"Dark Matter": Blaming Newton

[Polymath257]

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?

No, they are not. They also have nothing to do with the actual dynamics of the stars in galaxies.

For example, the Earth has a magnetic field, but what is the *strength* of that field and how much does it affect, say, the motion of satellites?

The electro-weak force is a generalization of the E&M force, but on what scale do the differences appear? Same with proposed unifications with the strong force?

Does the magnetic field of the sun affect the motions of the planets? No. Do the gamma rays in galaxies affect the motions of the stars? No.

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?

And since that is a localized effect on metals, of what relevance is it to galactic dynamics?

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.

And the best explanation we have uses gravity. The E&M force is *way* too small to affect these motions.

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.

I don't even understand why you think there is a link. The scales are *vastly* different. it is sort of like asking how there can be minor swirls in a river with water going 'backwards'.

And, with gravity, it is even less of a difficulty: the gravity works with the mass that is there and the initial velocities. And, on the scale of the solar system, any dark matter has a non-measurable effect (by a couple of orders of magnitude).

We *see* star formation in nebula today. We see it in other galaxies as well. It happens through the action of gravity on the gas and dust in those nebula. The E&M fields are there and can produce *small* effects at some stages, but are not a major contributor to the motions of stars for the most part.

 

[Native]

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?

No, they are not. They also have nothing to do with the actual dynamics of the stars in galaxies.

Here we go again:
"Strong EM gamma rays are beaming out from galactic centers, but they don´t have any dynamic influences". This is the usual unreflected argument from the "Dark Cosmology" proponents who take the weakest of all fundamental forces to govern everything.

When a electric current is on the gamma ray level, the magnetic field works strongly on the plasma in a cosmic cloud, causing this to rotate and contract, thus fusing gas and dust together into stars and planets which leaves the rotating formative center centrifugally, just as observed in barred galaxies.

I said:
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?

And since that is a localized effect on metals, of what relevance is it to galactic dynamics?

Same thing as with the central EM fusing in galaxies: It deals with fusing material together.

Native said: ↑
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.

And the best explanation we have uses gravity. The E&M forc *way* too small to affect these motions.

"We have" = Those who don´t think out of the squared gravity box. When EM gamma rays are produced in galaxies, "gravity" of course STILL obey to be the weakest of all fundamental forces.

I 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.

I don't even understand why you think there is a link. The scales are *vastly* different. it is sort of like asking how there can be minor swirls in a river with water going 'backwards'.

Well, you are sort of excused since you don´t connect the overall motion in the Milky Way with the motions of the Solar System, which orbits the Milky Way center.

No matter your "vastly different scales", gravity is STILL the weaker force on ALL SCALES comparing to the EM forces and as galaxies provides strong EM gamma rays, your argument of gravity forces as the ruling one is equally weak.

You have to connect the motions in the Solar System with the overall orbital motion in the Milky Way and provide an explanation which describes this overall motion. Which you cannot without adding an illusive "dark matter" ghost. This can ONLY be described according to my EM-explanations above.

And, with gravity, it is even less of a difficulty: the gravity works with the mass that is there and the initial velocities. And, on the scale of the solar system, any dark matter has a non-measurable effect (by a couple of orders of magnitude).

This is in fact none sense. If "dark matter" rules the orbital motions in our galaxy, it of course also logically and consequently should rule the motions equally in the Solar System.

It is very convenient just to add "dark matter" when this is needed in galactic surroundings to patch a contradicted celestial motion theory - and then to ignore "dark matter" in the Solar System system motion which is embedded in the system which demands "dark matter". Apparently your "universal dark matter" works very selective.

We *see* star formation in nebula today. We see it in other galaxies as well. It happens through the action of gravity on the gas and dust in those nebula.

This is scientifically none scientific sense too. Gas as in a cosmic cloud of gas and dust doesn´t attract or contract by itself, it just diffuses into the surroundings. A local cosmic cloud of gas and dust of course cannot do dynamically "works on itself". It logically needs an external effect in order to be affected and set in larger motions.

Edit: Besides this: As 99.99 % in the Universe consists of plasmatic gas, "gravity" should in your perception contract the entire Universe, which it obviously doesn´t.

And there you have the stronger EM forces back on the cosmic stage working on the plasmatic scales.

