Public Education And Independent Self-Taught Research

[Native]

You do it differently. In my tradition the-thing-in-itself is an empty abstraction for anything other that it must be there with reason, but otherwise unknowable than being in itself.

Yes, and well, if your tradition has it that empty abstractions can be thing-and-reason connected, all I have to say is:

Some persons looks for factual thing-connections to find the “thing-in-itself” instead of being lured into empty abstractions and philosophical “theories of theories”.

I take all things to be a part of a basic double polarity and complementary force which creates all things, and I don´t mean a personalized “HE GOD” with this statement.

 

[Polymath257]

First: Telescopic informations of the observable Universe wouldn´t even be possible without electromagnetic frequency radiations.

Which is known and acknowledged. Most of our information about the universe is via the E&M spectrum. There is some from neutrinos and gravitational waves, but that is much, much less.

Second: Even as strong electromagnetic radiation are observed to beam out from galactic planes and otherwhere in cosmos, conventional ortodox gravitationalists ignores this fact as an important part of the cosmological formation.

Again, this is false. The existence of such radiation is known and acknowledged. The associated particle beams are known and acknowledged as a (small) part of galaxy formation.

- This OP has Michael Faraday as an example. His electromagnetic Faraday Motor resemble the very electromagnetic principles of rotation and perpendicular motions everywhere.

And again, Faraday's contribution is known and acknowledged.

NOBODY is saying that gravity is *everything*. All astrophysicists acknowledge that E&M exists and is relevant to some extent.

But, you are denying gravity is relevant at all and that E&M is *all* there is. Which means you are factually wrong about what mainstream science knows and understands and also commit the same errors you accuse maistream science of doing.


And, yes, a completely and utterly deny that philosophical musings take precedence over actual observations and experiments. Faraday was not just a philosopher. He was an exceptional experimentalist. He didn't just make wild claims. He backed those claims up with actual, repeatable, observations done in public. And his contribution is not denied by anyone.

But, you are not even close to the caliber of Michael Faraday. Not in your philosophical musings. Not in any experiments you have done. And not in the ideas you have presented.

There is a reason Faraday was taken seriously and the 'Electric Universe' is not.

 

[Polymath257]

You´re putting alien words in my mouth, but well, those who believe in gravity only, certainly qualifies to this.

And does mainstream science say that there is only gravity? No.

But *you* are saying there is *only* E&M. And that is clearly false.

 

[Left Coast]

This OP is about "Public Educations - And Independent Self Taught Research" and if you don´t take philosophical ponderings as a valid and important research, you of course miss most of my OP-contents.

"Philosophical ponderings" are not scientific research. So it's not that I "miss" your contents, it's that your contents miss the brief if you want to be considered on par in your understanding with people who actually do scientific research for a living.

 

[Native]

NOBODY is saying that gravity is *everything*. All astrophysicists acknowledge that E&M exists and is relevant to some extent.

Why is it then that conventional/ortodox scientists stil clings onto "heavy black holes" and "dark matter" which isn´t needed in an electromagnetic theory?

But, you are denying gravity is relevant at all and that E&M is *all* there is. Which means you are factually wrong about what mainstream science knows and understands and also commit the same errors you accuse maistream science of doing.

Of course I don´t deny that the concept of attraction is relevant and you get that from the atractive polarity in the E&M Force working on the plasma stages.

Faraday was not just a philosopher. He was an exceptional experimentalist. He didn't just make wild claims. He backed those claims up with actual, repeatable, observations done in public. And his contribution is not denied by anyone.

But, you are not even close to the caliber of Michael Faraday. Not in your philosophical musings. Not in any experiments you have done. And not in the ideas you have presented.

May I remind you of this OP?

I don´t discuss personal experimental resources, but the very concept of learning. And Faraday would´t even be known today without having his philosophical skills in the first hand.

Skills which Maxwell acknowledge, and you really don´t.

 

[Native]

"Philosophical ponderings" are not scientific research. So it's not that I "miss" your contents, it's that your contents miss the brief if you want to be considered on par in your understanding with people who actually do scientific research for a living.

I know, and thats why the standing cosmology theory is filled with dark things upto 96 %

 

[Polymath257]

Why is it then that conventional/ortodox scientists stil clings onto "heavy black holes" and "dark matter" which isn´t needed in an electromagnetic theory?

And how do you explain the *details* of the galactic rotation curves? How do you explain what is going on at the center of our galaxy, including the demolition of stars?

Of course I don´t deny that the concept of attraction is relevant and you get that from the atractive polarity in the E&M Force working on the plasma stages.

Prove it. Support your claims by using the known laws of E&M.

May I remind you of this OP?

