Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Polymath257]

In the case of celestial motions anyone can set these impirical known motion on equations even not knowing of the factual causes of such motions - and this was excactly what Newton did after his disconnected idea of an falling apple and ascribing his *occult agency force at distances*.

Clearly, you don't know what the equations say nor how to use them to make predictions. Given a couple of *initial* conditions, the equations can be used to predict the motion into the future. And, no, they are NOT simply the empirical observations made by the Babylonians.

You´re confusing matemathical equations without explanations of *causes and effects* as *evidence* which isn´t a proper scientific method. In fact you´re ascribing mathematical equations and calcuations on to a scientific unknown force.

So what? The calculations give specific testable predictions that are subsequently verified by actual observations. THAT is the ultimate test in science. Period.

Your fantasies about 'cause and effect' and issues with 'action at a distance' notwithstanding, real science needs to make predictions for new observations that are specific and subsequently verified. Newtonian gravity has done that incredibly well. Einstein's theories have done even better.

The mathematical theory is all that is required.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
In the case of celestial motions anyone can set these impirical known motion on equations even not knowing of the factual causes of such motions - and this was excactly what Newton did after his disconnected idea of an falling apple and ascribing his *occult agency force at distances*.

Clearly, you don't know what the equations say nor how to use them to make predictions. Given a couple of *initial* conditions, the equations can be used to predict the motion into the future. And, no, they are NOT simply the empirical observations made by the Babylonians.

How many times do I have to say I agree with the celestial calculations before you take it in and remember it?

Yes, the calculations can be used to predict the planetary motion in the future. But when the hypothesis of the *occult agency force* and it´s connected constants (c) & C equations is superimposed on everything else in space, NO further predictions can be confirmed and it furthermore will be periodically contradicted - with the observed Galactic Rotation Curve as the prime example.

This is my very point: The Newtonian *occult agence force* doesn´t work any places at all despite mathematicians making the correct calcultaions regarding celestial motions and space craft launchings. They really do that - but they confuses other logical *dynamics, forces, causes and effects* for *gravity*.

I said:
You´re confusing matemathical equations without explanations of *causes and effects* as *evidence* which isn´t a proper scientific method. In fact you´re ascribing mathematical equations and calcuations on to a scientific unknown force.

So what? The calculations give specific testable predictions that are subsequently verified by actual observations. THAT is the ultimate test in science. Period.

How can your make such a concrete and ultimate claim when your calculations of motion is contradicted in the galactic realms? Where are your overall astronomical and cosmological connections when claiming this?

Regarding the overall astrophysics and cosmology, the general idea of Newton´s *gaseous and metallic particles = mass = energy* as an attrractive force, is launced out everwhere in the observable Universe, thus causing all kinds of highly skewed perceptions, assumptions and conclusions. And this STILL goes on despite this basic assumption already once have been contradicted.

Gaseous and metallic particles in cosmic clouds DONT attract by gravity to end up in in a star which turns the initial gravitational force outwards to radiate gaseous and metallic particles which again gravitates to planets and everything else. This very idea of *attraction* logically contradicts itself even several times. It begins with an attraction and ends up in repulsion and attraction again. There is only ONE FORCE which can do such thing!

Your fantasies about 'cause and effect' and issues with 'action at a distance' notwithstanding, real science needs to make predictions for new observations that are specific and subsequently verified.

And you´re talking about *fantasies*? *Occult agency force*; *black holes*; *dark matter*; *a miraculous Big Bang* and *dark energy*? Does that ring some bells at all?

You´re setting the wagon before the horse here: The scientific method is to make the observation first by recognizing natural patterns everywhere on and above the Earth, then making hypothesis which lead to a theory - first THEN you can BEGIN to make calculations and predictions.

Newtonian gravity has done that incredibly well. Einstein's theories have done even better.

