Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[rational experiences]

The belief of human consciousness making the claims. O a calculation and numbers he quotes represents everything.

Evidence proved by archaeology that life had been destroyed.

Humans gave our human brother the reference satanist. Non believers of God.

They argue. Only because O earth the planet they live on by sub conscious memory is quoted as science O God themes. O God held. Maths held. O form he says O.

O maths he quotes O everything is God. Maths O by his say so is therefore everything.

Satan O was never God....O holding of.

Being mass

Satan in sub conscious male memory two positions. Neither holding as God O.

Science quotes O God is holy do no wrong. Do not O give God a name. No man is God. After life was sacrificed.

Memory says the origin or first human life sacrificed. Meaning gone destroyed.

We are all living returned life after ice age. Where teaching relativity is about ice and return of ice.

Satanic sophism coercion by word use.

Ice has nothing to do with Satan.

Father told me do not argue science against him. He is trying to get innocent caring spirit advice in a claim we know and realise more than he does.

Even though the spiritual self knows it is only coercive manipulation.

O burning origin non holding consuming Satan as origin.

O blew up pulled into deeper space by pressure now Satan stars. Destroyed God O origins. God only ever having been held O and stone owning dusts.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
That doesn´t matter as long the same consensus cosmology denies E&M to have important formational influences in the Universe.

Give evidence that it does.

For the electron and proton, the gravitational force is 39 orders of magnitude weaker than the electrical force.

In the scheme, "gravity" cannot even be ascribed scientifically to a physical particle as it is noted as this speculative suggestion of "graviton"? It´s all just a human speculative invented idea, hence nobody knows which kind of force it is or by which means it works.

I said:
Attractive forces are present everywhere in the Universe - and so are repulsive forces, both united in the E&M force.

But the attractive force of gravity is the crucial one for most structure.

Everytime you have 1 unit force of "gravity", you have 39 units electric force. And the ONLY WAY you can claim gravity to be more important, is by outright denying "electric atoms" and the fundamental electric force. So this is what the exclusive proponents of an unknown particle gravity do all over the places in cosmology.

All atoms have electric rotation and orbital motion. This 39 order stronger spinning electric force of attraction and respulsion logically affects atomic particles much stronger than the invented "particle gravity" and can be explained scientific.

I said:
In "standard cosmology" the similar motions are helplessly and unscientific described as "accreations via a distance force and explosions via another unexplained force".

Your lack of understanding doesn't make the descriptions unscientific.

At the microcosmic scale, "particle gravity" is per definition (graviton?) a speculative illusion and claiming particle gravity to have a huge importance in nucleosynthesis on the macrocosmic scale, just and only extends the scale of the illusion.

I said:
Which of the two explanations are the most scientific one?

Obvious answer: consensus cosmology. Hands down.

I asked YOU which explanations are the most scientific and I hope you by this reply have sufficient skills of natural philosophy to descide which one.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The belief of human consciousness making the claims. O a calculation and numbers he quotes represents everything.

Evidence proved by archaeology that life had been destroyed.

Humans gave our human brother the reference satanist. Non believers of God.

They argue. Only because O earth the planet they live on by sub conscious memory is quoted as science O God themes. O God held. Maths held. O form he says O.

O maths he quotes O everything is God. Maths O by his say so is therefore everything.

Satan O was never God....O holding of.

Being mass

Satan in sub conscious male memory two positions. Neither holding as God O.

Science quotes O God is holy do no wrong. Do not O give God a name. No man is God. After life was sacrificed.

Memory says the origin or first human life sacrificed. Meaning gone destroyed.

We are all living returned life after ice age. Where teaching relativity is about ice and return of ice.

Satanic sophism coercion by word use.

Ice has nothing to do with Satan.

Father told me do not argue science against him. He is trying to get innocent caring spirit advice in a claim we know and realise more than he does.

Even though the spiritual self knows it is only coercive manipulation.

O burning origin non holding consuming Satan as origin.

O blew up pulled into deeper space by pressure now Satan stars. Destroyed God O origins. God only ever having been held O and stone owning dusts.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
That doesn´t matter as long the same consensus cosmology denies E&M to have important formational influences in the Universe.
View attachment 46611
For the electron and proton, the gravitational force is 39 orders of magnitude weaker than the electrical force.

