"Dark Matter": Blaming Newton

[ecco]

Honestly, when dealing with cosmological matters, "science" don´t have any common consensus knowledge of "the creation" at all, so you only have your speculative "believes" left to hold onto.

Your argument here is, essentially: "Science doesn't know everything, therefore, it knows nothing".

The other part of your argument is similar to: "Science doesn't know, therefore GodDidIt". Only in your version, it's: "Modern Science doesn't know, only the ancients knew. Did you ever explain how the ancients came to know? Was it God Told Them?

 

[gnostic]

And on a galactic scale, the distances to V1 and V2 are absolutely trivial. Even if they had the best telescopes on them, they would *still* be looking from 'within our solar system' on such a scale.

Yes. Despite being in space for nearly 42 year, they still haven’t travelled 1 light-year from Earth.

Voyager 1 is 148 Astronomical Units (AU) from Earth, which is about 0.00234 light-year. Despite flying pass the heliopause (August 2012) and into insterstellar medium, it is still hasn’t reach the border of the Oort Cloud.

 

[gnostic]

I see that you still don't have a good answer. Not surprised.

Are you in his ignore list?

Also, Native, I seem to recall some months ago asking you to show a simulation of the solar system without gravity, and only with your EM. You didn't/couldn't. Now seems as good a time as any to ask again.

I do recall you asking him of this, elsewhere.

Gravity and EM each have their own respective roles to play in modern cosmology, and no astrophysicists are ignoring them.

And yet, Native is quite convinced that scientists are ignoring EM. His claim that EM is responsible for everything in the universe, makes Native ignoring everything else - the other 3 fundamental forces.

If anyone is ignoring anything, it is Native.

 

[blü 2]

Since science is descriptive only the anomaly is possibly due to the present limits of our knowledge.

Apologies for somehow missing this reply!

Yes I agree completely. We learn by solving problems, and meanwhile we learn by trying to solve them.

 

[Native]

No, it is still isn’t view or measure Earth as the “centre” of universe; “centre” is the wrong to word to use.
More precisely we view the cosmos from our - or from the Earth’s “vantage point”.

If you prefer this specified explanation, it´s OK by me.

 

[Native]

Again appealing to the fallacy of 'argument from ignorance' by speculating on what science does not know.

It´s OK by me if you call my critical arguments and pointing out what modern cosmology disaggrees on as "ignorant arguing"

Many did even earlier than astronomical history, as documented in their rock carvings even before writing.

Very interesting! Do you have a link to these rock art carvings?

Recent evidence indicates that the galaxies are rotating around the original point of origin a possible center of our universe only.

Link please

 

[Native]

Gravity and EM each have their own respective roles to play in modern cosmology, and no astrophysicists are ignoring them.
And yet, Native is quite convinced that scientists are ignoring EM. His claim that EM is responsible for everything in the universe, makes Native ignoring everything else - the other 3 fundamental forces.

Excuse me for interfering in your unpleasent 3th person discussion here.

You disappoint me. You should know by now that I take the 3 forces outside "gravity" to be 1, so I´m just ignoring the "weakest of them all".

If anyone is ignoring anything, it is Native.

Be so kind not to discuss in third person just because you seek support from other debaters.

 

[shunyadragon]

It´s OK by me if you call my critical arguments and pointing out what modern cosmology disaggrees on as "ignorant arguing"

"ignorant arguing" is not descriptive of the fallacy 'arguing from ignorance.' Arguing from ignorance' is challenging your adversary with the question of what is unknown . . . therefore. Look it up.

Very interesting! Do you have a link to these rock art carvings?

Link please

Neolithic rock carvings of the cosmos - Google Search

There is a book that describes these in more detail on Amazon, the pictures like the detail explained in the book.

 

[ecco]

Are you in his ignore list?

Quite possibly. I tend to be very direct in my comments and questions.

But, really, if there was any validity to EM instead of gravity, a computer simulation of the solar system's movements without gravity should be as easy to program as is one using gravity. And yet, none on the EM proponents have been able to do so.

 

[Native]

Very interesting! Do you have a link to these rock art carvings?

--------

Neolithic rock carvings of the cosmos - Google Search

Don´t you have a direct link to the topic? I don´t have the time to search for evidence for your claims.

I also asked for a link to this:

Recent evidence indicates that the galaxies are rotating around the original point of origin a possible center of our universe only.

 

[Native]

Quite possibly. I tend to be very direct in my comments and questions.

I don´t have anything against direct comments and questions at all. What I don´t like is personal condescending comments. So beware of my ignore list

But, really, if there was any validity to EM instead of gravity, a computer simulation of the solar system's movements without gravity should be as easy to program as is one using gravity. And yet, none on the EM proponents have been able to do so.

