Collapsing the Gravitational Collapse

[Polymath257]

Is it your magical SPRINGS you´re of again?

That was an *analogy* showing internal forces can do things. Contrary to your claim.

 

[Native]

Yea, for some reason you believe that all actual astro-physicists, astronomers, cosmologists etc are "quacks" while the one non-astro-physicist, non-astronomer, non-cosmologist who can't even get the basics of astronomy 101 correct, knows better then all others combined.

Of course you´re excused as you even haven´t watched his video. Otherwise you - maybe - could follow how thermodynamic laws frequently are violated in modern cosmology.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course you´re excused as you even haven´t watched his video. Otherwise you - maybe - could follow how thermodynamic laws frequently are violated in modern cosmology.

I've watched the video. The guy is a crank. He misunderstands what he is criticizing and promotes nonsense.

 

[gnostic]

Excellent copy pastings Did you understand all of it?

I didn’t copy and paste.

I read, and I wrote whatever I can recall, but I wrote in my own words.

And they are from what I do understand, otherwise I wouldn’t have written that post.

It is better than posting (Robitaille’s) pseudoscience videos from a man who make errors in his video, and who understand the errors he has made, and worse of all relying on spreading misinformation in which a person such as yourself, is gullible enough to take bait - hook, line and sinker.

 

[Native]

There's nothing "occult" or "superstitious" about models that describe phenomenon in independently testable and verifiable ways.

You´re confusing assumptions for "evidenses" and new observations for hindsight biases evidenses.

Numbers of occult agencies:
Newtons"gravity".
Dark matter,
Heavy black holes.
Dark energy.
Big Bang.

All results of the Dark Age of Modern Cosmology

 

[Native]

I've watched the video. The guy is a crank. He misunderstands what he is criticizing and promotes nonsense.

How much does modern science understand? In fact only 1 % of the observable Universe, so don´t be too cocky

 

[Polymath257]

How much does modern science understand? In fact only 1 % of the observable Universe, so don´t be too cocky

And he is showing he doesn't understand even that.

 

[epronovost]

NOPE! You gave me your consensus assumptions based on an "OCCULT AGENCY" which I of course reject as I don´t believe in superstious forces.

This argument is a fallacious association between the term occult as in mysterious or unknown like in the sentence "Terry has an occult agenda" and occult as associated with supernatural, religious practice and secret rituals.

 

[Native]

And he is showing he doesn't understand even that.

Polymath257
Do you want to take over this thread so I can concentrate on something less childish?

 

[Native]

I´M OUT OF THIS FOR NOW!

 

[Polymath257]

Polymath257
Do you want to take over this thread so I can concentrate on something less childish?

How is it childish to point out that this guy doesn't understand what he is talking about? That seems to be a highly relevant fact.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course you´re excused as you even haven´t watched his video. Otherwise you - maybe - could follow how thermodynamic laws frequently are violated in modern cosmology.

All that the guy in the video shows, is that he doesn't comprehend thermodynamics.
And considering this post of yours, the same goes for you.

 

[gnostic]

How much does modern science understand? In fact only 1 % of the observable Universe, so don´t be too cocky

I actually agree that we don’t understand much about the universe.

Much of our technology are about observing the universe at distances, so the evidence and data these technologies have gathered are limited.

So, yeah, it is more like 1% or even less than 1% sounds about right.

The questions are about what modern sciences know or don’t know, it is about the following:

1. it is about your claims that gravity and gravitation don’t exist;
2. it is about your misunderstanding of the physics and the evidence (A) behind modern physics (General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, Particle Physics, Electromagnetism, Thermodynamics, etc), and (B) behind the current accepted theory of the physical cosmology (eg Big Bang cosmology);
3. it is about you trying to promote the Electric Universe;
4. and it is about you using unreliable and unscientific sources, videos from P.M. Robitaille, who is absolutely clueless with modern science.

@TagliatelliMonster is right, you don’t understand modern science any more than Robitaille.

You don’t just don’t understand gravitation, you actually don’t understand electromagnetism. You have conflated and false understanding of EM forces. You are trying to pass the EM forces are the only fundamental force to exist, ignoring gravitation and the 2 nuclear forces.

In past threads of yours, you keep accusing everyone being blind - blindly following beliefs - but that doesn’t that really apply to yourself?

 

[blü 2]

"gravitationalists". Excellent.

You know you are dealing with nonsense when people feel the need to turn support for a scientific model into an "ism".

We see the same behavior in creationists who talk about "evolutionists".

Just to tidy the point, "evolutionist," meaning an adherent to the theory of evolution, is a perfectly respectable term widely used in the 19th century by many, including (if I recall aright) Thomas Huxley of himself.

 

[rational experiences]

Science says .
O maths by timed numbers.
O standing on earth mass.

Says science using maths a fixed state constant.

Using words not maths.

Words first as. Theory without using maths.

Gases in a word. Heavens within which he lives and thinks mass...not any circle.

Yet by word which he misconstrued to more that one reason coercion becomes involved in thinking.

Heavens...gases not the mass of maths. A fixed constant.

He quotes maths in science is my fact.

First O one mass which he consciously needs present to make conscious claims on earth planet.

Ignored as relative.

Relativity in consciousness was a true science teaching.

Burning gases in A vacuum the fixed state constant for a gas not maths mass O.

As maths X mass O presence is used as human science itself earth planet then O maths as mass says only collapsed bodies of mass own gas scattering including form first.

Pre existing mass O itself as science.

Stated consciously categorically his wisdom of mass maths was the only correct evaluated human sciences.