The Mess In Modern Cosmology

[Native]

My many disorders are unsophisticated.

And where did you get this highly unsophisticated dualistic disorder from: "Today is a good day to die...for Russians"?

 

[Revoltingest]

And where did you get this highly unsophisticated dualistic disorder from: "Today is a good day to die...for Russians"?

Oh, that's not a disorder...it's advocacy for Ukraine
to kill so many Russian soldiers that it wins the war.
My underlying disorder is fervent opposition to evil
aggression. I side with Ukraine, & against Russia.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You to me:

And you to Revoltingest:

I´m sorry for that and hope you learn something and then I rest my case.

So you hold it against me in effect that I am different than you. Well, here is a newsflash for you. I know I am crazy in effect. That happens in some cases and I have learned to understand when that is the case. But to help you cope, I am so crazy that I wrote this in a single cell without access to the Internet. Hope it help you to cope with the fact, that I am in part for parts of my behavior crazy, but not all.
Hope you learned something.

 

[Native]

Native Said:
I´m sorry for that and hope you learn something and then I rest my case.

So you hold it against me in effect that I am different than you.

It´s YOUR OWN CHOICE how you interpret a honest compassionate expression.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Native Said:
I´m sorry for that and hope you learn something and then I rest my case.

It´s YOUR OWN CHOICE how you interpret a honest compassionate expression.

Sorry, I got that wrong.
Now for the rest we are both in the everyday world and we have different understandings. But in effect that can't be case because you decide how everybody must think to be in the everyday world. That is the problem with your model. You can't explain cognitive relativism. You can only explain away.

 

[Native]

Oh, that's not a disorder...it's advocacy for Ukraine
to kill so many Russian soldiers that it wins the war.
My underlying disorder is fervent opposition to evil
aggression. I side with Ukraine, & against Russia.

Well, we´ll se what the RF-moderators have to say about such an onesided american propaganda spamming.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, we´ll se what the RF-moderators have to say about such an onesided american propaganda spamming.

It's not propaganda to state that I wish
Russia to be defeated in its invasion.
It's not a claim of fact...it's my pesonal
preference....an opinion, one might say.

So you object, eh.
Do you side with Putin's invasion?

 

[Native]

Now for the rest we are both in the everyday world and we have different understandings. But in effect that can't be case because you decide how everybody must think to be in the everyday world. That is the problem with your model. You can't explain cognitive relativism. You can only explain away.

Of course, it can´t be "my decision".

I´m only referring to collective cosmological, natural, and social conditions for all humans as it is told in numerous ancient cultures and written down in many cultural texts. And these stories also contains factual astronomical and cosmological knowledge. You know such things which provides bones and meat in the human soups.

"Can´t discuss cognitive relativism"? There you go again discussing theories of theories. If you and your friends observe the Sun on a warm sommers day, you surely can explain and agree on most of the common cognitive relativistic effect.

Bones and meat - bones and meat

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course, it can´t be "my decision".

I´m only referring to collective cosmological, natural, and social conditions for all humans as it is told in numerous ancient cultures and written down in many cultural texts. And these stories also contains factual astronomical and cosmological knowledge. You know such things which provides bones and meat in the human soups.

"Can´t discuss cognitive relativism"? There you go again discussing theories of theories. If you and your friends observe the Sun on a warm sommers day, you surely can explain and agree on most of the common cognitive relativistic effect.

Bones and meat - bones and meat

Yeah, you are a philosophical naturalist and thus all other theories are irrelevant. I do get it.

 

[Native]

So you object, eh.

I´ll just await moderators descision in this reported case.

 

[Revoltingest]

I´ll just await moderators descision in this reported case.

*staff edit*
Well, if my knuckles aren't occasionally smacked
with a moderator's yardstick, then I'm not trying.
So let me be clear about the side I take....

Death to the Russian invaders!
May saner elements de-throne Putin!
May Ukraine quickly emerge victorious!
And may Putin's apologists feel shame & become silent!

Those objecting to my airing these views
can take a flying leap at a rolling donut.

 

[Native]

SUB-OP: A FACTUAL EXPLANATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE COSMOLOGICAL MESS.