Yes, for most mathematicians it is easy to program the motions in the Solar System as this was empirically known long before it was put on mathematical equations which describes the motions but don´t explain these.

It´s quite another thing with a possible EM model as this demands a specific approach in where the Solar System formation is integrated in the formation and rotation in the Milky Way galaxy, and where the galactic rotation anomaly can be logically explained.

 

[shunyadragon]

--------

Don´t you have a direct link to the topic? I don´t have the time to search for evidence for your claims.

My source was from a book, which I referred to on Amazon, but the following goes into detail with cataloguing different neolithic sites, but it is long read. http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-631-1.pdf

My book reference:

Ancient Astronomy: India, Egypt, China, Maya, Inca, Aztec, Greece, Rome, Genesis, Hebrews, Christians, the Neolithic and Paleolithic
by Juan Antonio Belmonte, Helge Kragh, et al.

I do not know of any Neolithic cultures that were not Geocentric and believed in a Sun centered cosmology, or described a cosmos from the perspective of the contemporary galaxies.

I also asked for a link to this:

The link to this was in another thread on the topic.

Study of 200,000 Galaxies Reveals the Entire Universe Might Have Been Spinning in One Direction Early On - Universe Today

 

[Native]

My source was from a book, which I referred to on Amazon, but the following goes into detail with cataloguing different neolithic sites, but it is long read. http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-631-1.pdf

My book reference:

Ancient Astronomy: India, Egypt, China, Maya, Inca, Aztec, Greece, Rome, Genesis, Hebrews, Christians, the Neolithic and Paleolithic
by Juan Antonio Belmonte, Helge Kragh, et al.

I do not know of any Neolithic cultures that were not Geocentric and believed in a Sun centered cosmology, or described a cosmos from the perspective of the contemporary galaxies.

Thanks for these links and LOTS of readings It also tell me that you´re not quite without an interest for ancient cultures

3 remarks to the "center problem".
1) If just watching the celestial day- and night rhythms, our ancestors naturally would believe the Earth to be the center.
2) If watching the annual appearance of the changing zodiacal star constellations and their helical rising, they MAYBE would have deduced the Sun to be the center.
3) If including a knowledge from their Stories of Creation, they would have taken the galactic center to be their prime one.

But then again: We now know of galactic clusters and super clusters and some cosmologists have the conviction of a central Great Attractor - and at the same time call this an anomaly. And they even have such an unusual "gravitational thing" as a "Dipole Repeller" in this cosmological picture.

The link to this was in another thread on the topic.
Study of 200,000 Galaxies Reveals the Entire Universe Might Have Been Spinning in One Direction Early On - Universe Today

IMO this would request an initial spinning momentum if and when talking of a possible Big Bang model. Where should this spinning momentum come from?

In a first glance, this is somewhat contra intuitive too me as galaxies in the observable Universe have both clockwise and anti-clockwise spins. seen from our perspective. How could this be if the entire Universe had one direction spinning at a beginning?

 

[shunyadragon]

Thanks for these links and LOTS of readings It also tell me that you´re not quite without an interest for ancient cultures

3 remarks to the "center problem".
1) If just watching the celestial day- and night rhythms, our ancestors naturally would believe the Earth to be the center.
2) If watching the annual appearance of the changing zodiacal star constellations and their helical rising, they MAYBE would have deduced the Sun to be the center.
3) If including a knowledge from their Stories of Creation, they would have taken the galactic center to be their prime one.

But then again: We now know of galactic clusters and super clusters and some cosmologists have the conviction of a central Great Attractor - and at the same time call this an anomaly. And they even have such an unusual "gravitational thing" as a "Dipole Repeller" in this cosmological picture.

IMO this would request an initial spinning momentum if and when talking of a possible Big Bang model. Where should this spinning momentum come from?

In a first glance, this is somewhat contra intuitive too me as galaxies in the observable Universe have both clockwise and anti-clockwise spins. seen from our perspective. How could this be if the entire Universe had one direction spinning at a beginning?

As far as the where the spinning momentum coming from? Well ah . . . like all our spinning momentum in our universe, gravity.

I also read Joseph Campbell a lot and rely on him more than most others

 

[ecco]

I don´t have anything against direct comments and questions at all. What I don´t like is personal condescending comments. So beware of my ignore list

Why should I "beware" of your ignore list? Do you believe that somehow you harm me by putting me on ignore? Putting me on ignore wouldn't stop me from making comments about your posts. Wouldn't you rather see what I write?

 

[ecco]

Yes, for most mathematicians it is easy to program the motions in the Solar System as this was empirically known long before it was put on mathematical equations which describes the motions but don´t explain these.

It´s quite another thing with a possible EM model as this demands a specific approach in where the Solar System formation is integrated in the formation and rotation in the Milky Way galaxy, and where the galactic rotation anomaly can be logically explained.

