The Scientific Math of the Milky Way

[joelr]

I´m well aware of these "arguments" which mostly are based on "circumstantial observations" and the rest are just misconceptions of an observation.

Again, take the galactic rotation:
When scientists insert "dark matter" into an factual observation, this is because they don´t understand the motion according to the standing theories. In this sence the scientists are in the middle of a direct contradiction.

The videos are crank. No theories just weird ideas and lies.
Comparing black holes to belief in a deity is basically a lie.
Black holes have strong evidence in theory and even visual evidence.
According to that dude general relativity is wrong. So now we're back in the EU model which is complete bunk.

We were posting about this recently, with the GR and relativistic changes made to GPS and the triangulation that needs to be made and equations from GR and SR in order to get proper GPS times.
All I saw was denial and mis-information and when we actually got to the equations used to triangulate the GPS in space there is no example of why they are wrong or alternative equations.
It's just fluffed off as "dust in the atmosphere" or swamp gas or some ridiculous crap.
No thanks.



"When scientists insert "dark matter" into an factual observation, this is because they don´t understand the motion according to the standing theories."

Then explain the motion according to standing theories and show where the mistake is?


"Observations of orbit velocities in spiral galaxies suggest a mass structure according to:

v(r) = (r d gravitational potential /dr)1/2 grav potential=(V=u/m)

The gravitational potential (V) at a location is the gravitational potential energy (U) at that location per unit mass:


Since observations of galaxy rotation do not match the distribution expected from application of Kepler's laws, they do not match the distribution of luminous matter."

So where is the mistake? Is there a problem with one of the laws used or an actual math error? Who made and published the mistake? Do all cosmologists make the same mistake?
Where is the correct version?

 

[Native]

Hi Joelr- and thanks for your interesting reply here.

The videos are crank. No theories just weird ideas and lies.
Comparing black holes to belief in a deity is basically a lie.
Black holes have strong evidence in theory and even visual evidence.
According to that dude general relativity is wrong. So now we're back in the EU model which is complete bunk.

These sentenses are basically unreflected emotional outbursts from being questioned on your very belief system, which is very understandable and a normal reaction when being questioned.

Just think of it: If a heavy star collapses into it self and disappear into a 2 D black hole, this isn´t science, but pure magician rabbit hole magics.

If you have had a nice bath in your bathtub and draw the plug, you´ll soon observe a swirling motion of water disappearing into the black hole, but of course the water just flows further on into the sewer system, to the cleaning station and further on in the watery circuit. The mass of the water just swirls into the 3 D funnel of circulation and that´s just it. It´s the very same wiht the circuital motions in galaxies and their central funnels/holes.

We were posting about this recently, with the GR and relativistic changes made to GPS and the triangulation that needs to be made and equations from GR and SR in order to get proper GPS times.
All I saw was denial and mis-information and when we actually got to the equations used to triangulate the GPS in space there is no example of why they are wrong or alternative equations.
It's just fluffed off as "dust in the atmosphere" or swamp gas or some ridiculous crap.
No thanks.

Stick onto the subject for a moment. Professor Robitaille ponders over the very basics with his examples and not of any GPS issues.

"When scientists insert "dark matter" into an factual observation, this is because they don´t understand the motion according to the standing theories."

Then explain the motion according to standing theories and show where the mistake is?

As with the example above with the bathtub, there is a circulation going on in galaxies and nothing disappears at all. The orbital motions of stars in galaxies compares to the swirling water running around the hole in the bathtub.

This running water, i.e. the orbiting stars in galaxies constitutes the observed galactic rotation pattern and it´s graphical curve. This motion can of course be measured and the weight of the orbiting stars can be estimated and then you can calculate the amount of energy which is needed in order to "get the orbital motion going on" around the galactic center.

So far so good, but what is it really you´ve measured and calculated? Yes, it is just the energy of the orbital motion of stars around a center and NOT the assumed central hole. One cannot ascribe any energy to a 2 D hole and call it "a massive black hole or object", but this is what modern cosmological scientists did because they don´t understand the circulative motion in galaxies and what fundamental forces is at play.

In a circuit of motion, we have both an attractive and repulsive force and if looking at galaxies, we can observe this pattern where galaxies are in different "stages of birth".

If taking the very basics of galaxies, we have one basical type of galaxy with close spundled spiral arms and a high luminous center, suggesting an ingoing (attractive) motion towards the center and a high formation of stars. Thsi is a so called "young galaxy".

The other basical type has more open spiral arms and a barred structure and a lesser luminous center, suggesting an outgoing motion from the center and a lesser formation in the center. This is called a "mature galaxy".

