Public Education And Independent Self-Taught Research

[Polymath257]

HOW?

Here are a couple of suggestions.

1. Take the *known* data about the motion of the planets in the solar system over the last 20 years. use the *known* laws of E&M to work backwards to the necessary E&M environment that would produce that motion. Then use the *known* motion of, say, solar flares, to see if those E&M fields are actually there at the strengths required.

2. Do a similar analysis of the motion of stars in the center of our galaxy. take the *known* motion, obtained by telescopic data, and the *known* laws of E&M and work backward to determine what the E&M environment would have to be to produce that motion. Then use the *known* emission spectrum from that region to test whether those fields actually exist at the required strength.

Both of these use known data that is freely available, the known laws of E&M and a bit of work on your part. if you are correct, this should be a relatively easy exercise.

I predict that you won't even attempt it. And if you can find someone else to do it, they will be unable to match the known laws to the observed data.

 

[Native]

BTW: I´m apologizing for some of my shortheaded replies, but as the RF administration fails to notify me in the appropriate time when a reply is posted, this is the result.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
HOW?

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

Fine. you´re welcome to do just that.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
HOW?

Here are a couple of suggestions.

1. Take the *known* data about the motion of the planets in the solar system over the last 20 years. use the *known* laws of E&M to work backwards to the necessary E&M environment that would produce that motion. Then use the *known* motion of, say, solar flares, to see if those E&M fields are actually there at the strengths required.

2. Do a similar analysis of the motion of stars in the center of our galaxy. take the *known* motion, obtained by telescopic data, and the *known* laws of E&M and work backward to determine what the E&M environment would have to be to produce that motion. Then use the *known* emission spectrum from that region to test whether those fields actually exist at the required strength.

Both of these use known data that is freely available, the known laws of E&M and a bit of work on your part. if you are correct, this should be a relatively easy exercise.

I predict that you won't even attempt it. And if you can find someone else to do it, they will be unable to match the known laws to the observed data.

And I suggest you to make the conscious philosophical connection between the electromagnetic properties in all atoms and molecules in the observable Universe and make your logical conclusions of this.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
HOW?

Fine. you´re welcome to do just that.

Again, that is your job, not mine. If you want your ideas to be taken seriously, this is what you need to do.

Native said: ↑
HOW?

And I suggest you to make the conscious philosophical connection between the electromagnetic properties in all atoms and molecules in the observable Universe and make your logical conclusions of this.

Oh, I have made my conclusions.

 

[gnostic]

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.

Actually you didn’t say anything about “cosmic clouds of gas and dust” in that post of yours.

Second, not all cosmic clouds are in plasma state.

The majority of clouds are only in plasma state are ones that have been ionized by stars or by supernova, like those nebulas. These plasma clouds are referred to as HII region.

Other clouds in space, can also be of gaseous state (in not plasma state), like neutral hydrogen gas, or called HI region or molecular cloud (or cloud of molecular hydrogen). Over time, the build up of mass of neutral gas, will cause the cloud to be denser, attracting more gases and dust, and that's due to gravity, not magnetic field or electric field, because molecular hydrogen are neutral (have no charges).

Both HI and HII clouds can be places that form new stars, and when HI region form it’s first star, it can ionize the remaining cloud to, become HII region.

In either case, gravity play role for formations of new stars in these clouds, when the dense cloud exceed critical density, the core will cause gravitational collapse and that can trigger the core into Nucleosynthesis process.

Depending on the mass of star’s core, core of similar mass of our Sun, would convert hydrogen nuclei into helium (proton-proton chain reaction), or more massive core can result in catalytic cycle of carbon, nitrogen & oxygen, hence Nucleosynthesis type known as CNO Cycle.

Look up proton-proton chain reaction and CNO cycle at Wikipedia if you want to learn the basics on two basic types of Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
And I suggest you to make the conscious philosophical connection between the electromagnetic properties in all atoms and molecules in the observable Universe and make your logical conclusions of this.

Oh, I have made my conclusions.

And what are your EXACT conclusion of the above cited sentence?

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
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.

I know this is the normal scientific presedure.

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?

"Need some higher level"? I have all the levels I need to read, analyze, compare, and conclude on historic and present cosmological ideas. - and as long the standing cosmology cannot come up with a Theory of Everything, I wouldn´t get too cocky over having a public education - which even lack education in critical, and logical thinking and natural pattern recognition.

 

[Left Coast]

Native said: ↑
HOW?