Yes Newton did incredibely well with his mathematic, but he didn´t understand the forces he fiddled with. Einstein tried to understand *gravity* but his brain also got into matemathical speculations which confused everything in cosmos even further with his strange *curved space-time* and his *rubber sheet field*.

The mathematical theory is all that is required.

Agreed - If you understand the NATURALLY OBSERVED involved forces and motions in your equations, and this requires and overall natural philosophical pattern recognition skills before you can calculate anything correctly.

If you put apples in your mathematical equations and calculations, you just end up with lots of apple pies and no science at all. PERIOD!

 

[Native]

Polymath257 said: ↑
But *you* are the one claiming gravity does not. You have given no reason, based on specific observations, to think your claim is correct or that the standard model is wrong.

Gravity Assist “Explanation”.

Why is it that you at all don´t consider and comment on my explanations in my number #1359 post once more posted here for your convienience:
------

The way of gaining knowledge via Natural Philosophy

Some migration bird brains apparently knows instinctively more of *gravitational causes and effects* than some ancient and modern gravitational scientists. Birds are using the atmospheric particle density to gain lift and to acquire *gravitational sling shot effects* when flying in a v-shaped formation.

In this way birds of course don´t "transfer energy to other birds" as the speculative nonsense above with "a spacecraft and a planet transferring energies to another" at distances.

It´s simply a question of using the natural effects of a local direct pressure and take advantage of the lesser pressure behind a moving object in the Earth´s atmosphere and logically the same is the case in space where planets and spacecrafts moves.

Some migrating birds knows that instinctively just by their feeling of motion in the air. This is an observable fact and known science and an experiment which birds do every year in and out.

This is the kind of *logics* and knowledge of *causes and effects* you can get when applying the noble and royal art of Natural Philosophy and thus get rid of your scientifically disconnected and unxplained *occult agency power* speculations.

Don´t you care at all for such logical and natural arguments or what is going on?

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
In the case of celestial motions anyone can set these impirical known motion on equations even not knowing of the factual causes of such motions - and this was excactly what Newton did after his disconnected idea of an falling apple and ascribing his *occult agency force at distances*.

How many times do I have to say I agree with the celestial calculations before you take it in and remember it?

And how many times do I have to say that you can't separate those calculations from the inverse square law for gravity?

Yes, the calculations can be used to predict the planetary motion in the future. But when the hypothesis of the *occult agency force* and it´s connected constants (c) & C equations is superimposed on everything else in space, NO further predictions can be confirmed and it furthermore will be periodically contradicted - with the observed Galactic Rotation Curve as the prime example.

Let's stick with the solar system. There, you are wrong. You cannot separate the calculations from the description of gravity as an inverse square law. So, to accept the calculations *is* to accept the theory.

When it comes to galactic dynamics, all that is different is that an extra bit of mass is added.

This is my very point: The Newtonian *occult agence force* doesn´t work any places at all despite mathematicians making the correct calcultaions regarding celestial motions and space craft launchings. They really do that - but they confuses other logical *dynamics, forces, causes and effects* for *gravity*.

If the calculations are correct, then the theory is working. The calculation is based on the inverse square law, so the fact that the calculations give the correct motion *means* the inverse square law is working.

I said:
You´re confusing matemathical equations without explanations of *causes and effects* as *evidence* which isn´t a proper scientific method. In fact you´re ascribing mathematical equations and calcuations on to a scientific unknown force.

How can your make such a concrete and ultimate claim when your calculations of motion is contradicted in the galactic realms? Where are your overall astronomical and cosmological connections when claiming this?

In exactly the same way the inverse square law of gravity was used to find Neptune from the 'wrong' motions of Uranus, the inverse square law is used to determine the existence of matter we don't see.

Regarding the overall astrophysics and cosmology, the general idea of Newton´s *gaseous and metallic particles = mass = energy* as an attrractive force, is launced out everwhere in the observable Universe, thus causing all kinds of highly skewed perceptions, assumptions and conclusions. And this STILL goes on despite this basic assumption already once have been contradicted.