This outgoing motion specifically constitutes the abrupt 90 degree turn from the barred structure and the spiral arms. There is NO WAY such an abrupt 90 degree turn can be acchieved in an attractive motion towards the center, and this leaves only a repelling and outgoing motion left to consider as the explanation.

The actual motion and formation in a barred galaxy is an outgoing motion much like a 2 arm rotating garden sprinkler. The pressure in the water tube and out in the rotating arms makes the droplets fly out, still having an orbital motion compared to the central tube and of course also a spreading motion.

This gives of course a motion of droplets (stars) which all have the similar orbital and outgoing motion compared to the center. This is exactly what have been observed in 1960s and early 1970s, by Vera Rubin and her instruments, graphically described in the Galactic Rotation Curve.

By this observation scientists were baffled and they thougt this motion of stars and their orbital motion really should be "flying away from the galaxy", which was why "dark matter" was assumed in order to hold the stars into the galaxy.

Here, the scientists with their gravitational perceptions really discovered the correct motion of stars moving out from the center "flying away from the galactic center", but they missed the causes and the dynamic motion in this scenario, hence the age of "dark cosmology" was born and afterwards it has placed lots of dark ghosts all over the cosmological stages.

Summary: So what was it that modern scientist didn´t understand?

They didn´t understand the circulative motions of attraction and repulsion in the described types of galaxies above.

They just worked with the fundamental force of gravity and got lost (and trapped) when they discovered an opposite motion in the galaxies.

To my knowledge there is just 1 fundamental force which can achieve both a circuital motion of attraction and repulsion and this is of course the fundamental force of electromagnetism, which I very much support - without being attached to any of the standing ideas of the proponents in the "Electric Universe".

"Observations of orbit velocities in spiral galaxies suggest a mass structure according to:

v(r) = (r d gravitational potential /dr)1/2 grav potential=(V=u/m)

The gravitational potential (V) at a location is the gravitational potential energy (U) at that location per unit mass:

Since observations of galaxy rotation do not match the distribution expected from application of Kepler's laws, they do not match the distribution of luminous matter."

Congratulations Here on page 10 of my topic of "The Scientific Math of the Milky Way", you are the first fellow debater who specifically deals with this subject!

Your comments here are very interesting and important!

"Since observations of galaxy rotation do not match the distribution expected from application of Kepler's laws, they do not match the distribution of luminous matter".

We´re having troubles of fitting the measured mass of stars in the galactic rotation to the electromagnetic luminosity in the galaxies.

That is: We have gravitational force issues which does´nt fit the issues of the electromagnetic force of light.

So where is the mistake? Is there a problem with one of the laws used or an actual math error? Who made and published the mistake? Do all cosmologists make the same mistake?

Nice and relevant questions indeed I´m sure the math is correct as far as I can see. IMO the math is just ascribed to the wrong fundamental force. And yes, all conventional cosmologists makes the same mistake.

As you know, the gravitational force is much weaker than any of the EM forces.

I now suggest you to make a shift of these forces in your above calculations and analyse which of the EM forces best can achieve the needed energy in order to explain the motion in galaxies.

Fundamental Forces

Im sure you by such a shift of G and EM forces in your calculations provides the correct explanation of the rotational motion in galaxies. But I warn you! You shal be prepared to loose/seriously revise the G in your attempt to calculate this. However, you/we can risk to get a Noble Prize for your/our loss .

Where is the correct version?

Well, we have to find the correct version ourselves, as noone else have it on paper - yet. And as the first serious debater to specifically take on my topic here, I sincerely hope you have the interest, time and effort to follow up and try to work with this cosmological experiment.

Best Wishes

 

[Native]

Where is the correct version?

BTW: joelr, I´ve posted a personal conversation comment and suggestion on your profile page

 

[Shad]

@Gnostic & @Shad,
I would be pleased if you higher your partition here in my thread above the mobbing and gossiping Facebook level.

Once more and you´ll end on my IGNORE BUTTEN.

Go for it. I will give my opinion on your head in the sand views when I want.

 

[Shad]

This is the typical reaction in the consensus cosmology. Contradictions are ignored and then they just invent some kind of another "dark this or that" and call it science made by the scientific method.

Nope. You are just trying to create a rationale as an excuse as your article does not support your claim regarding heavy elements.

 

[gnostic]

@Gnostic & @Shad,
I would be pleased if you higher your partition here in my thread above the mobbing and gossiping Facebook level.

Once more and you´ll end on my IGNORE BUTTEN.

It is not gossip that you are wrong with identifying the stars with nuclear reactors.

