Serious Dark Matter Problems

[Meow Mix]

I may just start a thread on teaching cosmology to help forum folks understand and try to keep up with dark matter/dark energy stuff and cosmology in general. You might benefit if I do to see how we know what we know.

 

[Native]

I may just start a thread on teaching cosmology to help forum folks understand and try to keep up with dark matter/dark energy stuff and cosmology in general. You might benefit if I do to see how we know what we know.

Well, it´s your free choice
I though would like to read your thoughts of my post in #60.

 

[Native]

You might benefit if I do to see how we know what we know.

What we don´t know is just as relevant, don´t you think? I mean modern cosmology has the Universe to be filled with 28 % dark matter and 68 % dark energy which cannot be explained but just assumed.

 

[Meow Mix]

What we don´t know is just as relevant, don´t you think?

I'll give you that ^.^

 

[Meow Mix]

Note: When I talk of "going back to basics", I´m thinking of "having a new philosophical consideration of everything in cosmology".

IMO we seriously need a cosmological update to modern standards where some old cosmological dogmas are revised, eventually discarded and exchanged to modern and logical conceptions.

For instants:
1. Telescopes cannot work without electricity.
2. No cosmic measurement can be received without electromagnetic sensors.
3. Signals in cosmos cannot be discovered at all if they don´t radiate electromagnetic frequencies of all kinds.

In fact, ALL measurable signals in space speaks of ELECTROMAGNETIC ACTIVITY and the understanding of these cosmic signals should logically be interpreted according to electromagnetic fundamental forces and not by OLD gravitational ideas and dogmas.

You wanted my response to this when I mentioned I might just start a series of cosmology posts.

1. There are telescopes that don't use electricity, I'm not sure what you're talking about with this one. Large telescopes use CCD's, which are electronic, yeah, but that has nothing to do with what telescopes are observing.

2. I don't get it, literally telescopes' sole job is to receive electromagnetic radiation, so yes, but so what?

3. Not true, we discover many things without direct detections. I've already relayed how we discovered Neptune using gravity.

 

[Native]

You wanted my response to this when I mentioned I might just start a series of cosmology posts.

1. There are telescopes that don't use electricity, I'm not sure what you're talking about with this one. Large telescopes use CCD's, which are electronic, yeah, but that has nothing to do with what telescopes are observing.

You´re missing the very point: Without electromagnetic impulses from space, most telescopes cannot receive anything at all - hence the Universe is electromagnetic in nature and all measurements speak of electromagnetic activity and not of "gravity"

2. I don't get it, literally telescopes' sole job is to receive electromagnetic radiation, so yes, but so what?

Same answer as above. Electromagnetic radiation in cosmos is a mirror of electromagnetic activity in space and should be included and interpreted as a fundamental force in action.

3. Not true, we discover many things without direct detections. I've already relayed how we discovered Neptune using gravity.

True. But modern science also concludes from lots of other indirect observations, for instants with "dark matter" and "black holes" and makes all kinds of other ad hoc assumptions from these indirect observations - which could be logically explained by the E&M qualities and forces.

 

[Meow Mix]

You´re missing the very point: Without electromagnetic impulses from space, most telescopes cannot receive anything at all - hence the Universe is electromagnetic in nature and all measurements speak of electromagnetic activity and not of "gravity"

Same answer as above. Electromagnetic radiation in cosmos is a mirror of electromagnetic activity in space and should be included and interpreted as a fundamental force in action.

True. But modern science also concludes from lots of other indirect observations, for instants with "dark matter" and "black holes" and makes all kinds of other ad hoc assumptions from these indirect observations - which could be logically explained by the E&M qualities and forces.

Detecting light does not mean everything is light, that's absurd. Electron microscopy of a tardigrade does not mean the tardigrade is entirely made out of electrons.

You can't logically explain the cosmos with E&M because you don't have a quantitative way to do so.

 

[Native]

Detecting light does not mean everything is light,

I didn´t say that. I said "detecting electromagnetic frequencies" is a logical tell tell general sign of an Electric Universe.

You can't logically explain the cosmos with E&M because you don't have a quantitative way to do so.

Oh, yes we have indeed:

It´s just a question of using the EXPLAINABLE correct forces into factual space pattern observations.

IMO the EM is ONE FORCE working with different charges, polarities, directions and ranges in the 4 elementary stages. And the unexplained "gravity" has no roles at all in cosmos.

 

[Native]

PS:

Electron microscopy of a tardigrade does not mean the tardigrade is entirely made out of electrons

Without bio-electromagnetism, the tardigrade even wouldn´t be made and live.