No, the basic assumption was NOT contradicted. And the rest of what you wrote is nonsense.

Gaseous and metallic particles in cosmic clouds DONT attract by gravity to end up in in a star which turns the initial gravitational force outwards to radiate gaseous and metallic particles which again gravitates to planets and everything else. This very idea of *attraction* logically contradicts itself even several times. It begins with an attraction and ends up in repulsion and attraction again. There is only ONE FORCE which can do such thing!

Who said that the gravitational force is 'turned outward'? The gravitational force is attractive. Always. Period.

And you´re talking about *fantasies*? *Occult agency force*; *black holes*; *dark matter*; *a miraculous Big Bang* and *dark energy*? Does that ring some bells at all?

Absolutely. All of which are the current best descriptions we have for actual observations.

You´re setting the wagon before the horse here: The scientific method is to make the observation first by recognizing natural patterns everywhere on and above the Earth, then making hypothesis which lead to a theory - first THEN you can BEGIN to make calculations and predictions.

Yes, and the theory is the inverse square force law along with Newton's laws of motion. Based on that theory, we can make calculations and predictions and those calculations agree with observations.

Yes Newton did incredibely well with his mathematic, but he didn´t understand the forces he fiddled with. Einstein tried to understand *gravity* but his brain also got into matemathical speculations which confused everything in cosmos even further with his strange *curved space-time* and his *rubber sheet field*.

Except, of course, that Newton's mathematics agreed with observations and Einsteins does even better.

What you don't seem to understand is that being able to make calculations that agree with observation is ALL that is required. If the calculations agree with what is seen, then the theory works.

Agreed - If you understand the NATURALLY OBSERVED involved forces and motions in your equations, and this requires and overall natural philosophical pattern recognition skills before you can calculate anything correctly.

Well, you have to set up the calculation based on the situation you are modeling.

If you put apples in your mathematical equations and calculations, you just end up with lots of apple pies and no science at all. PERIOD!

You are very focused on that apple. Why? It was a flash of insight that was then applied to other things. AND IT WORKED.

 

[Native]

Well, you have to set up the calculation based on the situation you are modeling.

And

You are very focused on that apple. Why? It was a flash of insight that was then applied to other things. AND IT WORKED.

Where are your logical senses? The calculations work on the basis of an ASSUMED *occult force* to which you ascribe all calculations and thus gaining interpretations which only confirms your assumed force - and adding further assumptions ad hoc when the theoretical force fails or directly is contradicted.

And this is called *science*!?

As you in public rejects the definitions and terms in Metaphysics i.e. *what is behind and beyond*.

I leave you to believe what is assumed and to what your assumed *occult agency force* are assumed to explain, since you obviously have no interest of what really is going on in modern astrophysical and cosmologcal science.

As long as you have your *belowed number acrobatics of occult agencies*, you seemingly are satisfied and peace be with that then.

 

[Polymath257]

And

Where are your logical senses? The calculations work on the basis of an ASSUMED *occult force*.

Whatever that means. But that assumption gives the correct motion. And *that* is all that is required: agreement with actual observations.

As you in public rejects the definitions and terms in Metaphysics i.e. *what is behind and beyond*.

I leave you to believe what is assumed and to what your assumed *occult agency force* are assumed to explain, since you obviously have no interest of what really is going on in modern astrophysical and cosmologcal science.

As long as you have your *belowed number acrobatics of occult agensies*, you seemingly are satisfied and peace be with that then.

This is why metaphysics is irrelevant to actual physics. People get some strange idea of what is and what is not acceptable, labeling stuff they don't like 'occult'.

ALL that is relevant is that the calculations give the correct motion and that can be verified by observation.

 

[Native]

ALL that is relevant is that the calculations give the correct motion and that can be verified by observation.

And when that doesn´t work by factual observations, you just have to invent yet another *occult agency* as in *dark matter*, and then you can keep on doing your number acrobatics forever without thinking of *causes and effects* and of what the term *natural logics* means.