There are no nuclear reactors that operate and use nuclear fusion reaction. They all work with radioactive materials (eg Uranium) in which nuclear fission provide the electricity and energy. Uranium breaks down (splitting atoms) into smaller elements.

The inside of stars operate on nuclear fusion, by fusing lighter elements (hydrogen) into heavier elements (helium), known as Stellar Nucleosynthesis. It required high heat to fuse smaller nuclei into larger atomic nuclei.

The hydrogen to helium fusion is known as proton-proton China reaction nucleosynthesis.

More massive stars can cause fusion into even heavier elements, such as carbon, nitrogen or oxygen, known as CNO cycle (Nucleosynthesis).

In any case, the nuclear reactors don’t do Nucleosynthesis, os they are nothing like the stars.

What I have stated earlier (reply) is based on understanding the differences between fusion and fission, have nothing to do with gossip. Gossiping is apparently your job.

The problem here, is you.

You won’t acknowledge when you have been wrong or when you lack the education.

All you do is make up a story, and refused to be corrected. That’s willful ignorance.

 

[joelr]

Hi Joelr- and thanks for your interesting reply here.

These sentenses are basically unreflected emotional outbursts from being questioned on your very belief system, which is very understandable and a normal reaction when being questioned.


To my knowledge there is just 1 fundamental force which can achieve both a circuital motion of attraction and repulsion and this is of course the fundamental force of electromagnetism, which I very much support - without being attached to any of the standing ideas of the proponents in the "Electric Universe".

"to your knowledge" well then you just need some schooling.
Gravity is already proven. The only emotional outburst is your strange attempts at denying science to make the EU theory fit.
It's already been bebunked, I've no interest wasting time wading through all the mis-information. You have to want to educate yourself.
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Search results for dark matter

Congratulations Here on page 10 of my topic of "The Scientific Math of the Milky Way", you are the first fellow debater who specifically deals with this subject!

Your comments here are very interesting and important!




Nice and relevant questions indeed I´m sure the math is correct as far as I can see. IMO the math is just ascribed to the wrong fundamental force. And yes, all conventional cosmologists makes the same mistake.

That's funny - all cosmologists are wrong.
Then apply a different fundamental force and send a link to your paper. I don't have interest in bedunking conspiracy theories.

As you know, the gravitational force is much weaker than any of the EM forces.

I now suggest you to make a shift of these forces in your above calculations and analyse which of the EM forces best can achieve the needed energy in order to explain the motion in galaxies.

Fundamental Forces

Im sure you by such a shift of G and EM forces in your calculations provides the correct explanation of the rotational motion in galaxies. But I warn you! You shal be prepared to loose/seriously revise the G in your attempt to calculate this. However, you/we can risk to get a Noble Prize for your/our loss .

Well, we have to find the correct version ourselves, as noone else have it on paper - yet. And as the first serious debater to specifically take on my topic here, I sincerely hope you have the interest, time and effort to follow up and try to work with this cosmological experiment.

Best Wishes

Let me know when you come up with a better model.
Dark matter isn't just about gravitational equations. There are other proofs that suggest dark matter is real. But it might be something else entirely. This isn't really about dark matter however, the EU theory denies gravity/general relativity.
I already wasted time showing someone who said GPS error corrections are just "dust" that actually it's a long process, you were involved in that thread.
No one was able to show GR was even a little bit wrong. EU is a waste of time.
Your lack of theory here is the same as the lack of theory with the GPS thread.
If you're not interested in learning why would I be interested in teaching you anything?

All of the EU issues are completely debunkable if you try. Either way, I don't care.

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Search results for dark matter

We´re having troubles of fitting the measured mass of stars in the galactic rotation to the electromagnetic luminosity in the galaxies.

That is: We have gravitational force issues which does´nt fit the issues of the electromagnetic force of light.

Crank theorist maybe. Not PhDs. There is no trouble. Where is this work posted at?

As you know, the gravitational force is much weaker than any of the EM forces.

I now suggest you to make a shift of these forces in your above calculations and analyse which of the EM forces best can achieve the needed energy in order to explain the motion in galaxies.

On a galactic scale the gravitational force is the strongest force. The gravity of a galaxy far exceeds any force.
Problem isn't galactic rotation, you don't believe in gravity at all. You have no idea of GR it's use, how well it works or what it even is saying. But conspiracy theories are fun right.
The GPS thread already smashed you EU people.

 

[Native]

EDIT: "GNOSTIC" IS NOW ON MY IGNORE BUTTEN

It is not gossip that you are wrong with identifying the stars with nuclear reactors.

First: I didn´t identitify the stars with "nuclear reactors"! In fact, I reject the very idea of solar fusion as It is impossible via the weak gravity force.