I know this is the normal scientific presedure.

"Need some higher level"? I have all the levels I need to read, analyze, compare, and conclude on historic and present cosmological ideas. - and as long the standing cosmology cannot come up with a Theory of Everything, I wouldn´t get too cocky over having a public education - which even lack education in critical, and logical thinking and natural pattern recognition.

Oh good! Then I await the scientific research you're going to perform to test your model and what those results are. I'll be equally interested to see what professional physicists say about the research. Let us know what you're working on!

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
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.

Actually you didn’t say anything about “cosmic clouds of gas and dust” in that post of yours.

I´ve mentioned this 117 times to you before, but you don´t take it in.

The majority of clouds are only in plasma state are ones that have been ionized by stars or by supernova, like those nebulas. These plasma clouds are referred to as HII region.

Other clouds in space, can also be of gaseous state (in not plasma state), like neutral hydrogen gas, or called HI region or molecular cloud (or cloud of molecular hydrogen). Over time, the build up of mass of neutral gas, will cause the cloud to be denser, attracting more gases and dust, and that's due to gravity, not magnetic field or electric field, because molecular hydrogen are neutral (have no charges).

Both HI and HII clouds can be places that form new stars, and when HI region form it’s first star, it can ionize the remaining cloud to, become HII region.

In either case, gravity play role for formations of new stars in these clouds, when the dense cloud exceed critical density, the core will cause gravitational collapse and that can trigger the core into Nucleosynthesis process.

So, you really think the weakest of all forces, a gravity force, can achieve a nuclear process?

Quote from - Strong interaction - Wikipedia
"The strong interaction or strong nuclear force is a fundamental interaction that confines quarks into proton, neutron, and other hadron particles. The strong interaction also binds neutrons and protons to create atomic nuclei, where it is called the nuclear force".

You see? Your Nucleosynthesis process is governed by the Strong Force working on subatomic, atomic, and molecular stages to make firm matters and this formation logically even goes for galaxies and stars.

It is scientific nonsense and a clear contradiction of the determined 4 fundamental forces to assume the Weakest Force to overrule the Strong Force which obviously is working electromagnetically on subatomic and atomic elements, which all have electromagnetic properties which again is affected by external electromagnetic charges and attractive and repulsive polarities.

So you better take the Strong Force to be included as a part of the E&M force and forget your silly weak gravity which cannot be explained scientifically.

 

[Native]

Oh good! Then I await the scientific research you're going to perform to test your model and what those results are. I'll be equally interested to see what professional physicists say about the research. Let us know what you're working on!

I´ve really given up "professional (conventional) physicists" long time ago, and I´ve been working philosophically a long time with trying wake up cosmological conventional thinking and indoctrinated persons.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
And I suggest you to make the conscious philosophical connection between the electromagnetic properties in all atoms and molecules in the observable Universe and make your logical conclusions of this.

And what are your EXACT conclusion of the above cited sentence?

That E&M is one of the fundamental forces of nature and is crucial for the stability of atoms and molecules, but that there are other fundamental forces as well (for example, the strong and weak nuclear forces).

That spacetime is a four dimensional manifold that can be curved and that this curvature is equivalent to gravity.

 

[Native]

That E&M is one of the fundamental forces of nature and is crucial for the stability of atoms and molecules, but that there are other fundamental forces as well (for example, the strong and weak nuclear forces).

Did you read my reply to Gnostic here: #110 Native, 32 minutes ago?

That spacetime is a four dimensional manifold that can be curved and that this curvature is equivalent to gravity.

It dosn´t help me much that you recite Einsteins mental constructs which basically also cant be explained scientifically regarding "forces".
Time" is a human invention for measuring motions and is completely disconnected from the subjective term of "space" - and gravity is also a human and unexplained invention. Einsteins are just being intellectually fancier and dressed up in mathematical disguises.

 

[gnostic]

So, you really think the weakest of all forces, a gravity force, can achieve a nuclear process?

Quote from - Strong interaction - Wikipedia
"The strong interaction or strong nuclear force is a fundamental interaction that confines quarks into proton, neutron, and other hadron particles. The strong interaction also binds neutrons and protons to create atomic nuclei, where it is called the nuclear force".

You see? Your Nucleosynthesis process is governed by the Strong Force working on subatomic, atomic, and molecular stages to make firm matters and this formation logically even goes for galaxies and stars.

