Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[cladking]

Ancient people thought the sun was a power of creation because they thought the sun was god.
Now we know it's a star.

This is merely an assertion. After 2000 BC there is ample evidence people thought the sun was a "god" but before this no such evidence exists.

Indeed, recorded history doesn't even start until circa 2000 BC. What they did have was multiple words that meant "sun" including one that translates as "sun": 1212c. whose two points are the rays of the sun... If they believed in gods and magic it follows in our minds they had no science.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/pyt27.htm

 

[Polymath257]

@Polymath257,
Native said: ↑
I don´t care "how it works" at all. If you can´t grasp the logics or find it interesting, I don´t care either.

1) If scientists uses terms and laws of the standing gravitational theories, they of course fails to determine the motions in the Milky Way caused by the EM.
2) As you know by know, I´m dealing with the formational proces in the Milky Way, using both ancient and modern knowledge.
3) It is a common scientific understanding and statement that "all cosmological explanations and mathematical calculations brakes down when it comes to the subject of the "black holes", so it is out of order to demand me to make some standard cosmology calculations where the scientists have given up.
4) If you and other debaters here really are interested in a possible EM, formation, the prime premisis is to unconditionally ACCEPT the EM force and it´s formative qualities and circuital motions and for the time being forget the standing doctrines.

Nobody disputes the existence of the EM force. But, like I said, whenever anyone has attmpted to use *only EM* to explain the motions of the galaxy and the solar system, they have failed. This shows your statement 1) is flawed.

2) is rather irrelevant until there is an actual theory to be tested.

3) You seem to misunderstand what is done with black holes. The math works up to the event horizon, which means we can get testable results and verify them through observation (like the recent picture of a black hole).

It is NOT unreasonable to expect the proponents of EU or a pure EM universe to present some calculations showing the plausibility of their model. That has not been done. And, since it has not been done, it is perfectly reasonable to say there is nothing there worth looking at.

4) When you say this, do you mean Maxwell's equations? Well, everybody accepts those. But when they are applied to the problems at hand, they do not give results consistent with observations. That is why a pure universe is disregarded. Now, if you can do some calculations that can be verified by observation, you will *begin* to have something worth discussing scientifically.

 

[ecco]

This is merely an assertion. After 2000 BC there is ample evidence people thought the sun was a "god" but before this no such evidence exists.

Indeed, recorded history doesn't even start until circa 2000 BC. What they did have was multiple words that meant "sun" including one that translates as "sun": 1212c. whose two points are the rays of the sun... If they believed in gods and magic it follows in our minds they had no science.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/pyt27.htm

You say that before 2000 BC there is no evidence that people thought the sun was a god.
You say that recorded history didn't start until around 2000BC.

If there is no recorded history prior to 2000 BC it should not be surprising that there is no recorded history of people believing the sun to be a god before 2000 BC.

 

[joelr]

I´t s obvious that you are unfamiliar with the mythical language of symbolism, so you are really excused for not understanding what I´m writing about.



Try to read and understand the implications before you post your emotional replies.

I am a bit familiar with the mythical language of symbolism. For one it's mythical. Another is it's symbolism.
According to your logic evolutionary biologists should revise their hominid evolution theory to- there were 2 original white humans named Adam and Eve and ancient snakes talked and gave bad advice.

"superstition doesn't need data"?

This highly selfconfident and besserwissen statement fits very well to the subject of "black holes" where all informations and calculations brakes down and NO DATA can be found, thus determing "black holes" to be highly superstitious. Still you call this "science"

That's exactly what science is? All science eventually breaks down at fundamental levels. We continue to search for answers by making theories and testing them.
What breaks down with black holes is a quantum description. General relativity predicted them.
Yesterday we saw the first ever picture of a black hole. Nice timing!
EU isn't even putting forth a theory. Your criticism is actually "science doesn't know everything so it's wrong"? Did you actually just say that?

And yes, superstition doesn't need data. You confirmed that in one of your recent posts:

"I don´t care "how it works" at all." - you don't need data, you just "know" it works. It's "logical".
HA!