Edit: More informations in this video conference:
Plasma Physics' Answers to the New Cosmological Questions by Dr. Donald E. Scott - Full Video -

 

[ecco]

How would you know since you obviously don´t read the links?

Either you didn't bother to read my comments or were unable to understand them.

Having said this, you´re excellent in posting intrigant replies, just for the heck of it.

You post links to articles you haven't read nor understand. You try (and fail) to show your intellectual superiority by using words you don't understand.

How sad.



Meanwhile, back to a model of solar system object's motions using your EM. It's been over a year since I first asked. Still waiting. As a reminder, this is something that high school kids with an understanding of the maths of gravity and a knowledge of C+ can easily do.

 

[Polymath257]

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?

Here we go again:
"Strong EM gamma rays are beaming out from galactic centers, but they don´t have any dynamic influences". This is the usual unreflected argument from the "Dark Cosmology" proponents who take the weakest of all fundamental forces to govern everything.

Your mischaracterization is noted. Gravity is additive while E&M both adds and subtracts.

NOBODY claims that E&M is completely irrelevant for all phenomena. We know that there are plasmas in the universe, especially close to highly energetic phenomena. And we use E&M to understand the dynamics in such cases. But, of course, gravity is *also* at play.

When a electric current is on the gamma ray level, the magnetic field works strongly on the plasma in a cosmic cloud, causing this to rotate and contract, thus fusing gas and dust together into stars and planets which leaves the rotating formative center centrifugally, just as observed in barred galaxies.

Nope. It simply doesn't work like that. First, the phrase 'electric current at the gamma ray level' is meaningless. Gamma rays are a type of light. Electric currents are the motion of charges. There is no such thing as an electric current at the gamma ray level.

And the size of the magnetic fields in *most* plasmas are simply not large enough to produce the effects that you are claiming. They certainly cannot 'fuse' things like stars and planets together.

Your lack of understanding of basic physics, not to mention actual observations of ours and other galaxies, is noted.

I said:
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?

Same thing as with the central EM fusing in galaxies: It deals with fusing material together.

Not even close. In fusing, we have melting of solids by the high energy system, which produces the effect. In astronomy, there are no solid metals around to fuse.

Native said: ↑
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.

"We have" = Those who don´t think out of the squared gravity box. When EM gamma rays are produced in galaxies, "gravity" of course STILL obey to be the weakest of all fundamental forces.

On a small scale, that is true. But gravity adds and never subtracts. The other forces are limited in distance or can cancel because of different charges.

I 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.

Well, you are sort of excused since you don´t connect the overall motion in the Milky Way with the motions of the Solar System, which orbits the Milky Way center.

Given the wide range of orientations of other planetary systems, the lack of such a connection is observationally supported.

No matter your "vastly different scales", gravity is STILL the weaker force on ALL SCALES comparing to the EM forces and as galaxies provides strong EM gamma rays, your argument of gravity forces as the ruling one is equally weak.

Even strong E&M fields do noting to an uncharged object.

You have to connect the motions in the Solar System with the overall orbital motion in the Milky Way and provide an explanation which describes this overall motion. Which you cannot without adding an illusive "dark matter" ghost. This can ONLY be described according to my EM-explanations above.

No, I do not need to connect such motions. There is observational evidence that the motions are independent. What is required is knowing the amount of dark matter that is required for the galactic motions observed and to determine if it would affect, in a measurable way, the observed motions in the solar system. And, when the actual calculations are done, the effect of overall dark matter on the motion of the solar system is well below the level we can measure.

This is in fact none sense. If "dark matter" rules the orbital motions in our galaxy, it of course also logically and consequently should rule the motions equally in the Solar System.

Your lack of understanding of this is noted. The scales are very different (tens to hundreds of astronomical units compared to thousands of light years) and the density of dark matter required to explain the galactic motions would have a very small effect on solar system motions.

It is very convenient just to add "dark matter" when this is needed in galactic surroundings to patch a contradicted celestial motion theory - and then to ignore "dark matter" in the Solar System system motion which is embedded in the system which demands "dark matter". Apparently your "universal dark matter" works very selective.

It *isn't* ignored. It is shown to have minimal effect. The density of dark matter required would have minimal effect in the solar system. Adding a (locally) uniform dark matter background would not affect the planetary motions.