I don´t discuss personal experimental resources, but the very concept of learning. And Faraday would´t even be known today without having his philosophical skills in the first hand.

Faraday would not be known without his considerable skills as an experimentalist. His philosophical positions weren't relevant for that.

Skills which Maxwell acknowledge, and you really don´t.

Faraday had what would constitute good mathematical intuition in his use of the notion of lines of force. It took Maxwell to actually make it mathematical.

 

[Polymath257]

I know, and thats why the standing cosmology theory is filled with dark things upto 96 %

Then explain *in detail* how the known properties of E&M explain the actual observations.

But be aware that will take some math or some extensive experiments.

 

[Left Coast]

I know, and thats why the standing cosmology theory is filled with dark things upto 96 %

So what? What does that have to do with anything? This is about basics of scientific methodology and empiricism. Hunches in your head are not evidence. They are not research.

Once you've actually done some, come back and tell us about it.

 

[blü 2]

First: Telescopic informations of the observable Universe wouldn´t even be possible without electromagnetic frequency radiations.
Second: Even as strong electromagnetic radiation are observed to beam out from galactic planes and otherwhere in cosmos, conventional ortodox gravitationalists ignores this fact as an important part of the cosmological formation.

- This OP has Michael Faraday as an example. His electromagnetic Faraday Motor resemble the very electromagnetic principles of rotation and perpendicular motions everywhere.

Forgive me if I leave the matter to people with far more expertise than I have.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
You are welcome to inform yourself by reading my RF OP`s..

As already said to Polymath257:


This OP is about "Public Educations - And Independent Self Taught Research" and if you don´t take philosophical ponderings as a valid and important research, you of course miss most of my OP-contents.

I don't miss it. I simply deny its relevance to any description of reality.

 

[Polymath257]

NO, you certainly mean a DESCRIPTION, as you and everybody else also cannot EXPLAIN scientifically by what dynamic means this Einsteinian mental construct should work.

But of course there are numerous mathematical equations connected to this unexplained concept

No, I mean EXPLAIN and not simply DESCRIBE. We can, and do, measure curvature of spacetime and it is connected to gravitational effects. We can, and do, explain how mass, energy, etc contribute to that curvature and thereby produce the gravitational effects.

Maybe the difficulty is in what you consider to be an explanation as opposed to a description.

As I use the terms, an explanation of a phenomenon uses more basic concepts and laws to elaborate why the observations are the way they are.

Of course, that means that there can be no explanation of the most basic concepts. There can only be descriptions of such.

To describe means that we note when and how something happens and look for the patterns of such.

Science does both descriptions (for basic concepts) and explanations (for derived concepts).

So, for example, there is no explanation for electromagnetism and Maxwell's equations. They are basic and not derived from more fundamental laws (unless you count the associated Lagrangian as explanations for the derived force and dynamic laws).

 

[Polymath257]

Why is it then that conventional/ortodox scientists stil clings onto "heavy black holes" and "dark matter" which isn´t needed in an electromagnetic theory?

What 'electromagnetic theory' describes in detail the motion of matter close to the center of our galaxy? Use the known laws of electromagnetism to model that motion *in detail*. If you can get anything close the agreement between observation and theory that the description using black holes does, then someone will listen to your hypothesis.

Until then, you have nothing.

Similarly, if you can give a *detailed* description of the motion of stars around the galaxy, including why they have the observed velocity curve (as predicted from E&M theory), then you will have something close to an argument. But, as far as I have seen, you have given nothing even close to this.

Why, from an E&M description, would you expect the velocity curves for stars to be what we observe? Give details for several different galaxies and compare to actual observations.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, and well, if your tradition has it that empty abstractions can be thing-and-reason connected, all I have to say is:

Some persons looks for factual thing-connections to find the “thing-in-itself” instead of being lured into empty abstractions and philosophical “theories of theories”.

I take all things to be a part of a basic double polarity and complementary force which creates all things, and I don´t mean a personalized “HE GOD” with this statement.

The problems with your Electric Universe model, is that EM forces don’t provide “all the answers” to the Solar System, let alone to the Milky Way and other galaxies elsewhere.

No cosmologists and no astrophysicists say that EM forces don’t play big parts in the current cosmology (Lambda-CDM model of the Big Bang), but it plays its “part”, as do the two nuclear forces (weak & strong) and gravitational forces all have their respective parts to play.

Not all EM dual polarity and EM fields and forces affect all subatomic elementary particles.

You think that everything in nature is all “electromagnetic”, and that nothing can be explain without EM waves and forces, and that’s the reason why you don’t believe in gravity, especially Dark Matter.

But there are a number of things in the world that don’t interact with EM fields.