Regarding Big Bang problems,

read here. Note the term "adjustable parameters" which is mentioned all through the article. This term is just another expression for "ad hoc assumptions" and lots of them.

Excerpt from the article:
"The Big Bang, much like the Santa Claus hypothesis, no longer makes testable predictions wherein proponents agree that a failure would falsify the hypothesis. Instead, the theory is continually amended to account for all new, unexpected discoveries.

All debunked.
Your example posted here:

(1) Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models.

"This is incorrect on several fronts. First of all, we get very good
and precise fits from the Big Bang model. Additionally, the “cosmic
deceleration parameter” turns out to be negative. It was true 10
years ago that different lines of reasoning suggested different
values for this parameter, but the truth was that we really hadn’t
been able to make a good measurement of it. Now we have, and
the acceleration of the Universe fits with sundry lines of
reasoning— so much so that now have what is frequently called
“standard model” of cosmology, or a “concordance cosmology”, with the
various parameters (expansion rate, overall density, dark energy
density, age of the Universe, etc.) measured each to within 5%. This
agreement is now nearly a decade
old; here
is a link to a 1999 Science abstract about the concordance,
and here is a link
to a preprint site that has the full text.

This objection also points out something that I will probably devote
an entire post to in the future: a misuse of Occam’s Razor. Too often
people object to a scientific theory on the basis that they have a
“simpler” theory which must be favored because of Occam’s Razor."


Answering Objections to the Big Bang – Galactic Interactions

Indeed, many young scientists now think of this as a normal process in science! They forget or were never taught that a model has value only when it can predict new things that differentiate the model from chance and from other models before the new things are discovered.

Explanations of new things are supposed to flow from the basic theory itself with at most an adjustable parameter or two, and not from add-on bits of new theory".

So the EU conspiracy people say while they indoctrinate you.

In the real world, Brian Koberlein an astrophysicist read:
Reference: The Electric Universe by Wallace Thornhill and David Talbot

Reference: The Electric Sky by Donald E. Scott

Reference: A Beginner’s View of Our Electric Universe by Tom Findlay (PDF)

and wrote a review and analysis.
Then he spent almost 5 years going back and forth with EU people to keep the article current.
It's all posted on the same page.

Of course they came at him with all the same "your a shrill, close minded, ad-hom, ad-hom"
He's responded to all their questions, a few here and there were reasonable. Most were just upset at the fact that anyone question EU theory.
Even though science always openly explores areas where it needs work EU is simply always right. Even though there are competing ideas?
And as usual, no theory.

No one posting in favor of EU was able to make any type of case for the idea, it's exactly like this discussion. The EU people just like it better.



Testing the Electric Universe - One Universe at a Time



"Ah, now I see what you’re getting hung up on. You think neutrinos aren’t real, but the physical effects ascribed to neutrinos are. You don’t like the standard model, so you reject it. You replace it with a model you think describes the physical effects we see, and since you like it better, it must therefore be more “true” than the standard model. Your linked paper reinforces this, though this the proper public link. The author argues that the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is “wrong” because the author doesn’t like it. He then proceeds to argue that the Schwinger model is better, and implies that it was rejected for some scientific bias. It’s actually a decent approach for some cases, and not for others, which is why path integrals are more widely used in QED. Of course nowhere in the paper are there predictions that might distinguish the author’s claim from the others.

So thank you for this. I think you’ve clarified something I have misunderstood about both you and EU fans. I assumed you were at least trying to do science, just badly. You’re not. You’re simply stomping your feet and declaring that you don’t like the scientific models we’ve created. You’re having a collective tantrum against the complexity of modern science without understanding either the history or details of the work. That’s why none of you are interested in actual predictions, and why you keep taking the “you’re obviously wrong, my theory is obviously right” position without being willing to prove it.

That’s why so many of these comments are unproductive. It’s as if I’m arguing that chocolate ice cream contains cacao, and you’re arguing that since you don’t like chocolate ice cream, anything that contains cacao can’t be ice cream. Thanks again for helping me understand you.

