The Scientific Math of the Milky Way

[Native]

That is only because you cannot understand how science is done in the first place.

Oh yes I understand: Everytime the standard cosmologists are contradicted and proven wrong, they just invent "dark this or that" in order to fit cosmos to their theories and calculations which have been proven wrong in the first place.

I wouldn´t call such methods as "scientific" at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh yes I understand: Everytime the standard cosmologists are contradicted and proven wrong, they just invent "dark this or that" in order to fit cosmos to their theories and calculations which have been proven wrong in the first place.

I wouldn´t call such methods as "scientific" at all.

Where have they been proven wrong? Seriously, why not try to learn the scientific method? You are conflating what you do with what scientists do.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'll avoid joining a silly argument.
But I found something interesting.
It illuminates the scientific method.
Dark Matter May Be More Complex Than Physicists Thought

Some see scientists being wrong as a failure of science.
I see discovery of one's failure leading to better models as shibumi.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll avoid joining a silly argument.
But I found something interesting.
It illuminates the scientific method.
Dark Matter May Be More Complex Than Physicists Thought

Some see scientists being wrong as a failure of science.
I see discovery of one's failure leading to better models as shibumi.

It stands to reason that it is not fully understood yet. Since it is poorly observed there could be several surprises waiting for us.

 

[Revoltingest]

It stands to reason that it is not fully understood yet. Since it is poorly observed there could be several surprises waiting for us.

I rue the day when things are no longer surprising.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I rue the day when things are no longer surprising.

Don't worry, your safe. I don't think that we will live that long. Neither will your children, nor their grandchildren. Sometimes it seems the more we learn the more we find out we have to learn.

 

[Native]

Seriously, why not try to learn the scientific method?

I did just that remember?

Everytime the standard cosmologists are contradicted and proven wrong, they just invent "dark this or that" in order to fit cosmos to their theories and calculations which have been proven wrong in the first place.

 

[ChristineM]

You and your "dark this and that" inventions and beliefs don´t get anywhere with me.

Show me a piece of dark matter before you reply any further

Evidence of dark matter, it is observed by it action on ordinary matter
Evidence for Dark Matter

So now, in exchange can i expect you to show a piece of god magic?

 

[ChristineM]

You and your "dark this and that" inventions and beliefs don´t get anywhere with me.

Show me a piece of dark matter before you reply any further

Evidence of dark matter, it is observed by it action on ordinary matter
Evidence for Dark Matter

So now, in exchange can i expect you to show a piece of god magic?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did just that remember?

No, you never have. Here you only quote yourself making a claim that you have not and almost certainly cannot support. That is all

Tell me, what reasonable test could possibly show your idea to be wrong?

 

[Native]

Tell me, what reasonable test could possibly show your idea to be wrong?

.
I expected you to make such test but the only ting you do is blindly to accept the cosmological dogmas which is patched with lots of "dark this and that" ad hoc assumptions.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Our Milky Way galaxy is a Barred Galaxy. When looking at this barred structure, it seems to me that it is impossible that there should be an attractive "heavy black hole force" in the center of this galactic type.

If looking at the galactic arms, it is impossible that these arms can take an abrupt 90 degree turn into the galactic bar according to "normal gravity". The opposite explanation seems more logic: There must be an outwards going motion from the center, out in the bars and further out in the galactic surroundings, just like a rotating two arm garden sprinkler.

When the observed galactic rotation curve was discovered, scientists were concerned that the galactic stars would be slung out of the galaxy, which was the cause they invented and inserted "dark matter" in order to hold the stars inside the galaxy.

Now: What if this observation REALLY shows an outgoing motion from the galactic center? This would certainly confirm the observed rotation curve, but how would this affect the hitherto assumed standard gravitational laws and calculations?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

.
I expected you to make such test but the only ting you do is blindly to accept the cosmological dogmas which is patched with lots of "dark this and that" ad hoc assumptions.

Oh, it's HIS job to come up with a test to prove YOUR theory?

 

[Native]

Oh, it's HIS job to come up with a test to prove YOUR theory?

Yes, he is the one who says it is wrong. For my part I´ve done several double tests, so I´m sure

But in fact this is quite hypothetical as he even don´t understand what I´m writing about.

