The Mess In Modern Cosmology

[Native]

The problem is apparently especially difficult to solve. Do you think that is a source of chaos or crisis in science? It's not.

No, it is not that difficult, but modern cosmological science has made it difficult for itself by not revising its 350-year-old fundament, based on something which cannot be explained scientifically by what dynamic means it should work, namely Newtons - and Einsteins - gravitational mental constructs.

Logically, this is bound to result in cosmological chaos and mess everywhere which works against each other and hinders a unified theory.

 

[Native]

OK, but how does this translate into a crisis for science? Where's the mess? Quantum theory and relativity are also highly counterintuitive, with time dilating and particles popping out in points for no apparent reason.

Excactly so - and the damn "gravity" is in the way in all cosmological models as well, so the cosmological mess continues untill gravity is explained/discarded and Einsteins Relativity is revised.

Quantum Theory is what is left on the cosmological scene and this requires "electromagnetic thinking" everywhere in micro- and macrocosm. Here the electromagnetic attractive polarity is what binds atoms and molecules together to form everything and as such it can exchange the conventional "gravity formation".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The only "mess" I see is the OP.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OP: Mythical, medieval and modern cosmology.

Video Abstract:
Today we find ourselves in a state of impasse in cosmology, a state very reminiscent of the early Greeks who conducted though experiments in favour of doing practical work. In this episode we will follow the evolution of cosmology through the eyes of Hannes Alfven. Hannes Alfven won the nobel prize in 1970 for his work on plasma physics. We will exploire his ideas on why we find ourselves in such a state and understand his vision for the future of cosmology.

My comment:
The authors argument of the first cosmological stories and "the further the story travelled, the more uncertain a story became", doesn´t really hold waters. The first human cosmological stories are basically STILL very similar and certain.

It´s more the later historic and modern humans who are being more and more uncertain of the cosmological extends and meaning in the ancient cultural Stories of Creation, which all were and still are very similar. If the meaning in these old stories frequently have been retold and remembered, I bet the standing cosmological confusions never would have taken place.

All the ancient stories had LIGHT = Electromagnetic Frequencies to be the creative and cyclically recreative power, so an "Electric Universe" isn´t a modern invention at all.

BTW: Our ancestors didn´t have any stories of a beginning of the entire Universe, as their telling "only" concerned the pre-conditions and factual creation of the Milky Way galaxy and the Solar System, and besides this, they had the creation cycles to be eternal everywhere.

Sarcastic excerpt: Mathematics can be used to describe not understood cosmological observations, thus leading the scientists and everyone else further and further astray without having any logical connections to the real world.

Regards
Native

So everything is light in the end. Then do the actual model of that in scientific terms.

 

[Revoltingest]

If more and more cosmological data results in more and more questions, it´s most likely the cosmological theories and interpretations of the data which are wrong.

Exactly!
As the famous statistician, George Box, said....
"All models (theories) are wrong. But some are useful."

And as a scruffy smelly groundskeeper said....
"Science doesn't have the truth.
It's just a useful way to deal with reality."

 

[Native]

The only "mess" I see is the OP.

And this exclusion is a mess in itself

 

[Native]

And as a scruffy smelly groundskeeper said....
"Science doesn't have the truth.
It's just a useful way to deal with reality."

This wise fellow couldn´t possibly have thought of the cosmological science reality, then

 

[Revoltingest]

This wise fellow couldn´t possibly have thought of the cosmological science reality, then

Oh, he ponders it continually.
He just expects that new data lead to modifying
or creating new theories. And he thanks his lucky
stars that he lives in an age of spectacular new
technologies that allow seeing so much & so far
back in time. It's more interesting & fruitful than
pursuing The Truth...which is a false goal that's
doomed to disappoint.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh, he ponders it continually.
He just expects that new data lead to modifying
or creating new theories. And he thanks his lucky
stars that he lives in an age of spectacular new
technologies that allow seeing so much & so far
back in time. It's more interesting & fruitful than
pursuing The Truth...which is a false goal that's
doomed to disappoint.

One assumption that some actual scientist hold is in effect that the universe is lawful in scientific terms. But that is not a given.

 

[Revoltingest]

One assumption that some actual scientist hold is in effect that the universe is lawful in scientific terms. But that is not a given.

I don't understand.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't understand.

No, that is philosophy of science and involves jargon as per base axiomatic assumptions about objective reality. But you don't do that. I know.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, that is philosophy of science and involves jargon as per base axiomatic assumptions about objective reality. But you don't do that. I know.

Yer posts are just soaring over me head.

 

[Native]

So everything is light in the end. Then do the actual model of that in scientific terms.

“Light” is just one of the electromagnetic frequencies, but the physical visible one for humans, hence our ancestors all over took this as their prime cultural symbol of creation.

Electromagnetism (E&M) works with repulsive and attractive polarities, and the latter one is what binds electromagnetic quality atoms and molecules together everywhere in micro- and macrocosm, thus forming everything you can think of.

The E&M logically works as ONE FUNDAMENTAL FORCE with different but complementary polarities, it works with different charges, in different frequencies and on different ranges.

“Quantum Gravity” is simply the strong attractive force in the E&M which gives/binds weight/mass to everything, and the rotational motion in everything is governed and given by the double helical running electric current – and all orbital motions everywhere are given by the formation process itself:

The factual formation of stars is governed by a strong E&M attractive force working on cosmic clouds of gas and dust and assemble these in a swirling motion into stars and planets until they have reached a critical mass which is centrifugally slung away from the formative center. This is what takes place all over in the observed Cosmic Web in which luminous “knots”, swirling galaxies are formed, and stars are made.