In the scheme, "gravity" cannot even be ascribed scientifically to a physical particle as it is noted as this speculative suggestion of "graviton"? It´s all just a human speculative invented idea, hence nobody knows which kind of force it is or by which means it works.

Correct. We don't have a tested quantum theory of gravity. What we have is a very well tested classical theory.

I said:
Attractive forces are present everywhere in the Universe - and so are repulsive forces, both united in the E&M force.

Um, no. Gravity is always attractive. E&M is both. The weak and strong forces are very local (not long range) and so generally only apply within a nucleus.

Everytime you have 1 unit force of "gravity", you have 39 units electric force. And the ONLY WAY you can claim gravity to be more important, is by outright denying "electric atoms" and the fundamental electric force. So this is what the exclusive proponents of an unknown particle gravity do all over the places in cosmology.

NOBODY denies atoms have positive and negative charges in them. NOBODY. But they are electrically NEUTRAL: equal numbers of positive and negative charges. Since the E&M forces are based on those charges, they tend to cancel out.

Gravity does NOT cancel out: it is always attractive. That is why it dominates at larger scales.

All atoms have electric rotation and orbital motion. This 39 order stronger spinning electric force of attraction and respulsion logically affects atomic particles much stronger than the invented "particle gravity" and can be explained scientific.

Yes, and if you put a positive charge next to a negative one, the electric forces from each will cancel out.

I said:
In "standard cosmology" the similar motions are helplessly and unscientific described as "accreations via a distance force and explosions via another unexplained force".

No, not another unexplained force. Gravity. Which has been understood at a basic level for far longer than the E&M force has been.

At the microcosmic scale, "particle gravity" is per definition (graviton?) a speculative illusion and claiming particle gravity to have a huge importance in nucleosynthesis on the macrocosmic scale, just and only extends the scale of the illusion.

It isn't the gravity between the nuclear particles that is producing nucleosynthesis. It is the gravity that produces the *pressure* and thereby the *temperature* that then lead to nucleosynthesis. Gravity isn't directly involved in the synthesis itself. And the pressure and temperature are required because nuclei are all positively charged, so they repel each other due to the E&M force. That repulsion has to be overcome so that the short range strong force can get involved.

I said:
Which of the two explanations are the most scientific one?

I asked YOU which explanations are the most scientific and I hope you by this reply have sufficient skills of natural philosophy to descide which one.

And I answered clearly: the consensus cosmology is FAR, FAR more scientific than anything related to Plasma Cosmology or the Electric Universe.

That is very clear. Neither PC nor EU have given ANY testable predictions at all. They are not scientific at all for that reason.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
That doesn´t matter as long the same consensus cosmology denies E&M to have important formational influences in the Universe.
View attachment 46611
For the electron and proton, the gravitational force is 39 orders of magnitude weaker than the electrical force.

Correct. We don't have a tested quantum theory of gravity. What we have is a very well tested classical theory.

Well, you even don´t have to test other things but your natural philosophical skills studying the electromagnetic discovery of Hans Christian Ørsted and make the relevant comparison to the Faraday Motor and there you have all the logics you need in order to deduce what for instants are happening in the nucleosynthesis in galaxies where strong electromagnetic x- and gamma rays are at work.

NOBODY denies atoms have positive and negative charges in them. NOBODY. But they are electrically NEUTRAL: equal numbers of positive and negative charges. Since the E&M forces are based on those charges, they tend to cancel out.

This is a theoretical nonsense. On the contrary, they COMPLEMENT each other. Of course they don´t cancel anything out in a dynamic circuit. Can you cancel out the electromagnetic cirquital spherical field on the Earth or on the Sun? Or in the galaxies? Or in the Universe et all?

On the contrary, they COMPLIMENT each other, making "things" to rotate and orbit as you can observe on the atomic scale and on larger scales in our Solar System and in galaxies.

I said:
All atoms have electric rotation and orbital motion. This 39 order stronger spinning electric force of attraction and respulsion logically affects atomic particles much stronger than the invented "particle gravity" and (E&M) can be explained scientific.

