Public Education And Independent Self-Taught Research

[Native]

Native said: ↑

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.

Sure, you just call it:

Polymath257 said: ↑
Faraday had what would constitute good mathematical intuition - without connecting the quality of intuition to philosophical skills.

 

[Native]

No, I mean EXPLAIN and not simply DESCRIBE.

Well then: EXPLAIN to all of us scientifically which dynamic force works in Newtons gravity.

 

[Native]

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.

So, what´s YOUR problem with an electric universe?

 

[Native]

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.

As a polymath, you really shouldn´t have great difficulties of superimpose the known electromagnetic laws on galactic and cosmological scales.

I´m just providing the philosophical ideas so do your own homeworks.

 

[Native]

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.

Only superficious and superstitious - or plainly indoctrinated - persons believe in something which cannot be explained and physically observed.

 

[Polymath257]

As a polymath, you really shouldn´t have great difficulties of superimpose the known electromagnetic laws on galactic and cosmological scales.

I´m just providing the philosophical ideas so do your own homeworks.

The standard response of those that have nothing.

When the known E&M laws are use to attempt to describe the motion of things in the galaxy, they fail. In fact, they fail far worse than Newtonian gravity.

 

[Native]

But you are ignoring in plasma stage,

Apparently you don´t have paid attention when I´ve reffered to "cosmic clouds of gas and dust" - but I´m not longer surprised by this.

 

[Polymath257]

Apparently you don´t have paid attention when I´ve reffered to "cosmic clouds of gas and dust" - but I´m not longer surprised by this.

Not all such clouds are plasma. They *can* be, especially near very active stars, but they don't have to be.

 

[Native]

When the known E&M laws are use to attempt to describe the motion of things in the galaxy, they fail. In fact, they fail far worse than Newtonian gravity.

Ocf course they fail as long as the occult gravity is involved.

 

[Polymath257]

Ocf course they fail as long as the occult gravity is involved.

So give a description not using it. That will fail as well.

Don't expect other people to do your work for you.

 

[Native]

Not all such clouds are plasma. They *can* be, especially near very active stars, but they don't have to be.

Whatever.

 

[Native]

So give a description not using it. That will fail as well.
Don't expect other people to do your work for you.

Ditto.

 

[Left Coast]

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.

So let's say that's true for a moment. The way to address that, scientifically, is not "philosophical pondering." It is to produce another falsifiable model and then actually test that new model under rigorous scientific conditions. Have you done that? If so it'll require more than pondering and abstraction. It'll require measurement, math, empirical systematically collected data. It'll require in-depth understanding of the existing published scientific research on the topic.

You don't have any of that. That's the issue. What you have is a pseudoscientific idea in your head that you don't have the requisite education or experience or expertise to go about testing. Which is what formal modern science education is for. So go get some!

 

[gnostic]

So, what´s YOUR problem with an electric universe?

I have no problem with EM being used in cosmology, i just think you are bloody wrong just about everything that you have claimed.

EM don’t control the planetary motions in the Solar System, nor the motion of the spiral arms of galaxies.

Second, you brought up Michael Faraday. While I admired his contributions to the electromagnetic physics, he didn’t know everything about EM, he didn’t even the structure of the atom, eg he had no knowledge of the electrons. Nor did Faraday write anything about EM in regarding to astrophysics and cosmology; Faraday has never advocated “against” Newton’s theories on motion and gravity, nor did he advocated “for” the Electric Universe cosmology.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
- 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 . . .

Everything can be assumed to fit together if you´re biasedly take all observations to fit a theory.

As for Faraday, what he lacked in mathematical ability he more than made up for in powers of observation and careful experimentation.

And what will you call this "power of observation"?

 

[Native]

So let's say that's true for a moment. The way to address that, scientifically, is not "philosophical pondering." It is to produce another falsifiable model and then actually test that new model under rigorous scientific conditions.

HOW?

 

[Native]

I have no problem with EM being used in cosmology, i just think you are bloody wrong just about everything that you have claimed.

I don´t more care of what you "bloody think".

 

[Polymath257]

Ditto.

To create a workable model based on the absence of gravity is *your* job, not mine. You are the one that claims it is possible. So either you, or someone who agrees with you, needs to give the details.

I know about E&M and thereby know it has NO chance of giving an accurate description of what is actually observed unless gravity is included.

 

[Left Coast]

HOW?

Well a) by having read and understood the existing scientific research, b) having understood what the shortcomings of the existing research are and c) creating a model that you think better fits the known data and d) developing falsifiable hypotheses to actually test your model.

To even accomplish a) in 2022, you really do need some higher level, minimally undergraduate science education to give you a basic foundation of understanding of what's discussed in the relevant literature. In this case it would need to be in physics and/or astronomy. Do you have that?

No? So the HOW for you right now is to enroll in some classes at a local college in the relevant subjects.

 

[Polymath257]

HOW?

Well, by using your ideas and making some specific predictions based on those ideas that can be checked by actual observations.

You are helped in this by the fact that we very much understand how E&M works.

So, get to it! Prove us wrong.