But I take the galactic formation as a nuclear formation in the galactic center, hence the radiation of strong gamma rays. I´ve notised this several times but it seems very hard for you to remember this and to cite it correctly.

Oh yes it IS GOSSIPPING speaking in 3, person. I can recommend you to read this about English grammar

You and Shad were speaking in 3 person in my thread as if I wasn´t there at all. Much like on the flat Facebook media. Pure childish gossiping in what should be a serious forum for adults.

GROW UP!

As for the rest of your reply, I just ignore it since you didn´t get it right in the first place.

And, as usual, you can´t reply without your usual personal downletting comments on my person instead of focusing on the very topics themselves.

You have now some houers to digest this answer and then you too hit my IGNORE BUTTEN.

Godbye and thanks for nothing.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Hi Joelr- and thanks for your interesting reply here.

These sentenses are basically unreflected emotional outbursts from being questioned on your very belief system, which is very understandable and a normal reaction when being questioned.

To my knowledge there is just 1 fundamental force which can achieve both a circuital motion of attraction and repulsion and this is of course the fundamental force of electromagnetism, which I very much support - without being attached to any of the standing ideas of the proponents in the "Electric Universe".
--------------------------------
@joelr,
You must at least admit that I´m meeting you with respectfull interest for discussing cosmological matters

"to your knowledge" well then you just need some schooling.
Gravity is already proven. The only emotional outburst is your strange attempts at denying science to make the EU theory fit.
It's already been bebunked, I've no interest wasting time wading through all the mis-information. You have to want to educate yourself.
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Search results for dark matter

First: Why do you link me to this site? I´m NOT a creationist! Secondly: You refer to THE EU theory, but I´m not attached to any claimed theory of EU at all. I have my own approach to this matter. Thirdly: Regarding the education, it is my opinion that in a discussion, both I and you become more educated by listening to each others points of view. So your points here goes boths way if you want to educate yourself, don´t you think?

For your information, an EU model has not being debunked at all. It was just parked on a shelf because the ignorant scientists could´nt get the "dark matter ghost" into the model which otherwise describes all things wery well, as you can hear in this video starting at timestamp 45:40

- Of course it´s impossible for consensus scientists to get "dark matter" into the 3 EM fundamental forces! First, the assumed force of gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces. Secondly, the assumed gravity force is linked to the also assumed idea that particles = mass = gravitational energy, whereas it de facto is the EM forces and energies, which binds every atomic particle together into masses,

The discrepancies between the strength of the 3 EM forces and the assumed force of gravity alone, makes it impossible to get correct results all over in the cosmological realms!

If JUST COUNTING on gravity, you´ll need lots of matters to explain the motions in cosmos because the motions are governed by the much stronger EM forces, which even naturally can explaing both attractive and repulsive motions all over in cosmos.

That's funny - all cosmologists are wrong.
Then apply a different fundamental force and send a link to your paper. I don't have interest in bedunking conspiracy theories.

I didn´t say all cosmologists are wrong. I said their calculations were/are ascribed to a wrong force, i.e. the weakest gravity force.
And a need for a different fundamental force isn´t neccesary at all. Just use the correct ones which already are at the stage.

Native said: ↑
As you know, the gravitational force is much weaker than any of the EM forces.
I now suggest you to make a shift of these forces in your above calculations and analyse which of the EM forces best can achieve the needed energy in order to explain the motion in galaxies.

Crank theorist maybe. Not PhDs. There is no trouble. Where is this work posted at?

It was in fact from yourself - and my transcription and comparison between the different strenghts of the weaker gravity and EM as a luminous force, (I though wouldn´t dispolitely call you a crank).

joelr said: ↑
Since observations of galaxy rotation do not match the distribution expected from application of Kepler's laws, they do not match the distribution of luminous matter."
-------------
Of course not! I very much admire the celestial geometric works of Kepler, but up came Newton and confused himself and the entire cosmolgical society after him with his apple-pie-gravity without explaining anything at all of the causal dynamics in his strange invention and thus distorted the entire idea of celestial and universal motion both in the Solar System and otherwhere in cosmos.

In my opinion, Newton should have stayed on his interests of genuine Natural Philosophy until he with certainty got the natural perception of everything.

On a galactic scale the gravitational force is the strongest force. The gravity of a galaxy far exceeds any force.

I sort of agree in this - because conventional scientists confuse the weakest force of all to govern the much stronger EM forces, which is an obvious cosmological inconsistency. BTW: Why did Einstein refused Newtons general ideas of gravity as a force at all? Think of that.

Problem isn't galactic rotation, you don't believe in gravity at all.