Yes, and if you put a positive charge next to a negative one, the electric forces from each will cancel out.

Not on magnets they don´t and not on the atomic or cosmological scales either. Positive or negativ charges is ONLY a question of clockwise or anti-clockwise spin. You kan test this obvious knowledge by changing the current direction in your Faraday Motor. Even galaxies are turning both ways.

I said:
In "standard cosmology" the similar motions are helplessly and unscientific described as "accreations via a distance force and explosions via another unexplained force".

No, not another unexplained force. Gravity. Which has been understood at a basic level for far longer than the E&M force has been.

Of course the assertion of "gravity" has been around much longer as the E&M was discovered later.

I said:
At the microcosmic scale, "particle gravity" is per definition (graviton?) a speculative illusion and claiming particle gravity to have a huge importance in nucleosynthesis on the macrocosmic scale, just and only extends the scale of the illusion.

It isn't the gravity between the nuclear particles that is producing nucleosynthesis. It is the gravity that produces the *pressure* and thereby the *temperature* that then lead to nucleosynthesis. Gravity isn't directly involved in the synthesis itself.

I´m amazed that you at all can say, that "gravity" isn´t the direct cause of the other thing you claims. And then again I´m not as it´s an huge illusion which cannot be explained scientifically - which you obviously confirms here too.

I said:
Which of the two explanations are the most scientific one?

I asked YOU which explanations are the most scientific and I hope you by this reply have sufficient skills of natural philosophy to descide which one.

And I answered clearly: the consensus cosmology is FAR, FAR more scientific than anything related to Plasma Cosmology or the Electric Universe.That is very clear.

How can you seriously state this when neither you nor other in the assembled society of consensus cosmology can explain their prime and belowed force at all?

Neither PC nor EU have given ANY testable predictions at all. They are not scientific at all for that reason.

I wouldn´t use the term "scientific" in connection with the term "gravity" as noone, contrary to the E&M forces, can explain scientifical or dynamically what it is.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
That doesn´t matter as long the same consensus cosmology denies E&M to have important formational influences in the Universe.
View attachment 46611
For the electron and proton, the gravitational force is 39 orders of magnitude weaker than the electrical force.

Well, you even don´t have to test other things but your natural philosophical skills studying the electromagnetic discovery of Hans Christian Ørsted and make the relevant comparison to the Faraday Motor and there you have all the logics you need in order to deduce what for instants are happening in the nucleosynthesis in galaxies where strong electromagnetic x- and gamma rays are at work.

Orsted's discoveries are part of the consensus understanding of E&M. They have NOTHING to do with nucleosynthesis.

This is a theoretical nonsense. On the contrary, they COMPLEMENT each other. Of course they don´t cancel anything out in a dynamic circuit. Can you cancel out the electromagnetic cirquital spherical field on the Earth or on the Sun? Or in the galaxies? Or in the Universe et all?

No, it is NOT theoretical nonsense. It is well-tested description of how E&M forces work in the real world.

On the contrary, they COMPLIMENT each other, making "things" to rotate and orbit as you can observe on the atomic scale and on larger scales in our Solar System and in galaxies.

No, they really don't. E&M simply doesn't work like that.

I said:
All atoms have electric rotation and orbital motion. This 39 order stronger spinning electric force of attraction and respulsion logically affects atomic particles much stronger than the invented "particle gravity" and (E&M) can be explained scientific.


Not on magnets they don´t and not on the atomic or cosmological scales either. Positive or negativ charges is ONLY a question of clockwise or anti-clockwise spin. You kan test this obvious knowledge by changing the current direction in your Faraday Motor. Even galaxies are turning both ways.

First, the electric force and the magnetic force are different. They are aspects of the E&M combined force, but magnetism and the electric force as distinct.

No, positive and negative charges are NOT at all related to direction of rotation. If anything, magnetic forces are, but even then it isn't like that.

I said:
In "standard cosmology" the similar motions are helplessly and unscientific described as "accreations via a distance force and explosions via another unexplained force".

Of course the assertion of "gravity" has been around much longer as the E&M was discovered later.

