The Mess In Modern Cosmology

[Revoltingest]

At least you are honest.

Dose that mean dumb but with 1 redeeming quality?

 

[Native]

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.

I find it funny that you´re able to criticizise everything all over the places, and now even criticizing a critical debater - and not being able to contibute with other than "its all subjective".

This is a kind of discussion which I find a waste of time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I find it funny that you´re able to criticizise everything all over the places, and now even criticizing a critical debater - and not being able to contibute with other than "its all subjective".

This is a kind of discussion which I find a waste of time.

Yeah, how objective of you.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
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

What a kind of answer is this? Scientifically suggesting something in the observable Universe not to be stable!?
The" instablility qustion" derives only from the fact that the scientists in question exclude other explanations from alternate forces but the weak and unexplanable occult gravity mess.

Native said: ↑
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.

Uncritical scientists lead to further cosmological mess.

BTW: You don´t have to recite stacks of scientific findings and its histories, as if you think I´m a complete novice in the fields.

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.

Question: How many times in a row can a supernova explode and still being used as a "cosmic standard candle rule"?

 

[Native]

Yeah, how objective of you.

You logically can´t demand objective replies from me to your highly subjective ponderings

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You logically can´t demand objective replies from me to your highly subjective ponderings

Well, if you can solve what objective reality real is, you would be the 1st human to do so in recorded human history.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What a kind of answer is this? Scientifically suggesting something in the observable Universe not to be stable!?

That's what science does. It observes phenomena and develops narratives that account for them to predict future phenomena. The stability of galaxies could not be explained by the existing physics, so new physics was called for. Something unseen is generating the missing gravity. What should we call matter not directly visible and detectable only by its gravitational effects? How about dark matter?

The" instablility qustion" derives only from the fact that the scientists in question exclude other explanations from alternate forces but the weak and unexplanable occult gravity mess.

Disagree. If you have a good idea, go ahead and suggest it to the cosmology and astrophysics communities. They'll tell you if it has any value. You have three other known forces to work with to account for galactic stability. Do you think either nuclear force is preventing the outer galactic stars from flying off the galaxy into intergalactic space? The strong force binds quark into hadrons and hadrons into nuclei. The weak force is also involved in nucleosynthesis, but also has a very limited range of action. Perhaps you feel that it is magnetism holding galaxies together. Go ahead and make your case why any force other than gravity should be considered in this problem?

Uncritical scientists lead to further cosmological mess.

Not really. First, which are these uncritical scientists? The ones at the Discovery Institute like Behe? Their faith-based ideas have no impact, just like Newton's.

You don´t have to recite stacks of scientific findings and its histories, as if you think I´m a complete novice in the fields.

That's an unexpected reaction. Please feel free to explain any science you know to me, even if I already know it. Maybe you can explain how any or all of the three non-gravitational forces can help hold rotating galaxies intact.

The account was provided to illustrate how a problem in cosmology is received by scientists. Not as chaos or mess, but as an exciting and unexpected find that requires that current assumptions be questioned.

I don't know your background in the sciences or the extent of your knowledge, nor why you consider cosmology in crisis ("chaos," "a mess"). Now, you know more of mine, and why I don't.

Question: How many times in a row can a supernova explode and still being used as a "cosmic standard candle rule"?

You mean a type Ia supernova, right? The answer for type II is once, and it's not a standard candle. For a type Ia, if the explosion leaves the white dwarf in intact, it would be for as many times as the white dwarf can accumulate a mass equal to 1.44 times that of our sun. Eventually, it's companion red giant will run out of gas to siphon off, possibly leaving a second white dwarf. The next supernova, which will occur when they merge, will be their last, and may be brighter than the supernovae that preceded it. That's the potential problem in assuming that all of these supernovae are of the same absolute brightness.

 

[Native]

Well, if you can solve what objective reality real is, you would be the 1st human to do so in recorded human history.