What makes you think the motions of the major bodies within the solar system are integrated with the formation and rotation of the milky way?


If I am driving at high speed, a cop with radar can determine if I am doing 40 or 65 mph. The cop's radar never states that I am going at over 67,000 mph (or 514,000 mph).

Likewise, computer programs using the formulas of gravity can very precisely calculate the orbits of the planets and their moons without taking into consideration the galactic rotation.

The question I have been asking, and will continue to ask, is why haven't EM proponents produced a computer simulation of the motions of the solar bodies using EM?

Is it because EM is a lot of hooey?

 

[Native]

As far as the where the spinning momentum coming from? Well ah . . . like all our spinning momentum in our universe, gravity.
I also read Joseph Campbell a lot and rely on him more than most others

I think the spinning momentum is basically embedded in all atoms - but never mind that for now.

I´ve also studied Campbell´s works and his somewhat "Jungian" approach to myths and personal archetypes but I misses an overall connection to the creation myths in this works.

 

[Native]

Why should I "beware" of your ignore list? Do you believe that somehow you harm me by putting me on ignore? Putting me on ignore wouldn't stop me from making comments about your posts. Wouldn't you rather see what I write?

Yes i would. But sometimes I get enough if replies contains emotional and judgmental comments in person.

 

[Native]

What makes you think the motions of the major bodies within the solar system are integrated with the formation and rotation of the milky way?

With the same logic of the planets that are integrated in the formation of the Sun and orbiting this, the Solar System also has an orbiting motion around the galactic center, thus indicating a close formative connection between the galactic center and the Solar System.

If I am driving at high speed, a cop with radar can determine if I am doing 40 or 65 mph. The cop's radar never states that I am going at over 67,000 mph (or 514,000 mph).
Likewise, computer programs using the formulas of gravity can very precisely calculate the orbits of the planets and their moons without taking into consideration the galactic rotation.

Yes, except from some troubles calculating the perihelion motions of planets the "gravity formulas" are doing OK in the Solar System, but it fails regarding the laws of celestial motions when it comes to the starry orbital motions in the Milky Way in which our Solar System evidently is integrated.

So we have 2 systems of motions in the SAME overall system; 1 celestial law of gravity based on no "dark matter" and 1 celestial motion in the Milky Way which require "dark matter".

The solution to this, is to hypothesize the Solar System to have formed in connection with the Milky Way center and left this in the same manner as in a two arm rotating garden sprinkler. (An Inside-Out galactic Formation) A similar motion for all stars which explains the so called galactic rotation anomaly.
(In fact galaxies forms both Outside-In and Inside-Out (Barred Galaxies) - It´s a circuit of formation)

The question I have been asking, and will continue to ask, is why haven't EM proponents produced a computer simulation of the motions of the solar bodies using EM?

I´ve in fact been asking this myself and I think it may be on its way soon, based on these basic perceptions: Star formation and Galactic Plasmoids. Some temporary animations here

Dont get me wrong. I´m NOT a "full timer proponent" of the ThunderboltsProject, but I just refers to the strict scientific Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology departments and not to some strangely attached mythological and planetary catastrophic ideas.

Is it because EM is a lot of hooey?

Is the electro-weak force a hooey? Is the electro-strong force a hooey? Is the EM force a hooey? Is the atomic spin and charge a hooey? Is electric lightnings a hooey? Is the Earth magnetic field a hooey? Is the electricity in the Sun and it´s changing magnetic polarity a hooey? Is the strong electromagnetic gamma rays in galaxies a hooey etc. etc.?

Maybe your "hooey" isn´t well considered and thought through at all?

 

[ecco]

The question I have been asking, and will continue to ask, is why haven't EM proponents produced a computer simulation of the motions of the solar bodies using EM?

I´ve in fact been asking this myself and I think it may be on its way soon, based on these basic perceptions: Star formation and Galactic Plasmoids. Some temporary animations here

Dont get me wrong. I´m NOT a "full timer proponent" of the ThunderboltsProject, but I just refers to the strict scientific Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology departments and not to some strangely attached mythological and planetary catastrophic ideas.

On its way soon? Seriously? I raised that question to you over a year ago. Any high school senior with a knowledge of C sharp and a basic understanding of Newton's Laws can produce a decent simulation of the motions of the bodies in the solar system.

You linking to Thunderbolt web pages does not impress me. Do you expect that I'll read them? Well, I did glance at one:

“This observation shows that it is conceivable that the misalignment of planetary orbits can be caused by a warp structure formed in the earliest stages of planetary formation. We will have to investigate more systems to find out if this is a common phenomenon or not.”
​

They can't even model the solar system with EM.