It is scientific nonsense and a clear contradiction of the determined 4 fundamental forces to assume the Weakest Force to overrule the Strong Force which obviously is working electromagnetically on subatomic and atomic elements, which all have electromagnetic properties which again is affected by external electromagnetic charges and polarities.

So you better take the Strong Force to be included as a part of the E&M force and forget your silly weak gravity which cannot be explained scientifically.

I am not saying gravitation is the sole force in Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

There are numbers of factors that give rise to nuclear fusion:

As the cloud of hydrogen coalesce together, the build up of mass would lead gravity, that would draw more hydrogen, making the mass denser; the more mass, the higher the density that would mean higher gravity.

And the higher the density, temperature would increase, and this would in turn, would cause the hydrogen gas to lose their electrons, thereby turning the core of the proto-star into plasma of hydrogen.

But Nucleosynthesis process won’t start yet, because the core needs to be hotter, and that means the core needs to become denser still.

I don’t remember the exact temperature the core must reach before Nucleosynthesis can begin, but i think the temperature of the core must be at least 15 MK (as in mega-kelvin) for nuclear fusion to take place at the core.

But that would be for “proton-proton chain reaction”, not for Nucleosynthesis of “CNO Cycle” type. A CNO Nucleosynthesis would require much massive core and higher temperature, about 17 MK.

But yes, strong nuclear force played a huge role in Nucleosynthesis, but before that can happen, gravitation will be the cause of coalescing the hydrogen into dense & hot mass, and that happen when the cloud to contract.

And btw, you read this part in Stellar Nucleosynthesis:

Stellar nucleosynthesis is the process by which the natural abundances of the chemical elements within stars change due to nuclear fusion reactions in the cores and their overlying mantles. Stars are said to evolve (age) with changes in the abundances of the elements within. Core fusion increases the atomic weight of elements and reduces the number of particles, which would lead to a pressure loss except that gravitation leads to contraction, an increase of temperature, and a balance of forces.

 

[Native]

I am not saying gravitation is the sole force in Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

Neither am I, as I´m saying "gravity" is not a part of the Stellar Nucleosynthesis a all, but again you missed the logical argumentative points:
Of course the weakest force cannot overrule the strongest force and its charged attractive polarity - which CAN be scientifically explained opposite the assumed gravity which cannot be causally and dynamically explained.

But yes, strong nuclear force played a huge role in Nucleosynthesis, but before that can happen, gravitation will be the cause of coalescing the hydrogen into dense & hot mass, and that happen when the cloud to contract.

Nonsense! "Gravity" cannot even attract a single oxygen molecule in the Earth´s atmosphere! Use your comparative and logical senses.

Besides, it´s a scientific violation to have a defined cosmic cloudy object to do work on itself. Such requirers an EXTERNAL force to act upon it, in this cosmological case for instants from the electromagnetic currents in the observed Cosmic Web.

QUOTE="gnostic, post: 7938524, member: 4958"]“Stellar Nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia” said:
Stellar nucleosynthesis is the process by which the natural abundances of the chemical elements within stars change due to nuclear fusion reactions in the cores and their overlying mantles. Stars are said to evolve (age) with changes in the abundances of the elements within. Core fusion increases the atomic weight of elements and reduces the number of particles, which would lead to a pressure loss except that gravitation leads to contraction, an increase of temperature, and a balance of forces.[/QUOTE]

You could just as well have assigned your bolded sentence to the attractive polarity in the much stronger and overall UNITED ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE.

 

[Polymath257]

Did you read my reply to Gnostic here: #110 Native, 32 minutes ago?

It dosn´t help me much that you recite Einsteins mental constructs which basically also cant be explained scientifically regarding "forces".
Time" is a human invention for measuring motions and is completely disconnected from the subjective term of "space" - and gravity is also a human and unexplained invention. Einsteins are just being intellectually fancier and dressed up in mathematical disguises.

Thank you for your opinion. My philosophical position is different than yours.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thank you for your opinion. My philosophical position is different than yours.

Wau, that sounds like a cognitive relativist.

 

[gnostic]

Nonsense! "Gravity" cannot even attract a single oxygen molecule in the Earth´s atmosphere! Use your comparative and logical senses.

Good grief.

You are confusing cloud of mostly hydrogen in space -

HI regions (molecular hydrogen, H2, where hydrogen are atoms are electrically neutral, hence it is called “molecular cloud”)

& HII regions (hydrogen in plasma state)
​

- with planetary atmosphere.