 

[wellwisher]

Evidence of dark matter, it is observed by it action on ordinary matter
Evidence for Dark Matter

So now, in exchange can i expect you to show a piece of god magic?

Dark matter is inferred from affect, in the light of existing theory. However, it has never been proven in the lab, using direct observation. This is the same proof schema that is used for God. We have never seen God in the lab. God is inferred by the faithful, by affect; beauty and complexity of nature as well as by the mystery of the creation of our universe from nothing.

Physics assumes there is no preferred reference and therefore there is no center of the universe. The problem with this is, this violates the conservation of energy since relative reference allows for different energy perceptions, based on the reference used. The odds are we are not using the proper reference for observation and thereby end up observing things that suggest that there is more energy on the universe, than the theory assumes. The result is an addendum called dark energy and matter.

The analogy is say we lived on a plateau with a large lake in the middle. Since we never go to the edge, we define the lake as sea level, since all the rain water flows down hill and ends in the lake. One day we notice the lake is lowering and should be rising.

We ask ourselves, how is this possible, since the lake is already at lowest potential? The explanation is the lake has gravitational potential, since it exists on the plateau. Everything on there plateau has potential with the valley below. But since we never go to the edge to see the valley, we postulate that there must be a new form of mystery energy than can account for the observations we see. We will never see this mystery energy in the lab since it is a reference illusion. It is not anything new; it is only gravity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

.
I expected you to make such test but the only ting you do is blindly to accept the cosmological dogmas which is patched with lots of "dark this and that" ad hoc assumptions.

That is what you do. Please do not accuse others of your faults. You go by myths and dogma. That is not what scientists do.

No more detours started by false claims about others please.

Why did you dodge the question? Was it because you know you can't test your idea so you use a huge Tu Quoque fallacy instead?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yes, he is the one who says it is wrong. For my part I´ve done several double tests, so I´m sure

But in fact this is quite hypothetical as he even don´t understand what I´m writing about.

By all means then, post your "double tests", whatever they are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, he is the one who says it is wrong. For my part I´ve done several double tests, so I´m sure

But in fact this is quite hypothetical as he even don´t understand what I´m writing about.

That is not the way it works. In the world of the sciences ideas are effectively false until supported by evidence. You have no evidence, you admitted so yourself. Therefore your ideas are effectively false.

 

[ChristineM]

Dark matter is inferred from affect, in the light of existing theory. However, it has never been proven in the lab, using direct observation. This is the same proof schema that is used for God. We have never seen God in the lab. God is inferred by the faithful, by affect; beauty and complexity of nature as well as by the mystery of the creation of our universe from nothing.

Physics assumes there is no preferred reference and therefore there is no center of the universe. The problem with this is, this violates the conservation of energy since relative reference allows for different energy perceptions, based on the reference used. The odds are we are not using the proper reference for observation and thereby end up observing things that suggest that there is more energy on the universe, than the theory assumes. The result is an addendum called dark energy and matter.

The analogy is say we lived on a plateau with a large lake in the middle. Since we never go to the edge, we define the lake as sea level, since all the rain water flows down hill and ends in the lake. One day we notice the lake is lowering and should be rising.

We ask ourselves, how is this possible, since the lake is already at lowest potential? The explanation is the lake has gravitational potential, since it exists on the plateau. Everything on there plateau has potential with the valley below. But since we never go to the edge to see the valley, we postulate that there must be a new form of mystery energy than can account for the observations we see. We will never see this mystery energy in the lab since it is a reference illusion. It is not anything new; it is only gravity.

Wrong. DM has observed physical evidence of effects, not so for god so the comparison is false.

You misunderstand the scientific view, no centre is used because everything is moving away from everything else. To say there is a centre implies a static central point.

The odds are? More detail with references please

I though an analogy was to compare and explain?

Cosmology and astronomy are not guesswork based on a lake on a plateau

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong. DM has observed physical evidence of effects, not so for god so the comparison is false.

You misunderstand the scientific view, no centre is used because everything is moving away from everything else. To say there is a centre implies a static central point.

The odds are? More detail with references please

I though an analogy was to compare and explain?

Cosmology and astronomy are not guesswork based on a lake on a plateau

I do at times think that it appears that way to the uneducated. They can't even begin to understand the evidence so they accuse others of not having any and think that if scientists can come up with an explanation without any evidence then why can't they?