• 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!

"Dark Matter": Blaming Newton

ecco

Veteran Member
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?

Nice try at diversion. You are quite aware that I was referring to the phony pseudo-science versions of EM of which you are a proponent.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
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.
I already somewhat agreed in this - but the question was EXPLAINING the motions in the Solar System and not DESCRIBING it by math.
You linking to Thunderbolt web pages does not impress me. Do you expect that I'll read them?Well, I did glance at one:
Well thanks at least for cherry picking a sentens in where they´re asking into a cosmological problem :)
“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.
Well, can consensus gravity cosmology explain this misalignment of planetary orbits? I don´t think so.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Native said:
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?
Nice try at diversion. You are quite aware that I was referring to the phony pseudo-science versions of EM of which you are a proponent.
Yes I am aware of that. Which excactly was why I directed you to the EM facts we already now of, and STILL you´ll have nothing of it at all. It is seemingly beyond your imagination that other fundamental forces but gravity, the weakest force in cosmology, can have a cosmic/universal importance - despite the given examples above.

Edit: I also could have given you the example of welding materials together but maybe you also think this is a gravity driven activity (as in the accretion model) and not EM driven?
 
Last edited:

ecco

Veteran Member
I already somewhat agreed in this - but the question was EXPLAINING the motions in the Solar System and not DESCRIBING it by math.


By "EXPLAIN" you mean make up a bunch of stories with nothing to support them, not even mathematics. To get a ship from the earth to the moon and back took a lot more than explaining. It took understanding the force of gravity and the mathematics to exploit it.

I can say NASA used Universal Farts to guide the ship from the earth to the moon and back. If I have the formulas relating to the force of various Universal Farts, I can use maths to calculate the propellant requirements to accomplish said task. I could then also model the motions of the solar system bodies. But there is no math to use for Universal Farts. Nor, it seems, is there any for your EM.

Your EM is like Universal Farts.






Well thanks at least for cherry picking a sentens in where they´re asking into a cosmological problem
Cherry-picking? Nonsense. That would mean that I read all the articles that you linked to and selected just one ridiculous segment. What actually happened is that I glanced through one article, saw something that looked silly, and posted it for your comment.

In any case, you didn't comment on the articles. You didn't select portions to support your ideas. Did you bother reading the articles, or did you just post the links in the hopes of impressing someone?

Well, can consensus gravity cosmology explain this misalignment of planetary orbits? I don´t think so.

What misalignment? Even if there were a minor "I dunno" in the current theories does not mean that Gravity is wrong and your EM is right.

You, and your fellow EMers, would get a lot more traction if you could model the solar system using EM. But you can't. Really basic stuff, and you can't do it using EM.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Yes I am aware of that. Which excactly was why I directed you to the EM facts we already now of, and STILL you´ll have nothing of it at all. It is seemingly beyond your imagination that other fundamental forces but gravity, the weakest force in cosmology, can have a cosmic/universal importance - despite the given examples above.

You directed me to EM facts? Is that really what you believe you did? I believe you linked to three articles that you have not read nor understand. Just posting links to articles is not conveying information. It is obfuscating.

Edit: I also could have given you the example of welding materials together but maybe you also think this is a gravity driven activity (as in the accretion model) and not EM driven?

Back to diversions again. But I'll play your silly game. Please show a direct correlation between "using high heat to melt the parts together and allowing them to cool, causing fusion" and your EM forces guiding the planets around the sun.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I already somewhat agreed in this - but the question was EXPLAINING the motions in the Solar System and not DESCRIBING it by math.
But part of explanation is the maths, which assist with understanding the descriptions of the explanation.

Like it or not, the maths are involved with any explanatory models (eg theoretical models, hypothetical models or hypotheses, and scientific theories; only successfully tested scientific theory is accepted) in physics fields and even more so in astronomy fields.

Whether the maths are right or wrong, can only be determined by observational evidence that can be verified.

If the maths is wrong, then so might be the explanation (meaning the explanation might be wrong).

What we called equations, formulas, and metrics or constants, they are referred to as “mathematical proofs”.