Interesting side note. Julian Schwinger and his interpretation of QM is actually quite well known. He’s a Nobel Laureate after all. He’s also known for demonstrating that not only do neutrinos exist, but that there are three flavors of them.[/QUOTE]

 

[joelr]

This is merely an assertion. After 2000 BC there is ample evidence people thought the sun was a "god" but before this no such evidence exists.

Indeed, recorded history doesn't even start until circa 2000 BC. What they did have was multiple words that meant "sun" including one that translates as "sun": 1212c. whose two points are the rays of the sun... If they believed in gods and magic it follows in our minds they had no science.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/pyt27.htm

You could have just taken a quick peek at the Wiki solar-deity page:
Solar deity - Wikipedia


"From at least the 4th Dynasty of ancient Egypt, the sun was worshipped as the deity Re "
4th Dynasty was 2600BC

even earlier:
Africa
"The Tiv people consider the Sun to be the son of the supreme being Awondo and the Moon Awondo's daughter. The Barotse tribe believes that the Sun is inhabited by the sky god Nyambi and the Moon is his wife. Some Sara people also worship the sun. Even where the sun god is equated with the supreme being, in some African mythologies he or she does not have any special functions or privileges as compared to other deities."

so it goes back to any form of recorded history and likely goes right back to the beginning of god worshiping.

 

[Native]

Indeed, recorded history doesn't even start until circa 2000 BC. What they did have was multiple words that meant "sun" including one that translates as "sun": 1212c. whose two points are the rays of the sun... If they believed in gods and magic it follows in our minds they had no science.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/pyt27.htm

Of course the Sun can be percieved as a divine source of creation, but it fails when it comes to the natural logics of calling the Sun as "a god".

In order to name a celestial object in gendered names, we of course have to observe a figure on the Sky which fits the images of a male or a female deity and here, either some star constellations or the contours of the Milky Way can be considered.

Your excellent link refers to the goddess Nut and the god Ra and thus to the connection of the Eyptian creation story. It deals with the astronomical and cosmological description of the nocturnal imagery in the Sky.

Goddess Nut is culturally from a different period connected to Hathor who resembles the female like Milky Way figure on the southern hemisphere as illkustrated here - The great Mother Goddess

Hathor is closely connected to Ra (Atum-Ra) in the Egyptian Story of Creation, but Ra is scholarly confused to be the Sun which even wasn´t created in this initial stage of the creation story, in where Ra is "the first fiery entity" to arrive of the "Primordial Waters" (i.e. the cosmic clouds of dust and gas) which came together in a svirling motion in the pre-formation of the Milky Way.

Here we have a the logical connection to a celestial imagery which have imaginary shapes and form of a celestial "Mother Goddess" and of a Atum-Ra which resembles the central light in the Mllky Way and NOT the Sun.

These scholarly confusions of course takes place when cultures forgets the ancient stories and the celestial tellings and become focused on the modern way of thinking and measuring everything in different scientific branches, thus forgetting the overall connections in everything.

 

[Native]

@Polymath257,

Nobody disputes the existence of the EM force. But, like I said, whenever anyone has attmpted to use *only EM* to explain the motions of the galaxy and the solar system, they have failed. This shows your statement 1) is flawed.

Obviously you aren´t up to date in this matter. I just chosed the first link shown up when searching "galactic electromagnetism" - read more here.

Other selected links:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1302/1302.5663.pdf
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/14/meta
https://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/966215/Session-I.pdf
IMAGINE: Modeling the Galactic Magnetic Field

Most Standard cosmologist simply and willfully ignores these facts which of course will continue to show up in their faces as cosmological facts.

3) You seem to misunderstand what is done with black holes. The math works up to the event horizon, which means we can get testable results and verify them through observation (like the recent picture of a black hole).

When scientist have FULLY understand what is going on inside a black hole, we can discuss whether I understand what is scientifically done with a black hole.

It all doesn´t matter as long as the scientists don´t know WHAT is going on INSIDE the black hole. Yes, sceince can test what is going on OUTSIDE the hole, but they obviously get their conclusions all wrong as when their predictions of celestial motions was directly contradicted by the observation of the galactic rotation curve.