PERIOD!

 

[alsome]

@ben d ,
I didn't write that blog, I copied it, and thought it fit here.

About that argument about the reason for "gravity", and the cosmos is expanding, again...
into what ? How does the container of the cosmos, exert pressure, causing gravity?
I'm happy I'm not too smart, those facts scare the hell out of me.

 

[Native]

About that argument about the reason for "gravity", and the cosmos is expanding, again...
into what ? How does the container of the cosmos, exert pressure, causing gravity?
I'm happy I'm not too smart, those facts scare the hell out of me.

Don´t be scared. It´s all just just confused speculations made by scientists who themselves are scarily and totally lost in space. They even can´t explain what kind of force "gravity" consist of.

 

[alsome]

In search for a beginning, that was never there, like finding heaven, outside the Cosmos.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

@ben d ,
I didn't write that blog, I copied it, and thought it fit here.

About that argument about the reason for "gravity", and the cosmos is expanding, again...
into what ? How does the container of the cosmos, exert pressure, causing gravity?
I'm happy I'm not too smart, those facts scare the hell out of me.

Join the club alsome, I don't know also at this time, the various theories are still working models imho.

 

[Polymath257]

And when that doesn´t work by factual observations, you just have to invent yet another *occult agency* as in *dark matter*, and then you can keep on doing your number acrobatics forever without thinking of *causes and effects* and of what the term *natural logics* means.

PERIOD!

Just like Neptune was an 'occult planet' until it was discovered.

We *know* that black holes exist now, by the way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just like Neptune was an 'occult planet' until it was discovered.

We *know* that black holes exist now, by the way.

I see that you are using occult agencies. So can I assume that black holes were discovered by using black magic?

 

[Native]

We *know* that black holes exist now, by the way.

No you, we, and I know that a rotational center in a galaxy is assumed to count for a *gravitational black hole* - despite factual observations have contradicted the superimposed *gravitational celestial motion* in galaxies.

You could get more universal knowledge of *holes* just by studying a Hurrycane motion and it´s central eye, which deals with the scientific concepts of lifting and lowering pressures around a rotational center which causes both and attractive and a repulsive force - and the advantage of this scientific knowledge is that it doesn´need any *occult agensies* to be explained.

 

[Polymath257]

No you, we, and I know that a rotational center in a galaxy is assumed to count for a *gravitational black hole* - despite factual observations have contradicted the superimposed *gravitational celestial motion* in galaxies.

You could get more universal knowledge of *holes* just by studying a Hurrycane motion and it´s central eye, which deals with the scientific concepts of lifting and lowering pressures around a rotational center which causes both and attractive and a repulsive force - and the advantage of this scientific knowledge is that it doesn´need any *occult agensies* to be explained.

Too many misunderstandings here to even reply. I haven't had my coffee yet this morning.

Just one: the overall rotation of the galaxy is NOT the evidence for a black hole. The actual motions of stars *close* to the center is the evidence. And there is no 'eye of the storm' for our galaxy.

 

[Native]

Too many misunderstandings here to even reply. I haven't had my coffee yet this morning.

Maybe you should have awaited your 10th cup before answering

Just one: the overall rotation of the galaxy is NOT the evidence for a black hole. The actual motions of stars *close* to the center is the evidence. And there is no 'eye of the storm' for our galaxy.

You´re frequently jumping both philosophical and scientifical fences in your attempts to find definitions and answers.

1) Qoute
The Milky Way has a supermassive black hole in its Galactic Center, which corresponds to the location of Sagittarius A*.
Accretion of interstellar gas onto supermassive black holes is the process responsible for powering active galactic nuclei and quasars:"

According to these consensus definitions, you CAN`T even have a hole if you don´t connect the entire rotating disk of *accreation matter* to the central hole.

And it´s the same dynamic case with Hurrucanes formation and it´s central Eye = hole.

