone else except you. When it comes to your EU ideas those are "obviously the correct model" and cannot be challenged.

Then you want to throw out gravity but have no alternative explanations and completely ignore all of the results and predictions of general relativity that have shown true? Makes no sense?

Just suggestions and arguments. Try to follow the logics and make your own arguments for or against.

Just follow the instructions in my profile signature and don´t violate this with demeaning words as "crank theories".

Does you theory have a mathematical model? If not it's still just a crank theory. That is what crank theories are. When someone creates a model that explains Newtons gravity then also explains the finer details of what general relativity explains but does it without gravity then it will not be a crank theory.

There are no "logics" to EU. When Einstein realized special relativity and all the features that come with the theory and the things that it predicts in the universe, he did not have a theory yet.
He had to go back to the drawing board and begin to explain things in a mathematical framework so they could explain the concepts and make them relevant to physics. Without that it's just a bunch of conjecture. As a theory it was a crank theory, bunch of words, means nothing.
GR took many years and help from a math major to figure out what the tensor equations were.

What you have is conjecture that you pass off in an arrogant way as if it is a theory and refuse to believe anything else could possible be true.

You violate your own quote over and over.

 

[joelr]

@joelr,
Please use a minor font in your posts.

I was that kind to answer you by forwarding you to my reply to Polymath257 as I saw no need to repeat some explanations to you, but apparently you didn´t get anything out of it for some reason or another.

Because you have yet to post anything except vague conjecture and nebulous hypothesis, no actual theory? So there is nothing to get.

Because Einstein discarded Newtons gravity. And I discards both Einsteins and Newtons ideas of gravity because this concept is partly embedded in the ElectroMagnetic Force and partly in the pressure of the weight of gases in the Earth atmosphere.

You should learn physics first, then try and debunk it.
Einstein DID NOT discard Newtons gravity??? Newtons laws apply in our solar system and GR applies to the rest of the universe.
If you put in low speeds and low gravity in Einsteins equations they BECOME Newtons equations?
GR makes the same predictions and could be used for space travel as well.

But if you want to discard gravity then you have to show EU accounting for time dillation, gravity waves and many other things GR has done. Again, you have no idea what GR is even saying and to what degree it's been proven.

Quotes:
1) "One major implication of the new study is that the existence of dark matter is the most likely explanation for the observation that galaxies and galaxy clusters move as if under the influence of some unseen mass, in addition to the stars astronomers observe".

OBS: "Most likely"? "unseen mass"? = just assumptions and more assumptions.

Science makes data then tests and re-tests and make reasonable assumptions. There are piles of evidence here for dark matter and they are still just saying "most likely"
Do you know why? Because they are still being openminded whether something is fully understood or not.
This is where many avenues of evidence are pointing. But because scientists go slow and keep an open mind your answer is to ridicule them?????
Just because they said "most likely"???
Are you kidding me??????
You insist EU is right and gravity is wrong based on NO GOOD EVIDENCE and now when science is cautious you say it like it's bad??

You JUST SAID science should be saying "I don't know". You just said that?????
What is going on with you??
Everything you say is the opposite of your sig?

2) In particular, the tensor-vector-scalar gravity (TeVeS) theory, which tweaks general relativity to avoid resorting to the existence of dark matter, fails the test.

3) “Those alternative theories that do not require dark matter fail these tests.”

This is kind of funny. If the scientists didn´t try another theories and cosmological models which don´t require dark matter, these sentenses just becomes circular conclusions and self assuring arguments.

What is funny? They tried to tweak different ideas and nothing is working yet.
As usual you want people to be open minded then you ridicule.
In fact kind of sounds like your being demeaning........

Time to change your sig again I guess....


Anyway, look at that, new study, general relativity proven correct yet again. Every year some new proof of GR happens.


Still waiting for some predictions made by the EU model? What does it predict?

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
@joelr,
NO it´s NOT a quote! It´s my own words and it´s meaning is just to be open for alternative explanations whitout any personal demeaning comments.

Sig/quote - whatever?
Then why aren't you open to alternative explanations?
Calling a theory crank isn't a personal comment.

Standing cosmological models aren´t alternative but conventional. Alternative models are of course different from these.

SO: Being open to alternative explanations is to listen to everything which isn´t considered in the standing models.

If you really have notised the context in my profile signature, you wouldn´t call any cosmological theories "crank" because NO STANDING THEORY AND MODEL are fully correct and in this sense, they all are "crank models" if you like this term. I don´t like this term because it is demeaning and an expression for "dogmatic besserwissen".

Uh, "gravity is wrong". That is a judgment based on zero theory.
"Just unify the 3 forces"
Uh...just? It's a bunch of hand waving. These are not descriptive arguments at all. You don't seem to realize that the language of physics is math.

As long as you don´t read and ponders over the abstract explanations and suggestions, you´ll keep on calling these "handwaving".

I agree on the importance of math. But BEFORE you use math, you have to have an overall idea of what it is you are calculating. And as there is NO OVERALL COSMOLOGICAL CONSENSUS, all your temporary mathematical equations potentially are at the best unprecise - and at the worst directly misleading.

That is: You have to get the natural and cosmological ideas and attached explanations at the stage before you use math - and not vise versa.

Again you violate what your sig says. You can't unify forces because you don't have that level of knowledge. So you should be like " hey would it be possible to unify all the forces to solve dark matter?"

Personal insults about "my level of knowledge" really don´t get you anywhere with me - except from wakening my discust of demeanings in general (Read my profile signature once more).

OK then if you prefer another approach: I now ask:

Hey, would it be possible to unify all the forces to solve dark matter? (NATIVE EDIT: And gravitational issues)

It isn´t my fault that standing physicsist and cosmologists have divided THE formative force into 3 (4) fundamental forces. (Even in ancient Mythology it was a common perception that there was/is just ONE basic creative force which works in everything. Of course there was a logical reason that the prime "God" of creation in many ancient cultures have the attribute and symbol of an EM lightning bolt)

And it is certainly not MY FAULT if you dont take an EM UNIVERSE seriously!

Electromagnetism is everywhere in the observable Universe and the telescope observations reads the results via electromagnetic frequensies which in fact describes what is going on in cosmos.

Does you theory have a mathematical model?

For a starters, take Maxwell´s Equations
Excerpt:
"The equations have two major variants. The microscopic Maxwell equations have universal applicability, but are unwieldy for common calculations. They relate the electric and magnetic fields to total charge and total current, including the complicated charges and currents in materials at the atomic scale. The "macroscopic" Maxwell equations define two new auxiliary fields that describe the large-scale behaviour of matter without having to consider atomic scale charges and quantum phenomena like spins. However, their use requires experimentally determined parameters for a phenomenological description of the electromagnetic response of materials".

As for the rest contents in your #497 and #498 I don´t even bother to comment on these as it is full of personal comments and lack of serious interest for alternative ideas.

 

[ecco]

And it is certainly not MY FAULT if you dont take an EM UNIVERSE seriously!

Well, yes, it is your fault. You and your EM followers cannot make a basic simulation of the solar system without the formulas for gravity. Therefore, there is no reason to take you, they and the "EM UNIVERSE" seriously.



Note: Native has informed me that he has me on ignore, but I just had to post once again, even if he won't see it.