• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

My theory about gravity.

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
No, the motion of the solar system is quite independent of that of the galaxy as a whole. Planetary orbits do NOT align with anything galactically.
This disconnected ignorance is why modern cosmologists are forced to guess about the motions in the Solar System. The entire Solar System is in fact orbiting the galactic center. Don´t you ever think for your self?
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Life as we know it could not exist without gravity. It is a natural binding force, the cause of which is mysterious, that holds everything together in our world and in our universe. Matter would just float in space freely and aimlessly without form otherwise. Without gravity, the universal and mutual attraction between material bodies, there could be no solar system or orbits of heavenly bodies as a foundation to cement life and all the natural necessary provisions to make life possible. Gravity is the restraint the keeps us from drifting away from our sun forever so that we would otherwise freeze to death in short order.

Gravity, like water, makes life possible but also either is sometimes the cause of death. Mother Nature gives life: Mother Nature takes away life.
Let there be light

was the first effect of gravity
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
This disconnected ignorance is why modern cosmologists are forced to guess about the motions in the Solar System. The entire Solar System is in fact orbiting the galactic center. Don´t you ever think for your self?

Yes, the solar system is orbiting the galactic center. That doesn't mean the orbits of the planets *in* the solar system are connected to an overall flow of the galaxy. The spaces between stars is a *vacuum*.

In my opinion, you just need to learn some basic physics. F=ma goes a long, long way.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Yes, the solar system is orbiting the galactic center. That doesn't mean the orbits of the planets *in* the solar system are connected to an overall flow of the galaxy. The spaces between stars is a *vacuum*.
Of course the Solar System is connected to the overall flow in the galaxy. Just as the orbital planets and moons in our Solar System is closely connected to the Sun and its formation of planets, i.e. the overall flow, the entire Solar System is connected to the orbital motions and formation of stars in the center of the galaxy around which all stars are orbiting. It´s the very similar principle of formation and rotation.
In my opinion, you just need to learn some basic physics. F=ma goes a long, long way.
Before you go on with your patronizing comments, you need IMO to learn logical thinking and to connect the cosmological dots :) What´s the point of learning F=ma when it is contradicted in the galactic surroundings and it only "works" hypothetically via a dark matter which isn´t found?
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Native said:
I know :) Adding things is very common in Standard Cosmology :) Funny enough, all these latest added "things" are in dark mode which cannot be seen or observed.

When writing "in dark mode" this meant "dark matter and dark energy".
But they *are* observed. We can use their gravitational influence to map out where the dark matter is. That *is* an observation.
No it is not an observation! A possible gravitational influence of "dark matter" is just ASSUMED and inserted in the hypothesis because scientists failed to analyse and conclude the correct motions of formation in galaxies.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Native said:
I know :) Adding things is very common in Standard Cosmology :) Funny enough, all these latest added "things" are in dark mode which cannot be seen or observed.

When writing "in dark mode" this meant "dark matter and dark energy".

No it is not an observation! A possible gravitational influence of "dark matter" is just ASSUMED and inserted in the hypothesis because scientists failed to analyse and conclude the correct motions of formation in galaxies.

But one of the things that dark matter helps to explain is precisely the formation of galaxies.

If you have an alternative that can match the details mathematically, let someone know. Otherwise, all you have is vague musings.

You claim that the motion of the solar system is part of a galactic flow. Show the numbers. Why is the alignment so far off of the plane of galactic rotation?

In fact, the motion in our solar system is far more controlled by the motions in the gas cloud from which it formed. We can see this process going on today in HII nebulae.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Life as we know it could not exist without gravity. It is a natural binding force, the cause of which is mysterious, that holds everything together in our world and in our universe. Matter would just float in space freely and aimlessly without form otherwise. Without gravity, the universal and mutual attraction between material bodies, there could be no solar system or orbits of heavenly bodies as a foundation to cement life and all the natural necessary provisions to make life possible. Gravity is the restraint the keeps us from drifting away from our sun forever so that we would otherwise freeze to death in short order.

Gravity, like water, makes life possible but also either is sometimes the cause of death. Mother Nature gives life: Mother Nature takes away life.
I missed the theory part...
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
But one of the things that dark matter helps to explain is precisely the formation of galaxies.
No it doesn´t. It just confirms the (contradicted) Standard Model perception of gravitational theory which couldn´t explain the galactic formation and motion at all, hence the "need" of inserting the a "dark matter" in first hand. You need to include other fundamental EM forces and get a much broader cosmic view in order to explain what happens in galaxies.