May I remind you that humans have lived long before your "recorded human history" and have coped with the natural reality for many hundred thousand of years? Of course, I wouldn´t be the first human to experience the objective reality. (You even can find recorded religious/mythological descriptions of such a knowledge based on natural physical and spiritual observations)

You don´t find reality and objectivity in your bookshelves but in nature itself, and if you´re having troubles discerning “objective reality”, it´s because you don´t connect your intellectual ponderings to something natural in the real life.

When I earlier stated LIGTH to be the most creative symbol for our ancestors, you also failed to connect this natural source of life to real cosmological conditions.

Then you suggested me to describe a “cosmological model of light” and when I made a quick introduction, you didn´t catch any of its points and accused me for “not doing cosmological science”.

Apparently, you don´t take philosophical ponderings and doing critical cosmological analysis and coming up with new cosmological paradigms, as being a genuine part of “doing science”.

And here you have the cause of the standing cosmological mess: Most cosmological scientists – and intellectuals - are disconnected from the natural reality, hence they´ve lost their objective senses and gone far astray in cosmological mathematics and equations and invented all kinds of “dark this and dark that” in cosmos, really to patch up their own lack of natural observation and thinking skills.

They´ve forgot to do their natural philosophical and critical homework, and they even directly circumvent the otherwise highly praised strict scientific method by inventing stuff instead of revising a clear contradicted law or prediction, as it happened with Newtons 350-year-old “universal law of celestial motion” which was directly contradicted by the discovery of the galactic rotation curve.

Get some real “bone and meat” in your arguments when you reply, please.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

May I remind you that humans have lived long before your "recorded human history" and have coped with the natural reality for many hundred thousand of years? Of course, I wouldn´t be the first human to experience the objective reality.

You don´t find reality and objectivity in your bookshelves but in nature itself, and if you´re having troubles discerning “objective reality”, it´s because you don´t connect your intellectual ponderings to something natural in the real life.

When I earlier stated LIGTH to be the most creative symbol for our ancestors, you also failed to connect this natural source of life to real cosmological conditions.

Then you suggested me to describe a “cosmological model of light” and when I made a quick introduction, you didn´t catch any of its points and accused me for “not doing science”.

Apparently, you don´t take philosophical ponderings and doing critical cosmological analysis and coming up with new cosmological paradigms, as being a genuine part of “doing science”.

And here you have the cause of the standing cosmological mess: Most cosmological scientists – and intellectuals - are disconnected from the natural reality, hence they´ve lost their objective senses and gone far astray in cosmological mathematics and equations and invented all kinds of “dark this and dark that” in cosmos, really to patch up their own lack of natural observation and thinking skills.

They´ve forgot to do their natural philosophical and critical homework, and they even directly circumvent the otherwise highly praised strict scientific method by inventing stuff instead of revising a clear contradicted law or prediction, as it happened with Newtons 350-year-old “universal law of celestial motion” which was directly contradicted by the discovery of the galactic rotation curve.

Get some real “bone and meat” on your arguments when you reply, please.

The word "real" is not an objective property as it has no empirical observable properties. There is no real world as per observation, that is an idea in your mind.
Further the word "real" is only about 700 years old. The same with reality and objective. You are doing your own culture as modern and you have to learn that, before we can even start on what the "real world" is.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
What a kind of answer is this? Scientifically suggesting something in the observable Universe not to be stable!?

That's what science does. It observes phenomena and develops narratives that account for them to predict future phenomena. The stability of galaxies could not be explained by the existing physics, so new physics was called for.

This is unscientific nonsense. We have for the time being 4 conventional fundamental forces which covers everything, so adding "dark matter" isn´t "new physics". It´s simply intellectually adding something to the Universe which isn´t there, cannot be found and newer will be either.

And getting the human idea that some motions in the universe is "wrong and unstable", is something of a human hybris. If motions in the observable Universe don´t follow the human invented laws, it´s logically the human laws themeselves which are wrong and need to be seriously revised..

In the standing prevailing take on cosmology, it would be "new physics" if astrophysicists and cosmologists would include the other 3/4 part of the fundamental and much stronger forces to play a fundamental role in cosmic formation and motion, and this was what should have been done by the discovery of the "abnormal" rotation in galaxies.

