Cosmology of the Electric Universe

[Native]

GRAVITY DOESN'T MAKE A TURN. I explained what does happen and you ignored the explanation. Yes, there is a turn. But it doesn't show what you think it shows.

Try to analyze what you´re saying here:

1) There is a turn in barred galaxies.
2) Your invented "gravity" cannot makes such turns.
3) Your invented gravity doesn´t govern galaxies at all.

 

[Polymath257]

Try to analyze what you´re saying here:

1) There is a turn in barred galaxies.
2) Your invented "gravity" cannot makes such turns.
3) Your invented gravity doesn´t govern galaxies at all.

No, I am saying that the force of gravity does not make the turn. It governs how the stars make that turn. And *that* gravity *can* do.

 

[Native]

No, I am saying that the force of gravity does not make the turn. It governs how the stars make that turn. And *that* gravity *can* do.

So:
1) Gravity does not make the turn.
2) Still gravity can make the stars to turn like that.

Inconsistent - self contradictionary and totally without any logics. Duh!

 

[Polymath257]

So:
1) Gravity does not make the turn.
2) Still gravity can make the stars to turn like that.

Inconsistent - self contradictionary and totally without any logics. Duh!

The point is that the stars are all orbiting *around*. That bar isn't solid: it is a collection of stars. The number of stars is more in the bar and in the arms, but *which* stars in in them changes over time. Sort of like what happens in a wave in the ocean: the water itself doesn't change positions, only the wave.

In the case of stars in the galaxy, the stars are orbiting, but the arms and bar are not rotating at the same rate. In some galaxies, the arms actually rotate in the opposite direction than the stars in them. So individual stars will sometimes be in the arms or bar and not in at other times. Gravity helps to form the bar and arms, making them denser.

But the gravity itself isn't turning. Nor are the stars. The stars are going around and the gravity is between the stars, wherever they are.

 

[Native]

The point is that the stars are all orbiting *around*. That bar isn't solid: it is a collection of stars. The number of stars is more in the bar and in the arms, but *which* stars in in them changes over time. Sort of like what happens in a wave in the ocean: the water itself doesn't change positions, only the wave.

In the case of stars in the galaxy, the stars are orbiting, but the arms and bar are not rotating at the same rate. In some galaxies, the arms actually rotate in the opposite direction than the stars in them. So individual stars will sometimes be in the arms or bar and not in at other times. Gravity helps to form the bar and arms, making them denser.

Explaining away your real problem!

But the gravity itself isn't turning

So far so good. The occult agency doesn´t do anything.

The stars are going around and the gravity is between the stars, wherever they are.

More explaining away your problem.

You STILL have to explain the abrupt 90 degree turn from the bars and out in the arms.

You can ONLY explain this logically by asserting a central rotational formation and an outgoing motion, out in the bars and out in the galactic arms. A formation which logically explain the galactic rotation curve.

Allegorically this motion and formation is very like a rotating two arm garden sprinkler.

A logical motion DIRECTLY AGAINST Newtons occult agency which led to the invention of another stupid occult agency of "dark matter". There isn´t even a "heavy dark hole" in barred galactic centers as the formative motion obviously goes outwards in these.

I´ve explained this logics 117 times and it´s about high time you grasp this logics.

 

[Native]

What I found to be nonsenses is that you are still hanging on to the past of Natural Philosophy, which have already being replaced by Natural Sciences, that you cannot grasp testable and verifiable evidence in simple physics experiments (free-falling in vacuum) and that you believe that your degree in Comparative Mythology give you have better insight the natural phenomena and the law of nature - and call yourself a teacher, and Polymath257 a pupil, is not only laughable, but also pitifully egotistic.

You talk to others that they should be humble by your presence, is nothing but hubris.

Can´t you understand and follow an OP?

This thread doesn´t deal with your personal emotional nonsense and your personal judgements. Contribute with some independent factual arguments or get out of this thread.

 

[Polymath257]

Explaining away your real problem!

So far so good. The occult agency doesn´t do anything.

More explaining away your problem.

You STILL have to explain the abrupt 90 degree turn from the bars and out in the arms.

Well, shall we start by looking at the variety of bars, arm systems, angles, etc in different galaxies? Do you think that maybe some pattern recognition would help when looking at a wide variety of cases?

You can ONLY explain this logically by asserting a central rotational formation and an outgoing motion, out in the bars and out in the galactic arms. A formation which logically explain the galactic rotation curve.

On the contrary, This sort of 90 degree angle shows it *cannot* be such an outgoing system. Otherwise, there is no way for the outgoing material to suddenly change direction by 90 degrees.

Instead, I say it isn't a change of direction of motion at all. it is simply a change in the density of the stars. And that *can* be explained, in part, by the fact that gravity isn't instantaneous: it takes time for its influence to move. That makes for resonant systems and bars are such.

Allegorically this motion and formation is very like a rotating two arm garden sprinkler.

Really? What is causing the 90 turn, then? Some magical metal corner?

A logical motion DIRECTLY AGAINST Newtons occult agency which led to the invention of another stupid occult agency of "dark matter". There isn´t even a "heavy dark hole" in barred galactic centers as the formative motion obviously goes outwards in these.

I´ve explained this logics 117 times and it´s about high time you grasp this logics.

You have made claims. That isn't the same as explaining. For example, *you* haven't explained the 90 degree turn. You just claim it doesn't fit into the usual theory of gravity *in spite* of numerical simulations showing it does.

 

[Rival]

THREAD LOCKED.​