Take gluons, for example, are vector gauge bosons that mediate strong nuclear interactions between quarks. And strong nuclear forces are what keep quarks in baryon particles (eg protons, neutrons) and meson particles. Strong nuclear force is what keep protons together in an atom’s nucleus.

So if atom was fully ionized, with no electrons bonded to the atom, then what holding all the positive-charged particles together in the nucleus, isn’t EM force, it is strong nuclear force.

Two or more like-charged particles tends to repel each other.

You cannot explain the structures of atoms WITH ONLY ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCES. Both strong nuclear forces and weak nuclear forces explain some things that EM forces cannot do.

Then there are Z bosons and W bosons that only interact with weak nuclear forces, eg radioactive decay of atom, both natural and synthetic radioactivity. That’s another example.

Another example, are the 3 types of lepton particles - neutrinos:

1. electron neutrino
2. muon neutrino
3. tau neutrino

While the other 3 leptons (electron, muon, tau) interact with EM forces (as well as with weak nuclear and gravitation), the 3 neutrinos do not.

Electron neutrinos are the most common of the three flavors of neutrinos, being produce during Stellar Nucleosynthesis from a star’s core (eg our Sun) where nuclear fusion of hydrogen nuclei into helium, as well as by other cosmic rays outside of our Solar System.

Neutrinos will stream through just about every physical objects, including people, and will not be stopped or slowed by electrical fields or magnetic fields (eg the Earth’s geomagnetic fields).

The Earth’s geomagnetic fields are what protect us from most of the harmful radiations from space, but it doesn’t stop neutrinos from passing through Earth.

So my points with these 3 examples, show that electromagnetic fields & forces don’t interact with everything. Neutrinos only interact with weak nuclear forces and gravitation.

If you have studied particle physics, you should already know all of this. And Dark Matters aren’t the only ones that are not affected by EM force.

 

[gnostic]

So what? What does that have to do with anything? This is about basics of scientific methodology and empiricism. Hunches in your head are not evidence. They are not research.

Once you've actually done some, come back and tell us about it.

It isn’t just about Dark Matter and Dark Energy that @Native have problems with.

He completely deny the existence of gravitational forces as one of the four fundamental forces.

No one deny EM play very important roles in cosmology of the universe, but EM forces cannot explain EVERYTHING about universe on how it work.

The problem with Native, is that he is a very big advocate for the pseudoscience Electric Universe cosmology.

 

[gnostic]

Of course I don´t deny that the concept of attraction is relevant and you get that from the atractive polarity in the E&M Force working on the plasma stages.

But you are ignoring in plasma stage, you would have like-charged atoms, and like-charged particles or like-polarities particles, you would have repulsive forces, not attractive forces.

So something is holding the plasma together, and it isn’t EM force.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

- I find it very remarkable that the about 350 year old basic Newtonian ideas of “gravity” still governs most of the standing cosmology.

Probably because, among other things, it works so well and the numbers fitting with natural observations well enough that the existence of an entire planet was accurately predicted based on what at the time appeared to be an orbital anomaly going on with Saturn.
As for Faraday, what he lacked in mathematical ability he more than made up for in powers of observation and careful experimentation. It's very unusual for people lacking such a background in sciences. Jane Goodall is another such person who did this. But she too had a very firm grasp of observation, documentation, and how to properly study things and she advanced primatology and our understanding of other animals by great leaps and bounds.
Darwin had a similar thing going on, where his background was in theology and not biology. But, again, with careful observation and documentation he succeeded in uncovering the process of natural selection.
These are not examples of laymen going in blind. It's more of being in possession of certain skills, and having them finely honed, similar to how Sherlock Holmes relies on his keen powers of observation and deduction to solve.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't miss it. I simply deny its relevance to any description of reality.

You are doing philosophy yourself. How? Simple, neither sentence has any evidence in favor of them and the latter is a cognitive reflection over what matters.
For the is-ought problem we are in the ought side. I.e. we ought to describe reality with science, because that is the only correct way to do it.

 

[Native]

Faraday would not be known without his considerable skills as an experimentalist. His philosophical positions weren't relevant for that.

So you suggest Faraday was rambling unconsciousless around and fiddling with instruments without having any philosophical ponderings and ideas with waht he was doing?

Faraday had what would constitute good mathematical intuition

Agreed, INTUITION and genuine inventions comes cognitively before mathematical skills.

Intuition: “the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning”.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
I know, and thats why the standing cosmology theory is filled with dark things upto 96 %

So what? What does that have to do with anything?

The relevance is that the conventional cosmological science has it´s overall focus on an unexplained force which produces lots of cosmological darkness et all and require lots of patchings.