Native said: ↑
The" instablility qustion" derives only from the fact that the scientists in question exclude other explanations from alternate forces but the weak and unexplanable occult gravity mess.

Disagree. If you have a good idea, go ahead and suggest it to the cosmology and astrophysics communities. They'll tell you if it has any value.

How can they tell of any cosmological values if they don´t have the philosophical clues which I provides?

Do you think either nuclear force is preventing the outer galactic stars from flying off the galaxy into intergalactic space?

You´re asking the good question from wrong premises. Galaxies can have either an attractive or repulsive motion and both motions are smooth and have the same orbital velocity motions of stars compared to its centers. So either the stars are moving into the center or away from its center, as with the case with our Milky Way galaxy. - These motions and formation are electromagnetically governed

The strong force binds quark into hadrons and hadrons into nuclei. The weak force is also involved in nucleosynthesis, but also has a very limited range of action. Perhaps you feel that it is magnetism holding galaxies together. Go ahead and make your case why any force other than gravity should be considered in this problem?

Again, you presume conventional ideas when you ask me to explain new paradigms. All these three scientific divided forces are working with the embedded atomic and molecular charges and qualities everywhere, hence they all are electromagnetically affected and governed.

And since you cannot have three definitions of the basic electromagnetic property, the logical solution it to assume the fundamental E&M Force to be ONE FORCE working everywhere with two opposite but complementary attractive and repulsive polarities, working with different charges, different frequencies and in different ranges in micro- and macrocosm.

Native said: ↑
Uncritical scientists lead to further cosmological mess.

Not really. First, which are these uncritical scientists?

All who automatically take old dogmas as granted despite several signs and evidence of being contradicted and NOT dealth with scientifically.

Native said: ↑
You don´t have to recite stacks of scientific findings and its histories, as if you think I´m a complete novice in the fields.

That's an unexpected reaction. Please feel free to explain any science you know to me, even if I already know it

I don´t care to write of my cosmological biography. Just discern my cosmological knowlege from what I´m writing as I do with yours.

Native said: ↑
Question: How many times in a row can a supernova explode and still being used as a "cosmic standard candle rule"?

I just mentioned this as an example of the hopeless mess in the standing cosmological formation theory based on the unexplained and unexplainable "gravity". Supernovas don´t explode, but they frequently discharges electromagnetic emissions, naturally and just like our Sun.

That's the potential problem in assuming that all of these supernovae are of the same absolute brightness.

Correct so, and this also concerns the strange conventional idea of assuming an exponential increasing expanding velocity, the longer away an object is located.

"Brightness" CAN be because of distances, but this subject has nothing to do with the other subject of velocity expansion. Brightness also depends on "cosmic fog" which bends and slow down the conventional "speed of light", which isn´t constant and has lured conventional cosmological scientists to assume an Universal expansion and it´s connected and unexplainable Big Bang in the first place.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Native said: ↑
What a kind of answer is this? Scientifically suggesting something in the observable Universe not to be stable!?

This is unscientific nonsense. We have for the time being 4 conventional fundamental forces which covers everything, so adding "dark matter" isn´t "new physics". It´s simply intellectually adding something to the Universe which isn´t there, cannot be found and newer will be either.

And getting the human idea that some motions in the universe is "wrong and unstable", is something of a human hybris. If motions in the observable Universe don´t follow the human invented laws, it´s logically the human laws themeselves which are wrong and need to be seriously revised..

...

So you have the idea that the universe is stable and therefore it is a fact, that it is stable. Okay. I have the idea that you are nothing and therefore it is a fact that you are nothing. See, it works on everything. An idea is a fact, because that is how it works.

 

[Native]

The word "real" is not an objective property as it has no empirical observable properties. There is no real world as per observation, that is an idea in your mind.
Further the word "real" is only about 700 years old. The same with reality and objective. You are doing your own culture as modern and you have to learn that, before we can even start on what the "real world" is.