This is scientifically none scientific sense too. Gas as in a cosmic cloud of gas and dust doesn´t attract or contract by itself, it just diffuses into the surroundings.

For small gas clouds, that is true. But for larger ones, where gravity is relevant, this is false. Gravity is seldom a major contributor to gas motion in the lab.

A local cosmic cloud of gas and dust of course cannot do dynamically "works on itself". It logically needs an external effect in order to be affected and set in larger motions.

Wrong. Variations of density will grow under the action of gravity, producing the contractions seen in nebula like the Orion and Eagle Nebula.

Edit:

Besides this: As 99.99 % in the Universe consists of plasmatic gas, "gravity" should in your perception contract the entire Universe, which it obviously doesn´t.

Your misunderstanding of gravity is again noted.

 

[Native]

Either you didn't bother to read my comments or were unable to understand them.

Adressing your unconscious self?

Either you didn't bother to read my comments or were unable to understand them.

Adressing your unconscious self?

Meanwhile, back to a model of solar system object's motions using your EM. It's been over a year since I first asked. Still waiting.

"Over a year ago since you first asked"? And you STILL haven´t understood that the motions in the Solar System depends on EM formative motions in our Milky Way galaxy?

As a reminder, this is something that high school kids with an understanding of the maths of gravity and a knowledge of C+ can easily do.

"Maths of gravity"? You mean the "math of gravity" which didn´t work at the Milky Way scale in where the Solar System is embedded?

At least you haven´t forgot your prime personal skill: To insult your fellow debaters.

 

[Native]

NOBODY claims that E&M is completely irrelevant for all phenomena. And we use E&M to understand the dynamics in such cases. But, of course, gravity is *also* at play.

So WHY don´t astrophysicists and cosmologists connect the "highly energetic phenomena" of strong gamma rays beaming out of the centers in galaxies to the E&M fundamental forces in order "to understand the dynamics in such cases"?

If "gravity of course also is at play" in E&M cases, how does all forces work together?

I said:
When a electric current is on the gamma ray level, the magnetic field works strongly on the plasma in a cosmic cloud, causing this to rotate and contract, thus fusing gas and dust together into stars and planets which leaves the rotating formative center centrifugally, just as observed in barred galaxies.

Nope. It simply doesn't work like that.

What happend with your statement of:
"NOBODY claims that E&M is completely irrelevant for all phenomena. And we use E&M to understand the dynamics in such cases"? Well, in this case, you ignored your own statement.

First, the phrase 'electric current at the gamma ray level' is meaningless. Gamma rays are a type of light. Electric currents are the motion of charges. There is no such thing as an electric current at the gamma ray level.

What? So maybe you suggest it´s gravity which causes gamma rays in galaxies and not electic currents and magnetic fields?

And the size of the magnetic fields in *most* plasmas are simply not large enough to produce the effects that you are claiming. They certainly cannot 'fuse' things like stars and planets together.

You can of course find "resting" cosmic plasma clouds whit a minor magnetic charge - but you forget to add an electric impuls and current which charges the entire field and set this in a swirling motion.

Besides this, you really should be surprised to find randome plasma clouds wich isn´t contracted via your gravity ideas.

Native said: ↑
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.

"We have" = Those who don´t think out of the squared gravity box. When EM gamma rays are produced in galaxies, "gravity" of course STILL obey to be the weakest of all fundamental forces.

On a small scale, that is true. But gravity adds and never subtracts. The other forces are limited in distance or can cancel because of different charges.

This is NOT true for the fundamental EM force, so please be more specific and correct. Besides this, NO fundamental EM forces "cancel each other out", they simply and basically transformes.

I said:
You have to connect the motions in the Solar System with the overall orbital motion in the Milky Way and provide an explanation which describes this overall motion. Which you cannot without adding an illusive "dark matter" ghost. This can ONLY be described according to my EM-explanations above.

No, I do not need to connect such motions. There is observational evidence that the motions are independent. What is required is knowing the amount of dark matter that is required for the galactic motions observed and to determine if it would affect, in a measurable way, the observed motions in the solar system. And, when the actual calculations are done, the effect of overall dark matter on the motion of the solar system is well below the level we can measure.