 

[Native]

@joelr

I am a bit familiar with the mythical language of symbolism. For one it's mythical. Another is it's symbolism.
According to your logic evolutionary biologists should revise their hominid evolution theory to- there were 2 original white humans named Adam and Eve and ancient snakes talked and gave bad advice.

If you think you understand the mythical language of symbolism, why do you then take the biblical story of Adam and Eve literary and unreflected?

It is certainly NOT the way I interpret the mythical symbolism at all. I´m not even interested in what "evolutionary biologists" have to say about anything.

As for your other "scientific comments" I just take you just as biased as with your imagined understanding of mythical symbolism and when it comes to a genuine and constructive discussion, I´m close to just ignore you as a waste of time.

 

[Polymath257]

Obviously you aren´t up to date in this matter. I just chosed the first link shown up when searching "galactic electromagnetism" - read more here.

Other selected links:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1302/1302.5663.pdf
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/14/meta
https://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/966215/Session-I.pdf
IMAGINE: Modeling the Galactic Magnetic Field

Most Standard cosmologist simply and willfully ignores these facts which of course will continue to show up in their faces as cosmological facts.

On the contrary, those *are* standard cosmologists studying the magnetic fields of galaxies. NOBODY claims there are no magnetic fields. But *you* claim they are large enough and intense enough to produce some pretty dramatic effects.

Instead, what the *measurements* show in your articles is that the galactic magnetic field is about 1/100,000th that of the Earth. This is not even close to being strong enough to do what you require.

When scientist have FULLY understood what is going on inside a black hole, we can discuss whether I understand what is scientifically done with a black hole.

We don't have to *fully* understand what is going on *inside* of a black hole to *sufficiently* understand what is going on outside of it.

It all doesn´t matter as long as the scientists don´t know WHAT is going on INSIDE the black hole. Yes, sceince can test what is going on OUTSIDE the hole, but they obviously get their conclusions all wrong as when their predictions of celestial motions was directly contradicted by the observation of the galactic rotation curve.

That curve has nothing to do with black holes. When we look at black holes, our descriptions work. They work when we look at gravitational waves produced by black hole mergers (and neutron star mergers).

When dark matter is added in, the rotation curves work, but so do things like lensing observations and motion in galactic clusters.

And, what do you offer? Only rather vague claims that we are doing it all wrong and that considering EM forces will clear everything up. OK, take the *observed* EM fields given in your links and explain *anything* about galactic motion in the detail that gravitational theory does.

 

[Native]

@joelr,

You could have just taken a quick peek at the Wiki solar-deity page:
Solar deity - Wikipedia

Read my reply and answer here #706 and how scholars all over in encyclopedias and books confuses the central Milky Way light as representing the Sun.

There is NO logical or natural ways of imaging the sun as shown here - Solar deity - Wikipedia

 

[Native]

@Polymath,

On the contrary, those *are* standard cosmologists studying the magnetic fields of galaxies. NOBODY claims there are no magnetic fields. But *you* claim they are large enough and intense enough to produce some pretty dramatic effects.
Instead, what the *measurements* show in your articles is that the galactic magnetic field is about 1/100,000th that of the Earth. This is not even close to being strong enough to do what you require.

You can of course cherry pick anything which underlines your bias - What then about this cherry picking of mine - 4.6 billion-year-old galaxy shines light on our universe

We don't have to *fully* understand what is going on *inside* of a black hole to *sufficiently* understand what is going on outside of it.

WHAT??? Seriously??? So you don´t think it matters scientifically that all objects in the Milky Way orbits a central "black hole", which is gravitationally claimed to govern the Milky Way?

I said:
"It all doesn´t matter as long as the scientists don´t know WHAT is going on INSIDE the black hole. Yes, sceince can test what is going on OUTSIDE the hole, but they obviously get their conclusions all wrong as when their predictions of celestial motions was directly contradicted by the observation of the galactic rotation curve.

That curve has nothing to do with black holes. When we look at black holes, our descriptions work.

I just repeat this:
WHAT? So you don´t think it matters scientifically that all objects in the Milky Way orbits a central "black hole", which is gravitationally claimed to govern the Milky Way?