You claim that the motion of the solar system is part of a galactic flow. Show the numbers. Why is the alignment so far off of the plane of galactic rotation?
This is because of the laws of Electromagnetism where the standing electric current in the galaxy causes a perpendicular magnetic field which again creates the galactic disk of which the Solar System is a part. The very similar EM proces happens when the Sun was formed and gave birth to the planets.
In fact, the motion in our solar system is far more controlled by the motions in the gas cloud from which it formed. We can see this process going on today in HII nebulae.
By not having a specific cosmic location of this cosmic nebulae from which the Solar System was formed, it is easy to make such a short hand conclusion that the system only is governed by the cosmic cloud.

But then you have to remember that the entire Solar System is an integrated part of the galactic motion and logically was formed via the galactic motion and formation.

I agree that our Sun was formed out of a cosmic cloud of gas and dust, but this took place in the swirling galactic center which gave the initial rotational motion to the Sun and later on to the planets which were formed directly out of the rotating Sun, thus causing the orbital planes of the planets.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
No it doesn´t. It just confirms the (contradicted) Standard Model perception of gravitational theory which couldn´t explain the galactic formation and motion at all, hence the "need" of inserting the a "dark matter" in first hand. You need to include other fundamental EM forces and get a much broader cosmic view in order to explain what happens in galaxies.


OK, show how to do so. What are the E&M fields close by?


This is because of the laws of Electromagnetism where the standing electric current in the galaxy causes a perpendicular magnetic field which again creates the galactic disk of which the Solar System is a part. The very similar EM proces happens when the Sun was formed and gave birth to the planets.

Really? Where is the current? What is the current density? Show evidence of said current. What is the magnitude and direction of the resulting magnetic field? How does this affect the motion in the solar system.

GIVE DETAILS.


I agree that our Sun was formed out of a cosmic cloud of gas and dust, but this took place in the swirling galactic center which gave the initial rotational motion to the Sun and later on to the planets which were formed directly out of the rotating Sun, thus causing the orbital planes of the planets.

Nope. Star formation doesn't typically happen close to the center of spiral galaxies. Instead, it happens in nebulae like the Orion or the Eagle nebulae. These are NOT at the galactic center, but are along the spiral arms.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Let there be light

was the first effect of gravity
Light are photon particle and electromagnetic radiation, the dual properties already explained by Einstein.

Light isn’t effect of gravity, but of weak interaction that allow photon to be break away from the source. More importantly, light is propagated through its own force - electromagnetic force or interaction - not by gravity.

However, if light is passing by large mass with strong enough gravity field, the gravitational force could bend light or at least cause the light’s path to curve around the mass.

This again is explained by Einstein in General Relativity.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Light are photon particle and electromagnetic radiation, the dual properties already explained by Einstein.

Light isn’t effect of gravity, but of weak interaction that allow photon to be break away from the source.

While the E&M and weak force have been unified, in this context, it would NOT be the weak force that is operating, but the E&M force. Photons interact directly with charged particles, not through the W and Z particles of the weak force.

More importantly, light is propagated through its own force - electromagnetic force or interaction - not by gravity.

However, if light is passing by large mass with strong enough gravity field, the gravitational force could bend light or at least cause the light’s path to curve around the mass.

This again is explained by Einstein in General Relativity.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Light are photon particle and electromagnetic radiation, the dual properties already explained by Einstein.

Light isn’t effect of gravity, but of weak interaction that allow photon to be break away from the source. More importantly, light is propagated through its own force - electromagnetic force or interaction - not by gravity.

However, if light is passing by large mass with strong enough gravity field, the gravitational force could bend light or at least cause the light’s path to curve around the mass.

This again is explained by Einstein in General Relativity.
so?.... the extensive effort made over years......and with some risk
to photograph the shift in path
that light is affected by gravity

was for nothing

and proves nothing

gravity is property of mass
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Native said:
No it doesn´t. It just confirms the (contradicted) Standard Model perception of gravitational theory which couldn´t explain the galactic formation and motion at all, hence the "need" of inserting the a "dark matter" in first hand. You need to include other fundamental EM forces and get a much broader cosmic view in order to explain what happens in galaxies.
And:
This is because of the laws of Electromagnetism where the standing electric current in the galaxy causes a perpendicular magnetic field which again creates the galactic disk of which the Solar System is a part. The very similar EM proces happens when the Sun was formed and gave birth to the planets.