You wanted me to respond to “cosmic cloud of gas and dust“, so my my replies (post 106) and then post #114 in response to you about “strong nuclear force”, and that was me making the efforts to talk to you about “cosmic cloud of gas and dust“ and Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

My previous posts were to explain to you that not all cosmic clouds are plasma. Some are, and some are not. The second reply (#114) was to explain what need to occur first before Nucleosynthesis start.

Now. You are changing the subject on me, by trying to shifting the goalpost, from “cosmic cloud of gas and dust” to “Earth’s atmosphere”.

I brought up the two types of cosmic clouds that exist in space, and I brought up what occur before Nucleosynthesis start, and what happens when Nucleosynthesis start. Then I attempt to explain to you about how stars can form from these clouds, HENCE, the area of cloud need to contract and reach certain density and temperature, before Nucleosynthesis start.

Why are you changing subject on me?

The cosmic clouds and planetary atmosphere are two different subjects. So I am refusing to change from subject to subject on your whim.

Do you understand what I am saying about gravity playing role of coalescing the hydrogen (whether it be neutral gas or hydrogen plasma), into body of mass, before star form.

This body of mass must reach density due to contraction by gravity, in order to reach the temperature necessary for nuclear fusion start (hence Nucleosynthesis), about 15 MK for proton-proton reaction type Nucleosynthesis and 17 MK for CNO-type Nucleosynthesis.

Only when nuclear fusion starts, is here that strong nuclear force played role.

You are forgetting that the strong nuclear force maybe the strongest force, but strong force are limited to quantum range (eg formation of baryon particles consisting of quarks) and atomic range (eg what keep protons together in atom’s nucleus).

The denser the matter, like stars and planets, the more it will attract smaller matters and hydrogen atoms like in the cosmic clouds. Strong nuclear force won’t attract matters or particles that are beyond the range of the nucleus.

Do you understand that?

 

[Polymath257]

Nonsense! "Gravity" cannot even attract a single oxygen molecule in the Earth´s atmosphere! Use your comparative and logical senses.

Of course it can. And it does. But since the molecule is small, the force is small. But gravity is why those molecules stay close to the Earth as opposed to flying away into space.

That is, after all, how buoyancy works: the different forces from gravity versus molecular collisions.

 

[gnostic]

"Need some higher level"? I have all the levels I need to read, analyze, compare, and conclude on historic and present cosmological ideas. - and as long the standing cosmology cannot come up with a Theory of Everything, I wouldn´t get too cocky over having a public education - which even lack education in critical, and logical thinking and natural pattern recognition.

There are no Theory of Everything..yet...not in physics, not in chemistry, not in astronomy, not in biology...and not in any field of the respective sciences above.

And there may not ever be one. People have tried, nature are far more complex, so it is not easy task.

It started with Einstein, trying and failing to join General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into a single theory. But each of them, work quite well as separate theories, and still work today, separately.

Since Einstein, other physicists have worked to achieve what Einstein couldn't do, and they still haven't done it. The variant models of String Theory (which included the famous M-Theory) and the Superstring Theory, the Grand Unified Theory, are just some of the approaches to ToE.

The Grand Unified Theory (GUT) have come closest. It is a particle physics model that unified the 3 fundamental forces - strong, weak & EM, that interact with the 4 gauge bosons in the Standard Model:

1. gluon - that mediate with strong nuclear interaction
   
2. Z boson & W boson - that mediate with weak nuclear interaction
   
3. photon - that mediate with electromagnetic interaction

GUT is seen as one step forward to the fully unified theory or the Theory of Everything.

But here is the thing, and you REALLY won't like hearing this, Native.

With all your anti-Big Bang model and anti-gravitation campaign to get to ditch the BB model for your pseudoscience Electric Universe model, is that the last 2 models of the Big Bang theory - the Inflationary model and ΛCDM model (Lambda-Cold Dark Matter model), do use the GUT model to explain the earliest epochs of the BB timeline.

Just as the earlier models (the 1920s model & 1948 model) relied on General Relativity as framework for the Big Bang theory, the Inflationary model & ΛCDM model utilize Standard Model, GUT and General Field Theory - to explain the earliest epochs of the Big Bang cosmology.

ΛCDM ignored none of the 4 fundamental forces, or the unified forces (eg electroweak force, which unified weak and EM as one force, grand unified force that unified strong, weak & EM as one force).

Your Electric Universe isn’t a “Theory of Everything”. Electric Universe isn’t a “scientific theory”. It is not a working “theoretical framework”. Electric Universe isn’t even a “hypothesis”.