Try to get out of this schizofrenic, disconnected and unscientific point of view.

When dark matter is added in, the rotation curves work, but so do things like lensing observations and motion in galactic clusters.

Yes when "dark matter" convieniently is added everywhere in cosmos where scientist can´t explain the factual and natural observations, cosmological Standard Cosmology scientists can get everything to fit their "predictions", they just can get the hard evidences for their "dark matter" anywhere. Logically so, since "dark matter" just is a mental and intellectual invention.

I´t simply a dark cosmological spot in the minds of those scientists who can´t see cosmos in the natural light of the EM force and it´s formative qualities. (I´ve notised that the article also speaks of the "dark matter" invention of "gravitaional lensing" which just is natural light refraction and nothing else.)

And, what do you offer? Only rather vague claims that we are doing it all wrong and that considering EM forces will clear everything up.

You can take off in the first place offering me some logical explanations of your schizofrenic "explanations" above.

 

[Polymath257]

@Polymath,

You can of course cherry pick anything which underlines your bias - What then about this cherry picking of mine - 4.6 billion-year-old galaxy shines light on our universe

Hmmm....looks to me like this is standard cosmologists looking at local magnetic fields around a black hole. And your point is?

WHAT??? Seriously??? So you don´t think it matters scientifically that all objects in the Milky Way orbits a central "black hole", which is gravitationally claimed to govern the Milky Way?

I don't think it matters what happens *inside* of the black hole since all of the rest of the galaxy is *outside* of it. And we *do* understand that.

I said:
"It all doesn´t matter as long as the scientists don´t know WHAT is going on INSIDE the black hole. Yes, sceince can test what is going on OUTSIDE the hole, but they obviously get their conclusions all wrong as when their predictions of celestial motions was directly contradicted by the observation of the galactic rotation curve.

I just repeat this:
WHAT? So you don´t think it matters scientifically that all objects in the Milky Way orbits a central "black hole", which is gravitationally claimed to govern the Milky Way?

And I repeat, we don't need to resolve what is going on inside the event horizon to understand what is going on outside of it. Yes, it matters that there is a central black hole at the center of all major galaxies. This is well documented and studied. Some of your links even discuss the magnetic fields surrounding such black holes, which *are* very relevant for the formation of the accretion disk around them.

Try to get out of this schizofrenic, disconnected and unscientific point of view.

Yes when "dark matter" convieniently is added everywhere in cosmos where scientist can´t explain the factual and natural observations, cosmological SAtandar Cosmology scientists can get everything to fit their "predictions", they just can get the hard evidences for their "dark matter" anywhere. Logically so, since "dark matter" just is a mental and intellectual invention.

Wrong. it is a valid scientific hypothesis that has produced testable predictions that were verified by later observation. That the results fit the predictions is *exactly* what is required for it to be science. That EU cannot do this is what makes it hokum.

I´t simply a dark cosmological spot in the minds of those scientists who can´t see cosmos in the natural light of the EM force and it´s formative qualities.

You can take off in the first place offering me some logical explanations of your schizofrenic "explanations" above.

What schizophrenic explanations? Why do we need to know what is happening *inside* of black holes (where we cannot observe) to understand what is happening *outside* (where we can)? Why do you the irrelevance of the inside says that we ignore black holes entirely?

 

[cladking]

"From at least the 4th Dynasty of ancient Egypt, the sun was worshipped as the deity Re "
4th Dynasty was 2600BC

And when you can tell me why they said "1212c. whose two points are the rays of the sun" instead of "1212c. whose two points are the rays of Re" then you'll understand what they meant. If you don't understand why someone uses the words he does then you don't understand his premises and you just have another unique interpretation of his meaning just like everyone. Egyptologists can't tell you why this is because the language can't be translated into English. They never even noticed there are no words for "belief" or "thought".