I said:
At the microcosmic scale, "particle gravity" is per definition (graviton?) a speculative illusion and claiming particle gravity to have a huge importance in nucleosynthesis on the macrocosmic scale, just and only extends the scale of the illusion.

I´m amazed that you at all can say, that "gravity" isn´t the direct cause of the other thing you claims. And then again I´m not as it´s an huge illusion which cannot be explained scientifically - which you obviously confirms here too.

Did you actually read what I wrote? It isn't the gravity between the nuclei that produces nucleosynthesis. It is the strong force, once the E&M force is overcome. It takes a LOT of energy to overcome the E&M repulsion of the nuclei. That energy is produced by the temperature and pressure, which are produced by having a LOT of mass and gravity.

I said:
Which of the two explanations are the most scientific one?

I asked YOU which explanations are the most scientific and I hope you by this reply have sufficient skills of natural philosophy to descide which one.

How can you seriously state this when neither you nor other in the assembled society of consensus cosmology can explain their prime and belowed force at all?

We do: General relativity does exactly that. it might not be the ultimate explanation. But it is false that we cannot explain it at all.

I wouldn´t use the term "scientific" in connection with the term "gravity" as noone, contrary to the E&M forces, can explain scientifical or dynamically what it is.

Actually, they can and do. They do so by a set of equations that is very similar to those that describe E&M, but extended for curved spacetime.

Again, your lack of understanding of what the real theory is does not mean it is unscientific or wrong. Just that you need to learn a bit about E&M, gravity, air pressure, galactic dynamics, the Big Bang, atoms, plasmas, cosmology, and probably a few other topics.

At this point, your understanding is below that of a high school physics class.

 

[exchemist]

Orsted's discoveries are part of the consensus understanding of E&M. They have NOTHING to do with nucleosynthesis.



No, it is NOT theoretical nonsense. It is well-tested description of how E&M forces work in the real world.



No, they really don't. E&M simply doesn't work like that.



First, the electric force and the magnetic force are different. They are aspects of the E&M combined force, but magnetism and the electric force as distinct.

No, positive and negative charges are NOT at all related to direction of rotation. If anything, magnetic forces are, but even then it isn't like that.




Did you actually read what I wrote? It isn't the gravity between the nuclei that produces nucleosynthesis. It is the strong force, once the E&M force is overcome. It takes a LOT of energy to overcome the E&M repulsion of the nuclei. That energy is produced by the temperature and pressure, which are produced by having a LOT of mass and gravity.



We do: General relativity does exactly that. it might not be the ultimate explanation. But it is false that we cannot explain it at all.



Actually, they can and do. They do so by a set of equations that is very similar to those that describe E&M, but extended for curved spacetime.

Again, your lack of understanding of what the real theory is does not mean it is unscientific or wrong. Just that you need to learn a bit about E&M, gravity, air pressure, galactic dynamics, the Big Bang, atoms, plasmas, cosmology, and probably a few other topics.

At this point, your understanding is below that of a high school physics class.

That is putting it mildly.

 

[rational experiences]

God O stone one gas to exist as it's highest form.

Stone did not begin in creation as stone.

Man owned super being status a scientist.

End in creation themes space. Concluded observation plus thinking.....
Space once held higher form completely eradicated.

Energy says a scientist never ends.

Yet he is a human thinking who quotes consciousness.. recorded never ends as thinking voice image recorded heavens.

Energy he coercive attacks and ends it.

Before he ends it via machine the radiation effect radiated moment for conversion emerged. What his mind is communicative now interactive possess by in communicative change.

Then he uses up the spatial memory attack moment to convert the next colder lower energy mass that eradicated heated space.

Energy ended......he lied.

Then our original father never from womb ovary O small cell baby.

Where did he come from?

Biology can claim ape ovary mother was the mother of father.

How come he quotes father talks to him...scientist voice heard theist biblical sciences?

Apes don't talk.

Then where did the ape father come from?

So then baby male adult from O cell ovary history can only claim O cell.

They look upon the ground see O cell forms and an alien.

Yet minerals are our healthy life support.

He melts minerals to build machine.

Why he tried to convince us that machines invented us by mineral melt.