Proof isn’t the same things as evidence, and that confuses some theists, especially creationists and ID adherents; they think evidence and proof are synonymous - they are not the same things.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Native said:
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.?
You directed me to EM facts? Is that really what you believe you did? I believe you linked to three articles that you have not read nor understand. Just posting links to articles is not conveying information. It is obfuscating.
It would be nice if you connect your answer to the quoted facts instead of what you believe.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Native said:
I already somewhat agreed in this - but the question was EXPLAINING the motions in the Solar System and not DESCRIBING it by math.
By "EXPLAIN" you mean make up a bunch of stories with nothing to support them, not even mathematics.
May I remind you on the story of how "the math" of celestial motions failed in galactic surroundings because scientists believed in the math of the Solar System?

You know, the case where scientists had to invent an unseen matter on order to patch their failed gravitational "universal" math? The math failed to EXPLAIN the galactic motions because the math was based on wrong assumptions.

And, since the Solar System is an integrated part in the galactic motion, scientists have in fact a problem of explaining this too.
 
Last edited:

ecco

Veteran Member
You directed me to EM facts? Is that really what you believe you did? I believe you linked to three articles that you have not read nor understand. Just posting links to articles is not conveying information. It is obfuscating.
It would be nice if you connect your answer to the quoted facts instead of what you believe.

So, you don't deny that you didn't read the articles. You don't deny that you don't understand the articles. You don't deny that you need to evade the simple problem of being unable to produce a working simulation of planetary movement using your EM.

As far as staying on topic and responding to "quoted facts", you are the one who tried to divert into welding for gosh sakes.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
May I remind you on the story of how "the math" of celestial motions failed in galactic surroundings because scientists believed on the math of the Solar System?

You know, the case where scientists had to invent an unseen matter on order to patch their failed gravitational "universal" math? The math failed to EXPLAIN the galactic motions because the math was based on wrong assumptions.


The math in the solar system is that the past and future positions of celestial bodies can be accurately predicted using only gravity. Science came to recognize that gravity alone could not explain all galactic motions.

Scientists postulated is that there is something that we are currently unable to see that is exerting gravitational-like force.

Pseudo-scientists decided to throw out gravity and invent EM. Are there any EM maths that can predict the future positions of galactic entities? No. Can EM explain the motions of solar system objects? No.

I'll propose another alternative to gravity and EM. I'll call it HoaSG.

That stands for Hand-of-a-Super-God.

It is HoaSG that moves the planets around the sun. It is HoaSG that moves the galactic bodies around the galactic center. It is HoaSG that moves the galaxies around the universe.

Do I have any maths, or anything else, to support my theory? No. But surely you must agree that I don't need any.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
So, you don't deny that you didn't read the articles. You don't deny that you don't understand the articles.
Would you yourself be that stupid to post linked articles which you didn´t read yourself?
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
The math in the solar system is that the past and future positions of celestial bodies can be accurately predicted using only gravity. Science came to recognize that gravity alone could not explain all galactic motions.
Don´t you know that the Solar System is located in the Milky Way galaxy and orbits this center? And if gravity as one of the conventional and fundamental forces cannot explain the galactic scenario, the other three fundamental EM forces logically have to explain the galactic conditions.

Explain to me how we can have TWO different patterns of "gravitational celestial motions" in the same overall system: ONE kind and law of orbital motion in the Solar System and ONE kind of orbital motion in the Milky Way in which the first kind of motion is located.

As for the rest of your reply, I really don´t care as it contains vexatious comments and personal insults.
 
Last edited:

ecco

Veteran Member
Would you yourself be that stupid to post linked articles which you didn´t read yourself?
I wouldn't. When I post links to articles I include excerpts from the articles that support my contentions.

You, on the other hand, just post links. You post nothing that shows that you understand the linked articles. You post nothing that shows that you actually read the linked articles. You excerpt nothing that supports your arguments.

So, no. I am not so stupid as to post linked articles that I have not read and understand.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Don´t you know that the Solar System is located in the Milky Way galaxy and orbits this center?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do.

And if gravity as one of the conventional and fundamental forces cannot explain the galactic scenario, the other three fundamental EM forces logically have to explain the galactic conditions.

One short paragraph, two major unfounded assertions. That's pretty good.





Explain to me how we can have TWO different patterns of "gravitational celestial motions" in the same overall system: ONE kind and law of orbital motion in the Solar System and ONE kind of orbital motion in the Milky Way in which the first kind of motion is located.

That is your pseudo-scientific assumption. Why should I have to explain your assumptions?




As for the rest of your reply, I really don´t care as it contains vexatious comments and personal insults.