No, YOU and the Dark Cosmology Society don´t need to connect "such motions". You just have to ignore that the Solar System moves around the galactic center and to ignore an orbital motion around a galactic gravitational center - as in the case with the planets orbiting the Sun.
And of course you also have to act selectively to claim lots of dark matter in the Milky Way and almost nothing in the Solar System - which is a part of the galactic scenario. Can´t you see how hopeless inconsistent this is?

Besides this: I don´t give a daim for calculations which tries to insert unseen and unfound matter in the galaxies instead of investigate what is wrong with the theories when contradicted.

Your lack of understanding of this is noted. The scales are very different (tens to hundreds of astronomical units compared to thousands of light years) and the density of dark matter required to explain the galactic motions would have a very small effect on solar system motions.

Hopeless selective and inconsistent arguments and cosmological hence jumpings

It *isn't* ignored. It is shown to have minimal effect. The density of dark matter required would have minimal effect in the solar system. Adding a (locally) uniform dark matter background would not affect the planetary motions.

So "dark matter" has a huge influence on all other stars in our galaxy but the Sun?
Hopeless selective and inconsistent arguments and cosmological hence jumpings

I said:
This is scientifically none scientific sense too. Gas as in a cosmic cloud of gas and dust doesn´t attract or contract by itself, it just diffuses into the surroundings.

For small gas clouds, that is true. But for larger ones, where gravity is relevant, this is false. Gravity is seldom a major contributor to gas motion in the lab.

So, how does gravity know where to act according to the size of a plasma cloud?
Hopeless selective and inconsistent arguments and cosmological hence jumpings

I said:
A local cosmic cloud of gas and dust of course cannot do dynamically "works on itself". It logically needs an external effect in order to be affected and set in larger motions.

Wrong. Variations of density will grow under the action of gravity, producing the contractions seen in nebula like the Orion and Eagle Nebula.

So you take a local cosmic cloud to spontaneously do dynamic work on itself without an external effect? Dear, oh dear. No surprice modern cosmology cannot explain how their "gravity" works dynamically.

I said:
Besides this: As 99.99 % in the Universe consists of plasmatic gas, "gravity" should in your perception contract the entire Universe, which it obviously doesn´t.

Your misunderstanding of gravity is again noted.

Oh, so when I hypothetically confirms your theory of gravitational contracting cosmic clouds, you´ll have nothing of it and tell me that it is me who don´t understand gravity?

Hopeless selective and inconsistent arguments and cosmological hence jumpings is really all you have left to hang your hat on.

 

[Polymath257]

"Over a year ago since you first asked"? And you STILL haven´t understood that the motions in the Solar System depends on EM formative motions in our Milky Way galaxy?

The reason it isn't 'understood' is because it is known to be FALSE.

"Maths of gravity"? You mean the "math of gravity" which didn´t work at the Milky Way scale in where the Solar System is embedded?

And which works perfectly well *within* the solar system and also works perfectly well in the galaxy as a whole if dark matter is added in. Not to mention working perfectly well for the other stellar systems we have seen.

Yes, that math.

Now, what math do you offer for the E&M description?

So WHY don´t astrophysicists and cosmologists connect the "highly energetic phenomena" of strong gamma rays beaming out of the centers in galaxies to the E&M fundamental forces in order "to understand the dynamics in such cases"?

Because on the galactic scale, the effects of E&M on the motion of matter is small. While it can affect the internal dynamics of a plasma, once you get away from that, there is almost no effect.

If "gravity of course also is at play" in E&M cases, how does all forces work together?

Like all forces: they add as vectors.

I said:
When a electric current is on the gamma ray level, the magnetic field works strongly on the plasma in a cosmic cloud, causing this to rotate and contract, thus fusing gas and dust together into stars and planets which leaves the rotating formative center centrifugally, just as observed in barred galaxies.

Yes, you said that. Of course, you have no math to back it up, the measured E&M fields are insufficient to cause such things, and you get the dynamics of E&M fields themselves completely wrong.

What happend with your statement of:
"NOBODY claims that E&M is completely irrelevant for all phenomena. And we use E&M to understand the dynamics in such cases"? Well, in this case, you ignored your own statement.

Well, they *are* relevant for accretion disks, for example. Or neutron stars. The low intensity magnetic fields in certain nebula explain the synchrotron radiation there. But overall galactic dynamics? Nope.