Stephen Hawking correct. The sacrificed science life mind. Learning.

Our two parents never God.

We are not the ground state. Even the image states no human present.

A human consciousness only expressed advice in bio brain conditions. Human.

I observed in the same one prickling brain conditions male human images and the alien images. In the equal attacked state.

So you are wrong.

Our parents owned eternal spirit came directly pre owned....the living eternal self converted into bio life. Why bio life dies.

We owned all self evidence that we are not God history stone.

We are not life sacrificed as said it happened once. Science equalled that condition. As changed atmosphere natural owned it since.

A teaching.

 

[Native]

At this point, your understanding is below that of a high school physics class

My reply to this judgement is that you´re on a similar level regarding the conceptual skills of Natural Philosophy.

I can´t use your math as your equations breakes together several places in cosmology and astrophysics. I can´t use your definitions of E&M as these are disconnected from the concept of nucleosynthesis. And I can´t use your linear time perception in an Universe of rotating and orbiting objects.

Polymath257, I´m sure you´re doing your very best from what you´ve learned of math, consensus cosmology and astrophysics. But all this is not enough for a genuine Natural Philosopher who looks for the natural and overall connections and logical explanations.

Newton had the title of Natural Philosopher, but he did a really bad job when asserting "gravity" from a falling apple, as he forgot to ask WHY and HOW. He forgot to investigate the reason of an apple being created up on the tree branch (biological E&M nucleosynthesis) and then all went wrong in the following cosmology. I reckognize his calculations of celestial motions but NOT for the reasons of "gravity between objects".

Polymath257, our ends doesn´t seem any time soon to come together, but I respect your end of the thread and I expect the same from you.

 

[Native]

That is putting it mildly.

At least your collective mocking skills are excellent

 

[gnostic]

At this point, your understanding is below that of a high school physics class.

Yep. That’s true.

Although much of my physics is “applied physics” (physics that focused on the engineering), even I am see the errors in what he have said and claimed.

And I am not talking just about cosmology. I don’t think he even grasp basic physics.

Again, your lack of understanding of what the real theory is does not mean it is unscientific or wrong. Just that you need to learn a bit about E&M, gravity, air pressure, galactic dynamics, the Big Bang, atoms, plasmas, cosmology, and probably a few other topics.

Native needs to learn all this, if he didn’t learn them the first time.

The problem with Native, he allowed his ego to bias everything.

He has chosen EM, so he ignored everything else.

He think that since “he” favored EM forces as “the strongest force” (which it isn’t), then what ever he might says or what ever he might claims, must be true.

All four forces played their respective roles in the cosmology, not just EM.

 

[exchemist]

Yep. That’s true.

Although much of my physics is “applied physics” (physics that focused on the engineering), even I am see the errors in what he have said and claimed.

And I am not talking just about cosmology. I don’t think he even grasp basic physics.



Native needs to learn all this, if he didn’t learn them the first time.

The problem with Native, he allowed his ego to bias everything.

He has chosen EM, so he ignored everything else.

He think that since “he” favored EM forces as “the strongest force” (which it isn’t), then what ever he might says or what ever he might claims, must be true.

All four forces played their respective roles in the cosmology, not just EM.

It's plain though that he doesn't want to learn anything. I suspect he revels in making up his own version of the world, precisely in order to be different and, in his own mind, a rebel against what sees as authority. There are plenty of people around like that: deliberate contrarians for the sake of it. cf. flat earthers.

 

[Native]

Polymath257 said: ↑
At this point, your understanding is below that of a high school physics class.

Yep. That’s true.

If so, this is also tru - also for you:

My reply to this judgement is that you´re on a similar level regarding the conceptual skills of Natural Philosophy.

The problem with Native, he allowed his ego to bias everything.

You mean in contrary to you?

He has chosen EM, so he ignored everything else.
He think that since “he” favored EM forces as “the strongest force” (which it isn’t), then what ever he might says or what ever he might claims, must be true.

WHAT? Your "he" here refers to the consensus definitions of fundamental forces!

And you´re talking of "knowing nothing about cosmology"? Notise the order of minus in "gravity"!