You probably have more questions and demands to this quick explanation, and you´re welcome.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yer posts are just soaring over me head.

At least you are honest. That is good and a start. And no, you don't have to learn what I have learned to be a good enough human. You already are that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

“Light” is just one of the electromagnetic frequencies, but the physical visible one for humans, hence our ancestors all over took this as their prime cultural symbol of creation.

Electromagnetism (E&M) works with repulsive and attractive polarities, and the latter one is what binds electromagnetic quality atoms and molecules together everywhere in micro- and macrocosm, thus forming everything you can think of.

The E&M logically works as ONE FUNDAMENTAL FORCE with different but complementary polarities, it works with different charges, in different frequencies and on different ranges.

“Quantum Gravity” is simply the strong attractive force in the E&M which gives/binds weight/mass to everything, and the rotational motion in everything is governed and given by the double helical running electric current – and all orbital motions everywhere are given by the formation process itself:

The factual formation of stars is governed by a strong E&M attractive force working on cosmic clouds of gas and dust and assemble these in a swirling motion into stars and planets until they have reached a critical mass which is centrifugally slung away from the formative center. This is what takes place all over in the observed Cosmic Web in which luminous “knots”, swirling galaxies are formed, and stars are made.

You probably have more questions and demands to this quick explanation, and you´re welcome.

Yes, do the actual science and not just the words that you can do it. Just do the actual science. Right now you are not doing.

 

[Native]

Yes, do the actual science and not just the words that you can do it. Just do the actual science. Right now you are not doing.

I expected you to comment on or ask into my paragraphs or other related ones, and not just ignore these and make a full stop on the philosophical discussion.

I don´t care to make the kind of conventional science which makes a mess of everything. My purpose is to inspire philosophically, and if you don´t take my simple words and sentences as values, just leave it be.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I expected you to comment on or ask into my paragraphs or other related ones, and not just ignore these and make a full stop on the philosophical discussion.

I don´t care to make the kind of conventional science which makes a mess of everything. My purpose is to inspire philosophically, and if you don´t take my simple words and sentences as values, just leave it be.

Well, I have another philosophy and another understanding of science. So that is it.

 

[Native]

Well, I have another philosophy and another understanding of science. So that is it.

So why don´t you use your alternate approaches to comment or to ask into what is posted instead of just cutting the line?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So why don´t you use your alternate approaches to comment or to ask into what is posted instead of just cutting the line?

Because what we both doing is subjective in part. You have your cognition as axiomatic assumptions and I have as my cognition other axiomatic assumptions. You want to replace one paradigm with another and I have yet another one as different from the former 2.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So you´re taking all new angles of cosmological approaches but the conventional as being of no values?

No. What I wrote was, "Another science in crisis thread? They're usually from theists about evolution, but we also see it from other people, like the ones who see the ancients as superhuman or extraterrestrial - basically anybody not getting the support they want from science." Like other science iconoclasts, you've offered nothing new - just the idea that you think cosmologists ought to agree with you that their field is a mess because there remain unanswered questions.

I haven´t promoted or mentioned "creationism" and I know for sure that the video author don´t promote it either.

Correct. *I* mentioned biblical creationism. It's an example of a cosmological approach that, unlike the scientific effort, actually is a mess in chaos by comparison. It's a claim lacking evidentiary support that explains and predicts nothing, is contradicted by evidence, is largely and increasingly ignored, and is a bit of a problem for apologists, who have resorted to calling it metaphor and allegory rather than (erroneous) history as it was told and understood - a position literalists still hold. That's what a hypothesis in crisis looks like. Astrology isn't doing too well, either for the same reason, namely, its foundation is guesswork. Most guesses of any kind when there are more than two possibilities are incorrect, and creationism and astrology are two such examples. Scientific cosmology, by contrast, just keeps growing in explanatory and predictive power.

we have dark matter because the conventional scientists only include 1/4 of the fundamental forces and the weakest one too.

We have dark matter because we observe spiral galaxies that ought not be gravitationally stable if their visible matter were the only cohesive gravitational source as well as galaxies lined up as the filaments and nodes separated by relatively empty space that comprise the cosmic web. It's a gravitational issue unrelated to the electromagnetic and nuclear forces. The mystery is not the force involved, but rather, its source if visible matter is insufficient to account for those observed gravitational phenomena.

Of course the participants are happy to be invited in those shows.

That's not what I said. They're visibly excited about their work and the challenges it presents them. Theirs are not the faces or demeanors of people who see their field in crisis. These people are excited about the next discovery. Some were involved in recent major discoveries. Alex Filipenko did some of the work that led to the hypothesis of dark energy. This was done by surveying the distribution of type Ia supernovae once thought to be standard candles, that is, always the same brightness making their relative brightness an indicator of distance. This is based in an understanding of star pairs, one a white dwarf (the carbon-oxygen remnant of a star like the sun after it has burned all its fuel) siphoning off gas from its bloated neighbor, hitting a critical mass threshold of about 1.44 solar masses (the Chandrasekhar limit), and exploding in a fixed and predictable way. But a second mechanism for these supernovae involves two white dwarfs merging, which can produce a combined mass greater than the Chandrasekhar limit and a brighter explosion. This presents a bit of a problem for the dark energy hypothesis, which is based in these stars being the same brightness, but an exciting one. Is this what you would call a mess or a crisis? Maybe, but that's not how it is experienced by the professionals or interested lay people like me.