What? So maybe you suggest it´s gravity which causes gamma rays in galaxies and not electic currents and magnetic fields?

Well, most of the gamma rays are the result of electron-positron annihilations. Depending on the source (say an accretion disk), the E&M forces might be useful for determining the *origin* of those pairs. But, again, that doesn't mean there is a major effect on the overall dynamics of the galaxy itself. The galaxy is tends of thousands of times larger than the largest of these phenomena and their effect on the overall structure is minimal--by actually computing with the measured fields and knowing how E&M forces actually work.

You can of course find "resting" cosmic plasma clouds whit a minor magnetic charge - but you forget to add an electric impuls and current which charges the entire field and set this in a swirling motion.

Except that isn't what would happen in the presence of charges and an E&M field. So, no, I don't 'forget' to add it---I know it isn't there.

Besides this, you really should be surprised to find randome plasma clouds wich isn´t contracted via your gravity ideas.

Only showing that you don't understand the models. Usually, the first variations of density are produced by light pressure from a nearby active star.

Native said: https://www.religiousforums.com/goto/post?id=6697881#post-6697881
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.

of the other three forces, E&M, weak, and strong, the weak and strong are *nuclear* forces and don't act past for distances larger than an atomic nucleus. So those can be discounted entirely. The E&M force *is* relevant for *some* systems, but the measured strength of the fields and the lack of charged matter shows that it also cannot explain the observed orbital velocities of stars.

But, adding some unseen dark matter and using gravity can.

"We have" = Those who don´t think out of the squared gravity box. When EM gamma rays are produced in galaxies, "gravity" of course STILL obey to be the weakest of all fundamental forces.

Yes, it is weakest at a local level. But it is additive while E&M is not. Two masses together produce twice the gravitational force. Two opposite charges put together cancel their produced force. There is no charge for gravity, so it always adds.

This is NOT true for the fundamental EM force, so please be more specific and correct. Besides this, NO fundamental EM forces "cancel each other out", they simply and basically transformes.

No, it actually cancels out. Take a positive charge and a negative charge together. The resulting electric (or magnetic, if they are moving) field will be *much* smaller than what either one individually produces. And if you take four charges, two positive and two negative, the overall fields are much, much smaller.

I said:
You have to connect the motions in the Solar System with the overall orbital motion in the Milky Way and provide an explanation which describes this overall motion. Which you cannot without adding an illusive "dark matter" ghost. This can ONLY be described according to my EM-explanations above.

Really? It can? We have asked many times for a mathematically based, predictive description like that and you have not given one. Do you have one now?

No, YOU and the Dark Cosmology Society don´t need to connect "such motions". You just have to ignore that the Solar System moves around the galactic center and to ignore an orbital motion around a galactic gravitational center - as in the case with the planets orbiting the Sun.

Nobody is ignoring it. The amount of time that it takes for the sun to orbit the galaxy is about 100 million years. There are no strong local E&M fields and the local density of matter is also low. So both the E&M fields and the background dark matter contribute almost nothing to the *small* scale of the solar system. We can compute the size of the effect given the proposed amount of dark matter and that effect is too small to be detectable for the planetary motions.

And of course you also have to act selectively to claim lots of dark matter in the Milky Way and almost nothing in the Solar System - which is a part of the galactic scenario. Can´t you see how hopeless inconsistent this is?

Nope, that isn't how it works. Once again, the solar system is a *very* small thing compared to the galaxy as a whole. The density of dark matter required to explain galactic dynamics (remember gravity is additive) is very small and it is *uniform* on the scale of the solar system: it is like a constant background field. And the result of such a field, based on the densities required for the galactic dynamics *and using the same equations for gravity* show that the effects on planetary motion are too small to measure. It isn't a 'special case': this is true for *any* small system like our solar system. The accelerations from dark matter affect the sun and planets *equally* and so have no overall effect on the motions at the scale of the solar system.

Besides this: I don´t give a daim for calculations which tries to insert unseen and unfound matter in the galaxies instead of investigate what is wrong with the theories when contradicted.