JEEZZ! You´re STILL discussing intellectual words without connecting these to the physical and natural world which provides our objective reality and always has done so.

Please don´t give me more of your extreme thin meat and boneless soup.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

JEEZZ! You´re STILL discussing intellectual words without connecting these to the physical and natural world which provides our objective reality and always has done so.

Please don´t give me more of your extreme thin meat and boneless soup.

Well, I do philosophy differently, since I am a strong universal skeptic.
Here is the modern version of science:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
Do you notice something?

As for the bold, that is not science. That is 1st subjective evaluation. Learn how evidence works, before you claim science.

 

[Native]

So you have the idea that the universe is stable and therefore it is a fact, that it is stable. Okay. I have the idea that you are nothing and therefore it is a fact that you are nothing. See, it works on everything. An idea is a fact, because that is how it works.

Your mind must be full of imaginative strawmen and circular arguments and hithertill not much else.

If you REALLY want to know of my take on the Universe, just ask politely into it - and take my replies seriously next time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your mind must be full of imaginative strawmen and circular arguments and hithertill not much else.

If you REALLY want to know of my take on the Universe, just ask politely into it - and take my replies seriously next time.

I get your take. I just understand it differently for what the world is. That is all.

 

[Native]

Well, I do philosophy differently, since I am a strong universal skeptic.

I´ve noticed that long time ago. Yes, you have the very concept of "philosophy" as an intellectual theory whereas I have it to concern real things in the real natural world.

As for the bold, that is not science.

Well, I take precise conclusions as real science.

 

[Native]

I get your take. I just understand it differently for what the world is. That is all.

Fine. And it´s OK by me if you don´t find yourself in the world other persons live in.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I´ve noticed that long time ago. Yes, you have the very concept of "philosophy" as an intellectual theory whereas I have it to concern real things in the real natural world.

Well, I take precise conclusions as real science.

Yeah, I have never observed the real natural world for the objective observable properties for that claim. You are doing philosophical naturalism and I am doing a version of philosophical skepticism.

You take your ideas in your mind as real independent of your mind and claim it is a fact. I just doubt that and get another result.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
What a kind of answer is this? Scientifically suggesting something in the observable Universe not to be stable!?

That's what science does. It observes phenomena and develops narratives that account for them to predict future phenomena. The stability of galaxies could not be explained by the existing physics, so new physics was called for.

This is unscientific nonsense. We have for the time being 4 conventional fundamental forces which covers everything, so adding "dark matter" isn´t "new physics". It´s simply intellectually adding something to the Universe which isn´t there, cannot be found and newer will be either.

And getting the human idea that some motions in the universe is "wrong and unstable", is something of a human hybris. If motions in the observable Universe don´t follow the human invented laws, it´s logically the human laws themeselves which are wrong and need to be seriously revised..

In the standing prevailing take on cosmology, it would be "new physics" if astrophysicists and cosmologists would include the other 3/4 part of the fundamental and much stronger forces to play a fundamental role in cosmic formation and motion, and this was what should have been done by the discovery of the "abnormal" rotation in galaxies.

Native said: ↑
The" instablility qustion" derives only from the fact that the scientists in question exclude other explanations from alternate forces but the weak and unexplanable occult gravity mess.

Disagree. If you have a good idea, go ahead and suggest it to the cosmology and astrophysics communities. They'll tell you if it has any value.

How can they tell of any cosmological values if they don´t have the philosophical clues which I provides?

Do you think either nuclear force is preventing the outer galactic stars from flying off the galaxy into intergalactic space?

You´re asking the good question from wrong premises. Galaxies can have either an attractive or repulsive motion and both motions are smooth and have the same orbital velocity motions of stars compared to its centers. So either the stars are moving into the center or away from its center, as with the case with our Milky Way galaxy.

These motions and formation are electromagnetically governed

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Fine. And it´s OK by me if you don´t find yourself in the world other persons live in.

No, I have faith that objective reality is epistemologically fair, but I am not a naturalist. And I am not a metaphysical solipsist.