Really? Where is the current? What is the current density? Show evidence of said current. What is the magnitude and direction of the resulting magnetic field? How does this affect the motion in the solar system.

GIVE DETAILS.
Here are some clues: Magnetic fields in galaxies:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1302/1302.5663.pdf
Swirling Magnetic Fields Hint at Origins of Spiral Galaxy Shapes
Magnetic-Field Discovery Gives Clues to Galaxy Formation Processes - National Radio Astronomy Observatory
4.6 billion-year-old galaxy shines light on our universe

Me:
"I agree that our Sun was formed out of a cosmic cloud of gas and dust, but this took place in the swirling galactic center which gave the initial rotational motion to the Sun and later on to the planets which were formed directly out of the rotating Sun, thus causing the orbital planes of the planets".
Nope. Star formation doesn't typically happen close to the center of spiral galaxies. Instead, it happens in nebulae like the Orion or the Eagle nebulae. These are NOT at the galactic center, but are along the spiral arms.
I agree that a secondary formation proces can form stars out in the galactic arms, but it all starts in the galactic center.

Otherwise it doesn´t seem that your are updated with the latest news in modern cosmology and astrophysics . .

Galactic formation inside out:
Galaxies Grow from Inside Out - quote:
“New evidence from NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) and Galaxy Evolution Explorer (GALEX) missions provide support for the "inside-out" theory of galaxy evolution, which holds that star formation starts at the core of the galaxy and spreads outward”.

Just as I´ve sensed intuitively and said for some decades now . . . the initial formation of stars in galaxies starts at the core and spreads outwards. This is why the standard cosmologists were baffled regarding the gravitational assumptions and the discovered "galactic rotation anomaly", compared to the planetary motions in the Solar System. The entire gravitational idea doesn´t compute universally.

This motion of an inside-out formation in galaxies also discards the assumed ide of a "heavy central black object/hole" in the galactic center and this outgoing motion of star formation is STILL mirrored in the motions of the Solar System with the increased distances between the Earth and the Sun and between the Earth and the Moon.

There is NO "gravitational spinning frame-dragging" between the Earth and the Moon which makes the Moon to move away from the Earth as gravitationally ASSUMED in the Standard Cosmology. This is just a logical result of the fact that the Moon once was formed OUT from the Earth - another "inside-out" formation which once was started in the inside-out formation in the galaxy.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Native said:
No it doesn´t. It just confirms the (contradicted) Standard Model perception of gravitational theory which couldn´t explain the galactic formation and motion at all, hence the "need" of inserting the a "dark matter" in first hand. You need to include other fundamental EM forces and get a much broader cosmic view in order to explain what happens in galaxies.
And:
This is because of the laws of Electromagnetism where the standing electric current in the galaxy causes a perpendicular magnetic field which again creates the galactic disk of which the Solar System is a part. The very similar EM proces happens when the Sun was formed and gave birth to the planets.

And I say this is wrong and not in agreement even with *your* sources.


Here are some clues: Magnetic fields in galaxies:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1302/1302.5663.pdf
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1302/1302.5663.pdf

Yes, there are electric and magnetic fields in galaxies. of that, there is no question. The issue is how strong they are and how they affect the dynamics. The actual values of the strength of the magnetic fields shows they don't significantly affect the dynamics.




Yes, we can use the magnetic fields to trace out what is going on dynamically in many cases. But that is the magnetic fields *responding* to the dynamics, not causing the dynamics. The fields tend to follow the dust particles.

Here is a quote from this source:
“The magnetic field looks like it’s along for the ride,” Jones says. “In other words, the magnetic field itself is not telling us where the spiral arms should be; the spiral arms are telling us where the magnetic field points.”



Once again, the magnetic fields are things we can detect and map out, and they provide information because they 'go along for the ride'. That means they give us clues to what is going on. That does NOT mean they significantly affect what is going on. In fact, the size of these fields shows that they do not.



Yes, the dynamics of magnetic fields needs to be studied more. There are aspects, especially in early galaxy formation, that we do not understand. But, again, the strength of those fields is not enough to significantly affect the dynamics. They can *show* the dynamics, but it is gravity that is the main influencer of those dynamics.

Me:
"I agree that our Sun was formed out of a cosmic cloud of gas and dust, but this took place in the swirling galactic center which gave the initial rotational motion to the Sun and later on to the planets which were formed directly out of the rotating Sun, thus causing the orbital planes of the planets".

I agree that a secondary formation proces can form stars out in the galactic arms, but it all starts in the galactic center.