Invest about 15 minutes in this video

And give your comments on the overall or special cosmological issues.

I´ll post my own comments later.

 

[Native]

RE: SUB-OP: A FACTUAL EXPLANATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE COSMOLOGICAL MESS

The prevailing problems in making a unified theory are IMO a mix of “old and newer definitions”, and a lack of excluding or extending/combining elementary theories in the different models.

1) We know that atoms and molecules have electromagnetic properties.

2) Logically the very definition of electromagnetism must be ONE and this basic ONE only.

3) The definition of the electromagnetic force is then: The E&M Force works by two opposite and complementary attractive and repulsive polarities, it works by different charges everywhere, with different frequencies, and in different ranges.

4) We know the Strong Attractive Electromagnetic Force binds atoms and molecules together to form matter/masses everywhere.

5) The Strong Electromagnetic Attractive Force exchange and discard the Newtonian gravity-based theory of formation.

6) We know that atoms and molecules have electromagnetic rotational and orbital motions and on the larger scale, these electromagnetic properties also give rotation and orbital motions when external attractive E&M forces works in cosmic clouds of gas and dust, thus forming galactic whirling structures in where stars are electromagnetically born.

7) This exchanges and discards both the Newtonian and Einsteinian model of “celestial motion”. It´s not “the Sun which holds the planets in orbits”, as these orbits are initially made from the electromagnetic formation of the Solar System.

8) The “feeling of weight on Earth” is in general ORBITAL VELOCITY PRESSURE DEPENDED, right from the very expansive formation of the Solar System, and this exchange and discard the Newtonian Earth-gravity model.

Summary:

I said initially that:
“The prevailing problems in making a unified theory are “old and newer definitions” and a lack of excluding or extending/combining elementary theories is the different models”-

By unifying the E&M Force to ONE working everywhere, and by exchanging “gravity” with the attractive electromagnetic formation and orbital motions, we then have a basic Unified Theory which can be implemented in all standing cosmological models.

Except of course from the gravitational model damn one which always is in the way of a unification of real cosmological models – simply because it was an occult mental fantasy construct mess from the very beginning and forward and it still is.

 

[joelr]

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

No stories had light as the creative power. None had them as frequencies. They didn't know what stars were in the Jewish cosmology they are in a lower heaven under the main heaven which is under the cosmic ocean. The creation myths are divided into :
Earth diver
Emergence
Ex nihilo (out of nothing)
World parent
Divine twins
List of creation myths - Wikipedia

 

[gnostic]

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

Did light create life?

Did light create humans?

Or what of all new life? Do light magically give life to offspring, or do they occur through reproduction?

Do we need to go over the birds and the bees? Or perhaps you think storks brought babies to prospective parents?

 

[Joshua Pryce]

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.

This isnt true. The stories of the bible give insights and beginnings to time as know it. The origin of good and evil. The first people. Travel, knowledge etc. Think about bible book of proverbs, Solomon gave situational symbolic analogies which are hard to understand to most today and they were written 1000s of years ago. It would make sense that the solar system is limitless like the creator. If everything was the result of random events, we would eventually be able to trace a beginning, but we cannot even start to count let alone finish.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I tend to look at the world around me and when I do, I cannot imagine a single example in said world where a wheelbarrow full of house bricks can be compressed into something the size of a pinhead...so to scale up the impossibly large claim mainstream science makes...are we honestly supposed to extrapolate from that the solution is to squash the entire earth in with that wheelbarrow full of bricks? What about Saturn, which is 9 times the diameter of the earth? Do we honestly want to believe that a planet like Saturn, which is something like 58,000miles across, can be squished down to the size of a pinhead?

Does anyone really consider the immense size of the objects in the universe, recognise that the better our telescopes become the more we find...does anyone honestly sit down and try to see the ridiculously impossible equation we have here?
Science is supposed to be based on observations...and since we are largely bound to earth and a lifetime of less than 100years, how do we come up with such outrageous theories and refuse to accept the only plausible answer in the field of origins is intelligent design?

Some of the father's of science believed in a creator (Newton, Kepler, Boyle etc)...they recognised very early on that it was the only sensible theory to answer the question of origin.