As for all of your demeaning mythical comments, I just don´t care since I don´t take you for an expert in these realms.
Except my mentor is Joseph Campbell who is the worlds expert on mythology.
Campbell also says myth is not science.
No I don´t at all. I more than suggest is that EM is not understood on the cosmic scales, mostly because of different scientific EM areas once have their own EM approaches, which lead to the splitting up the general EM force into several fundamental EM-forces.
That is exactly what I said. Having to re-work EM to account for the other forces, to increase it's strength and to split it up into various theories means we currently do not full understand EM. That is exactly what that would mean.
But in real science, in the standard model EM is completely understood. It will not account for the strong force. What you suggest would mean we don't understand EM yet.
You're playing word-games as if that makes it mean something else.
No.
To change EM to make it do what the strong force does means an entirely new understanding of EM would have to be created. Because you don't know what the strong force is, how it works, how essential it is and how impossible it would be for photons to do this (Maxwell and quantumelectrodynamics would be wrong) you seem to think it isn't a big deal.
This is one of many reasons I say to read a dozen or so pop-quantum physics books first.
QED is the most accurate theory ever produced by man, it predicts the magnetic moment of the electron to a decimal point higher than any other theory predicts anything.
It's not wrong. But to make light do what you say everything would be wrong.
It isn't. There will be new science but EU is not happening.
Of course I´m not opposing Maxwell´s EM laws. If you have paid more attention to what I´m dealing with, you would have know by know that I´m focusing on the formational processes in cosmos. It´s just your own bias which leads you astray.
I know, all science is wrong and everyone is bias. You are "that guy".
You can say "formational processes" all day long but if it's all EM then you need EM to account for the strong force. No matter how you spin it.
???
Don´t include mythical comments in your replies. You have no clues of the ancient creation myths.
I'll post what I like. We can add "bullying" to your list of flaws I guess.
You are allowed to post science comments in your thread and you clearly have no clue of modern science.
of formations in cosmos.
And this fits very well to the EM formational processes all over the places in micro- and macrocosm where the EM works as it´s strongest in the plasmatic realms.
No, your answer is pure gibberish. "Plasmatic realms", micro-macroosm"???
I'm explaining that the strong force is very short range. It does not extend at all beyond the nucleus. It holds protons together in atoms which should be repelling apart. That's all I was talking about.
Your answer with "realms" and micro-maco blah blah" is completely out in non-sequiter land?
You have not dealt with the strong force yet except to post nonsense?
Seriously can you make a straight answer that isn't in mythical elderich?
The strong force is mediated by gluons, they are only active very close to the nucleus and they work to hold the protons together. Even though the EM charges are pushing them apart.
So EM cannot fix this. Can you comment on this without talking gibberish and floating your consciousness into the plasmatic realm?
Here the standard cosmologists confuses the much stronger EM formational forces as "gravitational forces" and extend this increasingly to "work stronger in longer distances". This is just a plain misconception.
What are EM formational forces? Explain in laymans terms them post to some papers.
Of course standard cosmologicists have to ascribe much more force to the "gravity" as long as they ignores the other 3 stronger EM fundamental forces on the macro-cosmic scales.
Because real scientists can write out equations that quickly tell them that line of thinking is nonsense.
Some laymen who do not understand science might think that is possible.
Some laymen think the Earth is flat,
I don´t take Einsteins strange "curved space time" seriously, but otherwise I agree here. The different disagreements between the standing cosmological models just shows how important it is to find a common model.
Still waiting for refutations of all of the proof of general relativity?
And when you take all standing cosmological models, most of these have troubles dealing with the one model which is based on the Newtonian ideas of gravity - and especially with all the "dark ghosts" which later on is invented to "explain" phenomenons which ONLY can be explained by the formational forces of EM working on the plasmatic scales of cosmic "clouds of gases and dust".
Why would you ever say something like "ONLY can be explained by"???
For one the thing you want to use to explain it does not have a working model to even try to explain that?
But why would you be so close-minded and think there is only one way to explain something?
This is exactly the god-in-the-gap argument, ..."god must be the only explanation"?
In this case it's "RA must be the only explanation". Or whatever god?
The planets aren´t hold in orbits by anything at all. They STILL follows the expanding orbital motions which once were given from the swirling galactic center from where the Solar System once was formed and repelled out in the galactic arm, thus also obeying the discovered galactic rotation curve.
Right except we use gravitational equations to gain an enormous amount of momentum on a spaceship, an amount only gravity could provide when we slingshot along a planet and use it's gravity to accelerate far more than if you were just using angular momentum.
That is just one of a tremendous amount of ways to show gravity is real.
Newtonian gravity.
I noticed you dropped the triangulation of GPS sattelites a long time ago.
You really don't care about evidence, this is all a religious pursuit to you.