Well, given that alternatives have been explaored and ALL require some dark matter to fit the observations, maybe you *should* give a darn

Hopeless selective and inconsistent arguments and cosmological hence jumpings

So "dark matter" has a huge influence on all other stars in our galaxy but the Sun?
Hopeless selective and inconsistent arguments and cosmological hence jumpings

Explained above. The *same* equations of gravity are used in both cases with the *same* background density of dark matter. At the scale of the galaxy, it produces the observed motions of the stars. At the scale of the solar system, the contribution of dark matter is too small to be detected. The point is that the gravitational acceleration required for the galactic dynamics is small. When that same acceleration is applied to the sun and the planets, the effect on the relative motion is too small to measure.

I said:
This is scientifically none scientific sense too. Gas as in a cosmic cloud of gas and dust doesn´t attract or contract by itself, it just diffuses into the surroundings.

Unless the total mass and density is large enough for gravity to be a major player.

So, how does gravity know where to act according to the size of a plasma cloud?
Hopeless selective and inconsistent arguments and cosmological hence jumpings

Huh? Gravity is additive. The more mass you have, the larger the effect. For a small mass like the Earth, it is enough to keep us on the surface. For a larger mass like the sun, it is enough to produce nuclear fusion at the center. And for a cloud of gas that has a mass of thousands of suns, it is enough to make it contract and produce new stars. Furthermore, we *see* this happening in nebula today.

Stars are formed in nebula like the Orion and Eagle nebulas and NOT at the center of the galaxy!

I said:
A local cosmic cloud of gas and dust of course cannot do dynamically "works on itself". It logically needs an external effect in order to be affected and set in larger motions.

No more than a plasma does: the internal E&M forces on a plasma affect the internal dynamics of the plasma. The internal gravitational forces on a cloud affect the internal dynamics of that cloud.

So you take a local cosmic cloud to spontaneously do dynamic work on itself without an external effect? Dear, oh dear. No surprice modern cosmology cannot explain how their "gravity" works dynamically.

Maybe you need to study some actual physics?

I said:
Besides this: As 99.99 % in the Universe consists of plasmatic gas, "gravity" should in your perception contract the entire Universe, which it obviously doesn´t.

Your lack of understanding of the model is noted. No, that is NOT what it says.

Oh, so when I hypothetically confirms your theory of gravitational contracting cosmic clouds, you´ll have nothing of it and tell me that it is me who don´t understand gravity?

Hopeless selective and inconsistent arguments and cosmological hence jumpings is really all you have left to hang your hat on.

What you claim the model would predict is not what the model *actually* predicts. Your misunderstanding of the model is apparent.

 

[ecco]

At least you haven´t forgot your prime personal skill: To insult your fellow debaters.

You consider my pointing out that you and your fellow EMres cannot produce a simulation of the solar system motions to be insulting?

You should be insulted and embarrassed that you and your fellow EMers cannot produce a simulation of the solar system motions.

It's not my pointing it out that should be insulting. It's that you cannot do it.

You cannot do it because your views of EM have no basis in reality. That is what should be insulting.

 

[ecco]

Maybe you need to study some actual physics?

Or, one could just learn from the postings of Polymath257 who obviously has studied and understands actual physics.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
"Over a year ago since you first asked"? And you STILL haven´t understood that the motions in the Solar System depends on EM formative motions in our Milky Way galaxy?

The reason it isn't 'understood' is because it is known to be FALSE.

Are you now stand in for "ecco"?

i said:
"Maths of gravity"? You mean the "math of gravity" which didn´t work at the Milky Way scale in where the Solar System is embedded?

And which works perfectly well *within* the solar system and also works perfectly well in the galaxy as a whole if dark matter is added in. Not to mention working perfectly well for the other stellar systems we have seen.
Yes, that math

If this or if that. What about just observing the visible facts and try to get the obvious dots logically together?

And: What about finding this almost a hundred year old mental dark ghost directly before you take it for granted and add this to all the other cosmological assumptions and it´s connected math patchings?

As for the rest of your reply I just conclude that you - in the theory - accepts the three E&M fundamental forces, but in fact just counts on the weakest of them all when it comes to galactic and universal matters.

You take atoms in general to act as "gravitational particles only" and all cosmic motions to be results of accretion, collisions and explosions, completely ignoring the universal effect of the much stronger E&M forces, both in a single atom and as larger assemblings of gaseous atoms.