Your belief in and support of nonsensical pseudo-scientific claptrap is insulting you. If your belief is not nonsensical pseudo-scientific claptrap, then how is it that no one in your camp can provide a simulation of the motions of the solar system, let alone the entire galaxy? You and your fellow EMers cannot do what a high school kid with a knowledge of programming and a knowledge of the application of Newton's Laws can do. You should find that to be insulting without anyone having to say so.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
You, on the other hand, just post links. You post nothing that shows that you understand the linked articles. You post nothing that shows that you actually read the linked articles. You excerpt nothing that supports your arguments.
And you do NOTHING at all in trying to understand the linked contents and context.
So, no. I am not so stupid as to post linked articles that I have not read and understand.
Is that why you only have posted 2 links in this entire topic? Against mine 21 dealing with mythological and cosmological issues?

Native said:
Explain to me how we can have TWO different patterns of "gravitational celestial motions" in the same overall system: ONE kind and law of orbital motion in the Solar System and ONE kind of orbital motion in the Milky Way in which the first kind of motion is located.
That is your pseudo-scientific assumption. Why should I have to explain your assumptions?
Apparently you don´t even understand the implications of my question even if this is written in plain text and sentenses and the information is factual.

What is it that prevents you to understand this plain text and reply to it?

And here is my 22th link in this topic - Stupendous Electric Currents Connect Galaxy Clusters - Note the references to scientific sources.
 
Last edited:

ecco

Veteran Member
And you do NOTHING at all in trying to understand the linked contents and context.

Why should I take the time to understand the contents of your linked articles when you cannot show you understand them?

I challenged the contents of one of your articles and you accused me of "cherry-picking" without explaining why.

Is that why you only have posted 2 links in this entire topic? Against mine 21 dealing with mythological and cosmological issues?

I understand the contents of the articles I link. Clearly, you do not understand the content of the articles you link. You just look at the headline, or the source, and assume it supports your views.

Native said:
Explain to me how we can have TWO different patterns of "gravitational celestial motions" in the same overall system: ONE kind and law of orbital motion in the Solar System and ONE kind of orbital motion in the Milky Way in which the first kind of motion is located.

You are entitled to your opinions.

Apparently you don´t even understand the implications of my question even if this is written in plain text and sentenses and the information is factual.

What is it that prevents you to understand this plain text and reply to it?

And here is my 22th link in this topic - Stupendous Electric Currents Connect Galaxy Clusters - Note the references to scientific sources.

OK. Let's use this, your 22nd linked article, as a test. Please explain, in your own words, your understanding of the gist of the article and explain how it supports your contentions.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
OK. Let's use this, your 22nd linked article, as a test. Please explain, in your own words, your understanding of the gist of the article and explain how it supports your contentions.
I´m not in this forum just to entertain you when you are bored.

If you cannot get anything out of the link from watching it yourself and responding to it, I don´t care at all. In my opinion you´re a waste of time and effort and your intrigant replies is nothing worth to me at all.

You´re STILL just a candidate in my Ignore List.
 
Last edited:

ecco

Veteran Member
OK. Let's use this, your 22nd linked article, as a test. Please explain, in your own words, your understanding of the gist of the article and explain how it supports your contentions.
I´m not in this forum just to entertain you when you are bored.

So, the bottom line is that you cannot explain, in your own words, your understanding of the gist of the article you posted. That has been obvious from the beginning.



If you cannot get anything out of the link from watching it yourself and responding to it, I don´t care at all. In my opinion you´re a waste of time and effort and your intrigant replies is nothing worth to me at all.

Please explain why I, or anyone, should read or watch your linked stuff when it is obvious that you, yourself have not?

You´re STILL just a candidate in my Ignore List.

Oh Goody!

I hope you understand that putting me on your ignore list does not prevent me from commenting on your posts. Everyone else will still see my comments.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
So, the bottom line is that you cannot explain, in your own words, your understanding of the gist of the article you posted. That has been obvious from the beginning.
I knew you would give such an answer. The very fact is that you are too lazy to read or watch a linked content.
Please explain why I, or anyone, should read or watch your linked stuff when it is obvious that you, yourself have not?
How would you know since you obviously don´t read the links? Having said this, you´re excellent in posting intrigant replies, just for the heck of it.
 
Last edited:
Top