Otherwise it doesn´t seem that your are updated with the latest news in modern cosmology and astrophysics . .

Galactic formation inside out:
Galaxies Grow from Inside Out - quote:
“New evidence from NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) and Galaxy Evolution Explorer (GALEX) missions provide support for the "inside-out" theory of galaxy evolution, which holds that star formation starts at the core of the galaxy and spreads outward”.

Just as I´ve sensed intuitively and said for some decades now . . . the initial formation of stars in galaxies starts at the core and spreads outwards. This is why the standard cosmologists were baffled regarding the gravitational assumptions and the discovered "galactic rotation anomaly", compared to the planetary motions in the Solar System. The entire gravitational idea doesn´t compute universally.

Nope, the two have NOTHING to do with each other. The magnetic and electric fields (which do exist) are simply not strong enough to explain this anomaly.

This motion of an inside-out formation in galaxies also discards the assumed ide of a "heavy central black object/hole" in the galactic center and this outgoing motion of star formation is STILL mirrored in the motions of the Solar System with the increased distances between the Earth and the Sun and between the Earth and the Moon.

Where did you get the idea that galaxies forming inside out negates the existence of central black holes? We *know* there are central black holes in most galaxies.

There is NO "gravitational spinning frame-dragging" between the Earth and the Moon which makes the Moon to move away from the Earth as gravitationally ASSUMED in the Standard Cosmology. This is just a logical result of the fact that the Moon once was formed OUT from the Earth - another "inside-out" formation which once was started in the inside-out formation in the galaxy.

Wrong in so many ways. First, the motion of the moon away from the Earth (which has been measured) is NOT due to 'frame-dragging', which is a general relativistic effect, but simply by tidal forces. This is well-understood and not controversial.

Second, we KNOW that the Moon formed from the Earth and has moved away and not the reverse.

Third, again, this motion has NOTHING to do with the spiral structure or motion of our galaxy in the large.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
And I say this is wrong and not in agreement even with *your* sources.
As you "read" the sources exclusively out from a gravity perspective, you of course you are entitled to have this exclusive opinion.
Yes, there are electric and magnetic fields in galaxies. of that, there is no question. The issue is how strong they are and how they affect the dynamics. The actual values of the strength of the magnetic fields shows they don't significantly affect the dynamics.
Yes I know. "Electricity and magnetism is all over the places in the Universe, but it has no effect on anything". So says all gravitationalists.

When considering the very strong gamma ray beaming out from the galactic poles, anyone who thinks for themselves can make the connection to the central formative powers in galaxies which takes place at the nuclear level.
Yes, we can use the magnetic fields to trace out what is going on dynamically in many cases. But that is the magnetic fields *responding* to the dynamics, not causing the dynamics. The fields tend to follow the dust particles.
This is a kind of non sensical sentence. Of course the fields tend to follow the dust particles! These are all ionized by the very electromagnetic force in the galaxy.
Once again, the magnetic fields are things we can detect and map out, and they provide information because they 'go along for the ride'. That means they give us clues to what is going on. That does NOT mean they significantly affect what is going on. In fact, the size of these fields shows that they do not.
There we go again. Maybe you´ll now suggest that it´s gravity which creates the galactic electromagnetism?
Yes, the dynamics of magnetic fields needs to be studied more. There are aspects, especially in early galaxy formation, that we do not understand. But, again, the strength of those fields is not enough to significantly affect the dynamics. They can *show* the dynamics, but it is gravity that is the main influencer of those dynamics.
Yes, "there are aspects we (conventional gravity cosmologists) don´t understand", STILL you dogmatically claim gravity to govern it all in spite it is the weakest (assumed) force of all fundamental forces. This is unbelievable indeed.
Nope, the two have NOTHING to do with each other. The magnetic and electric fields (which do exist) are simply not strong enough to explain this anomaly.
Apparently you´re having troubles with connecting an inside-out formation in galaxies with the fact that such a spiraling motion causes the stars to move out in the galactic surrounding with the similar orbital motion around the galactic center.
Where did you get the idea that galaxies forming inside out negates the existence of central black holes? We *know* there are central black holes in most galaxies.
Nonsense. If there was/is such a strong dark ghost in the galactic centers, it wouldn´t be possible for galaxies to form inside-out at all as several scientist suggests. But maybe you outright deny this fact?