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe you should have awaited your 10th cup before answering

You´re frequently jumping both philosophical and scientifical fences in your attempts to find definitions and answers.

1) Qoute
The Milky Way has a supermassive black hole in its Galactic Center, which corresponds to the location of Sagittarius A*.
Accretion of interstellar gas onto supermassive black holes is the process responsible for powering active galactic nuclei and quasars:"

According to these consensus definitions, you CAN`T even have a hole if you don´t connect the entire disk of *accreation matter* to the central hole.

The accretion disk is NOT the same as the whole galaxy. The accretion disk is a region *close* to the central black hole that is highly energetic because of the black hole there.

And the accretion disk is formed from the black hole, not the other way around.

And no, it is not the same dynamic at all.

 

[Native]

The accretion disk is NOT the same as the whole galaxy. The accretion disk is a region *close* to the central black hole that is highly energetic because of the black hole there.

I quoted above:
"The Milky Way has a supermassive black hole in its Galactic Center, which corresponds to the location of Sagittarius A*.
Accretion of interstellar gas onto supermassive black holes is the process responsible for powering active galactic nuclei and quasars:"

Which word(s) in this sentence is it you don´t understand?

And the accretion disk is formed from the black hole, not the other way around.

What? Are you saying the entire galactic accreation disk can escape out from a *black hole*? I´m sure your consensus science don´t like that.

And NOW you suddenly make a connection from the hole and OUT in the disk, which you earlier denied the other way around!

Can you consistently come to agreement on what you mean and WHEN you do which?

In fact, you´re here confirming my perception of a formation of stars in the galactic centers and out in the galactic arms, which of course you frequently rejects just for being opposite.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I quoted above:
"The Milky Way has a supermassive black hole in its Galactic Center, which corresponds to the location of Sagittarius A*.
Accretion of interstellar gas onto supermassive black holes is the process responsible for powering active galactic nuclei and quasars:"

Which word(s) in this sentence is it you don´t understand?

You appear to have that backwards.

What? Are you saying the entire galactic accreation disk can escape out from a *black hole*? I´m sure your consensus science don´t like that.

And NOW you suddenly make a connection from the hole and OUT in the disk, which you earlier denied the other way around!

Can you consistently come to agreement on what you mean and WHEN you do which?

In fact, you´re here confirming my perception of a formation of stars in the galactic centers and out in the galactic arms, which of course you frequently rejects just for being opposite.

That is not what he said or implied. But then you do not know what an "accreation"<sic> disc is in the first place.

 

[Polymath257]

I quoted above:
"The Milky Way has a supermassive black hole in its Galactic Center, which corresponds to the location of Sagittarius A*.
Accretion of interstellar gas onto supermassive black holes is the process responsible for powering active galactic nuclei and quasars:"

Which word(s) in this sentence is it you don´t understand?

I understand them perfectly well. What is it that you don't understand when I point out that these processes occur *close* to the black hole and not in the galaxy as a whole?

What? Are you saying the entire galactic accreation disk can escape out from a *black hole*? I´m sure your consensus science don´t like that.

No, it is stuff falling into the black hole that produces the accretion disk. Without the BH, there would be no disk. And the disk is NOT the much, much larger galactic disk (as you seem to think).

And NOW you suddenly make a connection from the hole and OUT in the disk, which you earlier denied the other way around!

The material falls into the BH, orbiting and gaining energy as it does so. Some of it is directed towards the poles of the BH and becomes what we see in quasars and AGN.

Can you consistently come to agreement on what you mean and WHEN you do which?

I have been consistent. You have fialed to understand both what you read in other sources AND what I said.

In fact, you´re here confirming my perception of a formation of stars in the galactic centers and out in the galactic arms, which of course you frequently rejects just for being opposite.

No, the stars are *destroyed* by the BH, not created by it. The stars are FORMED much farther out in HII nebula, like the Orion and Eagle nebula.