What's wrong with physics?

[Native]

What, specifically, do you say it should be doing?

Everything.

Think for instants of the Big Bang theory. It is usually illustrated by a begining of a huge explosion of light = E&M frequensies. After a while, '*gravity* is thought to take over and now, the initial LIGHT is forgotten and ignored as the real cause of formation and expansion.

Even their *gravity* is contradicted in this matter with the asumption that the velocity expansion in the universe is assumed to be increasing!?

And then they invented yet another dark thing, *dark energy*

It´s nonsense and intellectual speculations all over the places.

 

[ChristineM]

It´s OK by me if you chose to believe in assumed dogmas instead of doing your own independent research as I suggested above:

"Dark matter" is STILL not found by direct measurements and it is STILL just assumed - and in some galaxies "dark matter" is now stated to be completely missing.

This discovery should give you the opportunity to think again about your illusive "dark matter" and make your own logical and critical conclusions.

Been through all this, continually repeating the same BS does not make that BS into gold

There is saying in the Birmingham area of the UK, "you cannot polish a turd"

 

[ChristineM]

It is usually illustrated by a begining of a huge explosion of light =

Nonsense. Becsuse it is illustrated as a bright explosion in artists impressions does not make it so except to the deliberately gullible

It was far to to hot and dense for photons to form. First light could not form until around 1/4 million years after the bb event

 

[Native]

Been through all this, continually repeating the same BS does not make that BS into gold

There is saying in the Birmingham area of the UK, "you cannot polish a turd"

Typical: When running out of factual and logical arguments, some debaters turns to personal pathetic comments.

 

[ChristineM]

Typical: When running out of factual and logical arguments, some debaters turns to personal pathetic comments.

Sorry if facts hurt. But repeating the same old discredited same old and stomping your foot is not debate

 

[Native]

Nonsense. Becsuse it is illustrated as a bright explosion in artists impressions does not make it so except to the deliberately gullible

It was far to to hot and dense for photons to form. First light could not form until around 1/4 million years after the bb event

If you chose to believe in a magical science fiction creation, it´s OK by me.

 

[ChristineM]

If you chose to believe in a magical science fiction creation, it´s OK by me.

Oh right, personal is fine when you do it but you take offence when imagining its happening to you. Fair enough

Just because basic cosmology is beyond you does not make it magical.

 

[Native]

Sorry if facts hurt.

Apparently the fact of galaxies missing your 'dark matter' did hurt your own good selfasteam too much as you didn´t mention this fact again

 

[Native]

Just because basic cosmology is beyond you does not make it magical.

What *basic cosmology* are you talking about? The cosmology which only knows of 4 % of the universe and take the rest to be *dark matter* and *dark energy*?

That isn´t much to brag about is it?

 

[blü 2]

Everything.

Think for instants of the Big Bang theory. It is usually illustrated by a begining of a huge explosion of light = E&M frequensies. After a while, '*gravity* is thought to take over and now, the initial LIGHT is forgotten and ignored as the real cause of formation and expansion.

So ─ and this is what I asked you the first time ─ on what grounds do scientists say it's not electromagnetism? What is their specific argument that your case is wrong?

 

[ChristineM]

What *basic cosmology* are you talking about? The cosmology which only knows of 4 % of the universe and take the rest to be *dark matter* and *dark energy*?

That isn´t much to brag about is it?

4% included that which you don't know and so guess of magic light and light speed not being relevant to your confirmation bias.

 

[Native]

So ─ and this is what I asked you the first time ─ on what grounds do scientists say it's not electromagnetism? What is their specific argument that your case is wrong?

I´ve already explained this. Because *gravity* overshines the 3/4 part stronger forces in modern science and there´s NO logical explanation of this but ignorant stupidity.

 

[ChristineM]

I´ve already explained this. Because *gravity* overshines the 3/4 part stronger forces in modern science and there´s NO logical explanation of this but ignorant stupidity.

Bingo, ain't mirrors cool?

 

[Native]

4% included that which you don't know and so guess of magic light and light speed not being relevant to your confirmation bias.

"Confirmation bias"? At least you´ve learned something important from the standing cosmology

 

[ChristineM]

"Confirmation bias"? At least you´ve learned something important from the standing cosmology

Unlike you apparently

 

[ChristineM]

Once again you´ve succeded to ruin an OP and you can now find yourself on my ignore list - once again.

Contradicting your claim with evidence does not ruin an OP, it contradicts the OP, with evidence. If you want a discussion where everyone bows down to nonsensical claims then RF isn't it.

And of course you didn't answer my question directly. Seens quite odd considering your need for direct measurement of dark matter

 

[Native]

Contradicting your claim with evidence does not ruin an OP

Don´t you speak to me regarding my own OP here. You haven´t contributed with a single word or sentense about this factual OP at all.

 

[Polymath257]

Nonsense. Becsuse it is illustrated as a bright explosion in artists impressions does not make it so except to the deliberately gullible

It was far to to hot and dense for photons to form. First light could not form until around 1/4 million years after the bb event

Not true. Photons did form earlier and were a dominant component of the energy density. They simply interacted with the matter that was also there. Only later did things cool enough that the photons interacted with matter less and so the universe became transparent. But photon energy density was higher than that of matter for the very early universe. In fact, photon energy dominated for the first 60,000 years or so.

The difference is that photon energy density falls faster than matter energy density upon expansion (inverse fourth power instead of inverse cube). So, at some point, the energy density from photons fell below that of matter. Now, it is considerably less than that of matter.

 

[Heyo]

"Dark matter" is STILL not found by direct measurements and it is STILL just assumed - and in some galaxies "dark matter" is now stated to be completely missing.

This discovery should give you the opportunity to think again about your illusive "dark matter" and make your own logical and critical conclusions.

The fact that some Galaxies are missing Dark Matter is evidence for it existing. Initially I wasn't a fan of the Dark Matter hypothesis. MoND would have been so much more elegant a solution. And then astronomers measured the Dark Matter distribution in the Bullet Cluster. At that point MoND was no longer compatible with the observations.
Btw: how does the EM model explain the Bullet Cluster?

 

[Native]

So, at some point, the energy density from photons fell below that of matter. Now, it is considerably less than that of matter.

How is this consistent according to the conservation law of energy?