This silly asserted "force" cannot even attract single molecule particles floating around over the Earth´s surfase, so why should it be possible concerning the "gravity" based Solar System "cloud of gas and dust"- nucleosynthetic formation or anywhere else in the Universe at all for that matter?

Some logical sense and overall connected perceptions would certainly suit you But well, you like your fairy tales

 

[Native]

It's plain though that he doesn't want to learn anything. I suspect he revels in making up his own version of the world, precisely in order to be different and, in his own mind, a rebel against what sees as authority. There are plenty of people around like that: deliberate contrarians for the sake of it. cf. flat earthers.

I simply cannot take you serious in regards of cosmological discussions as all you can, is posting your subjective emotional comments.

 

[Polymath257]

My reply to this judgement is that you´re on a similar level regarding the conceptual skills of Natural Philosophy.

I can´t use your math as your equations breakes together several places in cosmology and astrophysics. I can´t use your definitions of E&M as these are disconnected from the concept of nucleosynthesis. And I can´t use your linear time perception in an Universe of rotating and orbiting objects.

Polymath257, I´m sure you´re doing your very best from what you´ve learned of math, consensus cosmology and astrophysics. But all this is not enough for a genuine Natural Philosopher who looks for the natural and overall connections and logical explanations.

Newton had the title of Natural Philosopher, but he did a really bad job when asserting "gravity" from a falling apple, as he forgot to ask WHY and HOW. He forgot to investigate the reason of an apple being created up on the tree branch (biological E&M nucleosynthesis) and then all went wrong in the following cosmology. I reckognize his calculations of celestial motions but NOT for the reasons of "gravity between objects".

Polymath257, our ends doesn´t seem any time soon to come together, but I respect your end of the thread and I expect the same from you.

You've just said that you won't be doing any actual science. If all you are doing is philosophy, then go ahead and do it. But don't claim it has any scientific backing.

 

[Polymath257]

He forgot to investigate the reason of an apple being created up on the tree branch (biological E&M nucleosynthesis) and then all went wrong in the following cosmology.

Biological E&M nucleosynthesis????

Wow. That almost beats thinking the weight of the air is what makes things fall.

 

[Native]

You've just said that you won't be doing any actual science. If all you are doing is philosophy, then go ahead and do it. But don't claim it has any scientific backing.

The difference between you, consensus science and me is that I´m getting the philosophical considerations and dots correct - well asisted by modern observations - before fiddling with universal matters to fit mathemagicious calculations.

The reason you don´t take this as scientific activity is that modern cosmological science completely has drowned their minds in all kinds of "dark ghosts" instead of using the electromagnetic light in cosmos and in their brains to understand what is going on.

Fine with me. Keep on sleeping in the darkness

 

[Polymath257]

The difference between you, consensus science and me is that I´m getting the philosophical considerations and dots correct - well asisted by modern observations - before fiddling with universal matters to fit mathemagicious calculations.

The reason you don´t take this as scientific activity is that modern cosmological science completely has drowned their minds in all kinds of "dark ghosts" instead of using the electromagnetic light in cosmos and in their brains to understand what is going on.

Fine with me. Keep on sleeping in the darkness

And the basic things you are missing:

1. making testable predictions
2. making actual observations to test them

You can't do real science without making a prediction and testing your ideas. No matter how 'reasonable' or 'unreasonable' an idea, the value of it is ultimately determined by whether it makes testable predictions that are verified by observation.

 

[Native]

Biological E&M nucleosynthesis????

There you go again displaying your restricted consensus perceptions. But maybe you think it´s your belowed asserted gravity which forms new babies too?

Well if you think so, is it also your belowed asserted gravity force which makes the tail of a spermcell to rotate?

Edit:

"How human sperm really swim: New research challenges centuries-old assumption. Credit: polymaths-lab.com".

Polymath257: Note the credit to polymaths

 

[Native]

And the basic things you are missing:

1. making testable predictions
2. making actual observations to test them

You can't do real science without making a prediction and testing your ideas. No matter how 'reasonable' or 'unreasonable' an idea, the value of it is ultimately determined by whether it makes testable predictions that are verified by observation.

Fine. You can take off predicting and testing Big Bang.