Newton didn't discover the means to understand "God", he discovered a means to study nature but this means, this tool, this science hit the reefs in the 1920's and might never be refloated. Perhaps
euclidean geometry and experiment can't get us beyond this point. Indeed, many things disappear when seen from the wrong perspective and one must suspect that points in space with no dimensions at all through which universes appear just might be part of the problem. How ironic that with all the points in space with infinite distances between each and all filled with more points with infinite distances we could never tell if we were looking for a point or the space between points to locate a big bang. Mebbe all points exist because universes have emerged from them.

Wiki is one of the most powerful tools ever devised by man but it's always wrong. Until people realize that we think in a language that defines words in terms of other words and that there can be language where words have fixed concrete meanings we'll never understand Whale, Beaver, or our ancestors. "Re" and "sun" each had fixed meanings that were identical, were not defined, and the choice of word determined the meaning of a sentence by identifying the subject and perspective.

Perhaps if we worked harder at creating a scientific language that can't be parsed we could understand experiment sufficiently to get past this point. Maybe if we could use ancient science and modern science simultaneously we could get by. Maybe we've merely gotten to a point that the scale of experiment has gotten too extreme. Until basic answers to basic questions arise I would posit that "technology" is merely a manifestation of 19th century theory and we are really stuck in the 1880's in most of what we call "science" now days.

 

[Native]

@Polymath,
Native said: ↑
You can of course cherry pick anything which underlines your bias - What then about this cherry picking of mine - 4.6 billion-year-old galaxy shines light on our universe

Hmmm....looks to me like this is standard cosmologists looking at local magnetic fields around a black hole. And your point is?

My point was and is that the EM force evidently takes part in the formation of the galaxy.

And I repeat, we don't need to resolve what is going on inside the event horizon to understand what is going on outside of it.

I´m stunned indeed! This is just a bad excuse for not knowing at all what is going on inside "the event horizon" of a central hole in galaxies.

It is really too much! There cosmological scientists have a mathematical singularity flat 2 D hole sitting in the middle of 3 D galaxies and claiming that the motion of the central swirling hole hasn´t anything to do with the galactic rotation and with all the orbital objects in the galaxy!? Good grief!

Wrong. it is a valid scientific hypothesis that has produced testable predictions that were verified by later observation. That the results fit the predictions is *exactly* what is required for it to be science.

Don´t speak to me of "predictions and results" in the galactic areas where the Standard Cosmology blatantly FAILED to predict the orbital motions in first hand and invented a superficial matter in order to rescue the failed theory. I simply don´t bye it and I consider such an invention as pure nonsens.

What schizophrenic explanations? Why do we need to know what is happening *inside* of black holes (where we cannot observe) to understand what is happening *outside* (where we can)? Why do you the irrelevance of the inside says that we ignore black holes entirely?

Because the so called "black hole" simply is a funnel of a circuital formation", simply illustrated by the disk-like form and motion of clouds around and inside the hole of a geographic hurricane.

 

[Polymath257]

@Polymath,
Native said: ↑
You can of course cherry pick anything which underlines your bias - What then about this cherry picking of mine - 4.6 billion-year-old galaxy shines light on our universe

My point was and is that the EM force evidently takes part in the formation of the galaxy.

And nobody has denied that. But gravity is still dominant. You can't ignore the effects of either gravity or EM, but the EM is far, far less important for overall dynamics than gravity.

I´m stunned indeed! This is just a bad excuse for not knowing at all what is going on inside "the event horizon" of a central hole in galaxies.

It is really too much! There cosmological scientists have a mathematical singularity flat 2 D hole sitting in the middle of 3 D galaxies and claiming that the motion of the central swirling hole hasn´t anything to do with the galactic rotation and with all the orbital objects in the galaxy!? Good grief!

Don´t speak to me of "predictions and results" in the galactic areas where the Standard Cosmology blatantly FAILED to predict the orbital motions in first hand and invented a superficial matter in order to rescue the failed theory. I simply don´t bye it and I consider such an invention as pure nonsens.

No more nonsense than the prediction of Neptune was from the motion of Uranus not matching the predictions. And the fact that it matches *other*, and *independent* observations is what confirms the hypothesis. That's the part you consistently ignore. Once we postulate the dark matter, things come into line with observations. Not *just* the observations that lead us to postulate dark matter, but *other* observations.