Wrong in so many ways. First, the motion of the moon away from the Earth (which has been measured) is NOT due to 'frame-dragging', which is a general relativistic effect, but simply by tidal forces. This is well-understood and not controversial.
"Frame-dragging" or "tidal effect" is the same gravitation nonsense of "spooky affects in distance".
Second, we KNOW that the Moon formed from the Earth and has moved away and not the reverse.
That´s just what I wrote:
"There is NO "gravitational spinning frame-dragging" between the Earth and the Moon which makes the Moon to move away from the Earth as gravitationally ASSUMED in the Standard Cosmology. This is just a logical result of the fact that the Moon once was formed OUT from the Earth - another "inside-out" formation which once was started in the inside-out formation in the galaxy".
Third, again, this motion has NOTHING to do with the spiral structure or motion of our galaxy in the large.
Once again you fails to connect the central formative spiraling inside-out motion in the galaxy and how this made the spiraling Sun and subsequently all orbital motions of the planets.

But never mind :) R.I.P. with your Newtonian and and Einsteinian gravitational ghosts and curved spacetime.
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
As you "read" the sources exclusively out from a gravity perspective, you of course you are entitled to have this exclusive opinion.

Well, it is what the sources you gave actually said.

Yes I know. "Electricity and magnetism is all over the places in the Universe, but it has no effect on anything". So says all gravitationalists.

Did I say it has no effect *on anything*? No. The magnetic fields have effects on charged particles. Since most matter isn't charged, it has little effect on most matter.

For example, the Earth has a magnetic field. it is stronger than the galactic one. But it has no effect on the *rotation* of the Earth. it *does* have an effect in blocking cosmic rays and producing auroras.

When considering the very strong gamma ray beaming out from the galactic poles, anyone who thinks for themselves can make the connection to the central formative powers in galaxies which takes place at the nuclear level.

Yes, the gamma rays are produced in high energy environments, like supernova, or close to neutron stars, or close to black holes. The spectra of those gamma rays can also tell a LOT about their origin. But that is pretty irrelevant to what we have been talking about.

This is a kind of non sensical sentence. Of course the fields tend to follow the dust particles! These are all ionized by the very electromagnetic force in the galaxy.

There we go again. Maybe you´ll now suggest that it´s gravity which creates the galactic electromagnetism?

Not directly, no. It can produce the high energy environments that lead to high strenght magnetic fields, like around neutron stars, for example. But the magnetic fields of galaxies are far, far, far weaker than those around neutron stars.

Yes, "there are aspects we (conventional gravity cosmologists) don´t understand", STILL you dogmatically claim gravity to govern it all in spite it is the weakest (assumed) force of all fundamental forces. This is unbelievable indeed.

Why? it is the one that always acts, whether the matter is charged or not. We know it is present, we understand how strong it is and how that strength depends on mass. We also understand E&M overall and how the strength of E&M fields is produced. We also know the strength of the galactic magnetic fields and the dynamical equations from those and so how they affect matter.

Apparently you´re having troubles with connecting an inside-out formation in galaxies with the fact that such a spiraling motion causes the stars to move out in the galactic surrounding with the similar orbital motion around the galactic center.

Except that they *don't* move out: they move around.

Nonsense. If there was/is such a strong dark ghost in the galactic centers, it wouldn´t be possible for galaxies to form inside-out at all as several scientist suggests. But maybe you outright deny this fact?

yes, i outright deny that idea. In fact, it is the black hole and its gravitational well that produces the concentrated environment where the first stars formed.


"Frame-dragging" or "tidal effect" is the same gravitation nonsense of "spooky affects in distance".

So you are denying gravity in general?? Wow.

That´s just what I wrote:
"There is NO "gravitational spinning frame-dragging" between the Earth and the Moon which makes the Moon to move away from the Earth as gravitationally ASSUMED in the Standard Cosmology. This is just a logical result of the fact that the Moon once was formed OUT from the Earth - another "inside-out" formation which once was started in the inside-out formation in the galaxy".

Once again you fails to connect the central formative spiraling inside-out motion in the galaxy and how this made the spiraling Sun and subsequently all orbital motions of the planets.

I don't fail to connect them. There is simply no connection.

But never mind :) R.I.P. with your Newtonian and and Einsteinian gravitational ghosts and curved spacetime.

News of their demise is rather premature.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Let's ask things this way, @Native . Do you agree that electromagnetism follows the laws set out by Maxwell and that the interaction of the electromagnetic fields with matter is governed by the Lorentz force law?

Note: Both quantum electrodynamics and general relativity describe electromagnetism by Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force law.

Let's start there and we can see where we can go.
 
Top