Of course I don´t! It isn´t particle gravity mass which provides weight to anything at all, and even Einstein himself refused this too.! It is the EM forces wich binds atoms and molecules together to masses of all kinds and in all stages of formation. Of course such a huge blunder and mix up of fundamental formation perceptions gives problems understanding the galactic rotation!

The GPS thread already smashed you EU people.

"You EM people"? So it is a collective crusade for you against individual persons which thinks otherwise of the strongest forces in cosmos? Once again I recommend the video mentioned above too, starting at timestamp 45:40.

Concludingly for now:
There is two kind of stupid persons. I, who meet other persons with respect and think the very best of whom I start a discussion with and offer my very best of knowledge - and you and others who, without much thoroughly ponderings, much to quickly rejects my offers and friendly approach.

I respect you still for your initial efforts and time.

 

[Native]

Scientific "Correctness" vs. Scientific Progress

Here´s an excellent video of how the standing science works and how it´s not working as it is meant to.

- Before any debaters are shouting up about that it is posted by "the Cranks" in the ThunderboltsProject society, I just will mention that I´m not more a member of this society because of the strange ideas of EM working in the Solar System with "ligthning scarring of planets" and the even more strange ideas of once "another position of some planets assumingly hovering in a line over the Earth´northern celestial pole". A totally skewed idea based on misconceptions of the ancient cultural Myths of Creation.

But the very contents in the video is fine and it will be ever actual and relevant in a long time to come.

It´s even relevant to my profile signature below here . . .

 

[gnostic]

EDIT: "GNOSTIC" IS NOW ON MY IGNORE BUTTEN


First: I didn´t identitify the stars with "nuclear reactors"! In fact, I reject the very idea of solar fusion as It is impossible via the weak gravity force.

But I take the galactic formation as a nuclear formation in the galactic center, hence the radiation of strong gamma rays. I´ve notised this several times but it seems very hard for you to remember this and to cite it correctly.

Oh yes it IS GOSSIPPING speaking in 3, person. I can recommend you to read this about English grammar

You and Shad were speaking in 3 person in my thread as if I wasn´t there at all. Much like on the flat Facebook media. Pure childish gossiping in what should be a serious forum for adults.

GROW UP!

As for the rest of your reply, I just ignore it since you didn´t get it right in the first place.

And, as usual, you can´t reply without your usual personal downletting comments on my person instead of focusing on the very topics themselves.

You have now some houers to digest this answer and then you too hit my IGNORE BUTTEN.

Godbye and thanks for nothing.

No one compare the star with "nuclear reactor".

You did.

I know what you wrote, Native. You said this:

This idea is based on the assumption that our Sun is kind of "nuclear reactor" with a limited time of formation.

You were the one who made the assumption that the Sun was like a "nuclear reactor".

No scientists think that this comparison is correct. Any scientist would not make such a comparison, because they would know the reactor through nuclear fission, not nuclear fusion. No nuclear reactor on Earth used the nuclear fusion, because the scientists haven't been able to make it work.

Such comparison was your own making.You were the one who this analogy of the sun being like a nuclear reactor, not any scientist that I know of.

I know that it was straw man argument. You were trying to blame scientists for comparing the Sun to nuclear reactor. And clearly you don't know how such nuclear reactor works.

It is your straw man and your faulty assumption, which you won't acknowledge the error you have made.

Yes, go ahead put me on ignore list, as if think that would cover up your lack of education in physics.

You are such a hypocrite to blame scientists for being wrong about physics and cosmology, but refused to admit your mistake.

 

[Polymath257]

For your information, an EU model has not being debunked at all. It was just parked on a shelf because the ignorant scientists could´nt get the "dark matter ghost" into the model which otherwise describes all things wery well, as you can hear in this video starting at timestamp 45:40

And may I recommend literally the whole rest of the video, which shows precisely how the modern views of gravity work with incredible precision. Your misunderstanding of what was said in the question and answer part of this video (that his comments were limited to *particle* physics when he said how well they work) is indicative of your overall understanding of the physics.

The video is actually quite informative and the speaker is one of the best astronomers/cosmologists around.

This video is *in no way* a support for the EU view.

 

[Native]

The video is actually quite informative and the speaker is one of the best astronomers/cosmologists around.

I agree in this very much

Besides this, just focus on my answer to you in the "Newton Thread" - #456

And we´ll take it from there

 

[Native]

When Mind Games Masquerade as Physics

Of course the solution to this crisis is to look at the Electric Universe theory and get rid of the outdated Standard Model Theory and all it´s "gravitational particle science" and "dark this and that" patches in the speculative ideas.