And now that we have the distribution of dark matter described, the calculations *do* agree with observations *in detail*.

Now, can you do *anything* like that with EU? No.

Because the so called "black hole" simply is a funnel of a circuital formation", simply illustrated by the disk-like form and motion of clouds around and inside the hole of a geographic hurricane.

The 'swirling' around a black hole is *outside* of the black hole.

And, again, this *is* standard cosmology. And it is *based* on the gravity of the black holes and the interaction of that gravity with the EM forces.

 

[Native]

@cladking,

If you don't understand why someone uses the words he does then you don't understand his premises and you just have another unique interpretation of his meaning just like everyone.

Agreed in this.

Egyptologists can't tell you why this is because the language can't be translated into English.

The ONLY way the Egyptian hieroglyphs can be translated, (to ANY and ALL language) is by knowing of the use of natural symbols describing everything "between Heaven and Earth.

Wiki is one of the most powerful tools ever devised by man but it's always wrong.

As much as I admire Wiki, I´m also aware that the active writing participants mostly inherit the knowledge from older sources who haven´t experienced things for themselves or from persons who neccesarily don´t have the needed ideas or skills in order to get things right. And this goes especially for the astronomical and cosmological knowledge of our ancestors mythical world perception which has been hugely dimished by modern humans.

In this way, the central Milky Way Light is frequently confused by scholars to represent the Sun which of course distorts the entire mythical and astronomical plot to be the pure confused nonsense.

 

[Native]

And nobody has denied that. But gravity is still dominant. You can't ignore the effects of either gravity or EM, but the EM is far, far less important for overall dynamics than gravity.

One more obvious and contra intuitive contradiction from a cemented believer on the weakest force of all.

And now that we have the distribution of dark matter described, the calculations *do* agree with observations *in detail*.

You don´t fool me All you have, is the distribution of an intellectual/mental idea of something which isn´t found anywhere and it NEVER will be either.

To me, this is just an infectuous philosophical illness which have attacked modern cosmological scientists

 

[cladking]

@cladking,

The ONLY way the Egyptian hieroglyphs can be translated, (to ANY and ALL language) is by knowing of the use of natural symbols describing everything "between Heaven and Earth.

Yes, the system describes what I believe they called the "sdsd" and everything above and below that was a part of their scientific theory. Theory became language itself and when this language became too complex effort was made to pass down its knowledge in terms of myth and legend expressed in modern confused language.

As much as I admire Wiki, I´m also aware that the active writing participants mostly inherit the knowledge from older sources who haven´t experienced things for themselves or from persons who neccesarily don´t have the needed ideas or skills in order to get things right. And this goes especially for the astronomical and cosmological knowledge of our ancestors mythical world perception which has been hugely dimished by modern humans.

Wiki does a good job of getting state of the art into their pages but state of the art is wrong. There is necessarily a lot of opinion in writing these pages but there is also a lot of opinion in modern beliefs. The "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" isn't opinion. Wiki is. Between the two a great deal of knowledge exists.

 

[ecco]

I am a bit familiar with the mythical language of symbolism. For one it's mythical. Another is it's symbolism.

Biggest chuckle of the day.

 

[Polymath257]

One more obvious and contra intuitive contradiction from a cemented believer on the weakest force of all.

However counter-intuitive it is for *you*, it is something backed up by observation and extensive testing. At that point, your intuition is irrelevant. it is time to change your intuition to face the facts.

You don´t fool me All you have, is the distribution of an intellectual/mental idea of something which isn´t found anywhere and it NEVER will be either.

You don't seem to understand how unlikely it would be that several different lines of evidence would reach the same numbers. The fact that the same amount of dark matter is required for all the different explanations is a significant thing.

To me, this is just an infectuous philosophical illness which have attacked modern cosmological scientists

What? Agreement with observation? Ability to predict future observations of independent results? Confirmation along several different lines of evidence?

If that is philosophical illness, then bring on more illness.

What you offer, instead, is no predictability, no details, vague generalities, lack of any actual scientific theory, and adherence to some chosen belief in spite of contrary evidence.

If that is philosophical health, then we need a different doctor.