Having said this, I don´t bother to reply on the rest of your "particle nonsense" as this is:

Hopeless selective and inconsistent "arguments" where all dots are blowing in the wind.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
"Over a year ago since you first asked"? And you STILL haven´t understood that the motions in the Solar System depends on EM formative motions in our Milky Way galaxy?

Are you now stand in for "ecco"?

No, just answering your question.

i said:
"Maths of gravity"? You mean the "math of gravity" which didn´t work at the Milky Way scale in where the Solar System is embedded?

If this or if that. What about just observing the visible facts and try to get the obvious dots logically together?

Which automatically excludes E&M as the dominant effect in the solar system. Or, for that matter, in the galaxy as a whole.

And: What about finding this almost a hundred year old mental dark ghost directly before you take it for granted and add this to all the other cosmological assumptions and it´s connected math patchings?

Given that the model *works* and we have several candidate particles from the particle physics community, why is this required?

As for the rest of your reply I just conclude that you - in the theory - accepts the three E&M fundamental forces, but in fact just counts on the weakest of them all when it comes to galactic and universal matters.

because we can measure the sizes of the E&M fields and they are not enough to affect the overall motion.

You take atoms in general to act as "gravitational particles only" and all cosmic motions to be results of accretion, collisions and explosions, completely ignoring the universal effect of the much stronger E&M forces, both in a single atom and as larger assemblings of gaseous atoms.

How much do you think that E&M forces affect the motion of air in a room? Or, for that matter, the motion of air on a clear day?

Answer: almost not at all.

Having said this, I don´t bother to reply on the rest of your "particle nonsense" as this is:

Hopeless selective and inconsistent "arguments" where all dots are blowing in the wind.

And you have even less than that. You have yet to actually give a predictive mathematical model of the physics as you see it. At this point *all* you have is bluster. At least the scientific community has models that actually work.

 

[Native]

And: What about finding this almost a hundred year old mental dark ghost directly before you take it for granted and add this to all the other cosmological assumptions and it´s connected math patchings?

Given that the model *works* and we have several candidate particles from the particle physics community, why is this required?

Ha! If a model only works by inventing unseen matters, you just as well could insert family members of Donald Duck.

I said:
You take atoms in general to act as "gravitational particles only" and all cosmic motions to be results of accretion, collisions and explosions, completely ignoring the universal effect of the much stronger E&M forces, both in a single atom and as larger assemblings of gaseous atoms.

How much do you think that E&M forces affect the motion of air in a room? Or, for that matter, the motion of air on a clear day?

You could have added atmospheric gases which have no troubles overcoming your "extremely strong gravity force" of the Earth. And if it wasn´t for the Earth magnetic field we wouldn´t have an staying atmosphere at all.

I said:
Having said this, I don´t bother to reply on the rest of your "particle nonsense" as this is:
Hopeless selective and inconsistent "arguments" where all dots are blowing in the wind.

And you have even less than that. You have yet to actually give a predictive mathematical model of the physics as you see it. At this point *all* you have is bluster. At least the scientific community has models that actually work.

In fact I´m scared to use mathematical calculations as this could end up in similar grave miscalculations as with your "universal celestial motion gravity" which didn´t fit on the galactic scales - and caused Einstein to run screeming away from this ancient cosmological misfoster.

Regarding "scientific community models": Which of them? And why don´t these models works together? They´re not even in agrement of this!

They are all just more disconnected cosmological dots blowing in the cosmological wind - but taken as the single truth and the whole truth by the indoctrinated which is just like the story of the Emperors Clothes.

When it comes to the matter there´s is no overall material substance at all.

 

[Polymath257]

And: What about finding this almost a hundred year old mental dark ghost directly before you take it for granted and add this to all the other cosmological assumptions and it´s connected math patchings?

Ha! If a model only works by inventing unseen matters, you just as well could insert family members of Donald Duck.

No, you could not. The *same* equations for gravity are used. it is just that the effects of some extra mass are included. That it is even possible to get such to be consistent with the equations of gravity is far from trivial.

I said:
You take atoms in general to act as "gravitational particles only" and all cosmic motions to be results of accretion, collisions and explosions, completely ignoring the universal effect of the much stronger E&M forces, both in a single atom and as larger assemblings of gaseous atoms.

You could have added atmospheric gases which have no troubles overcoming your "extremely strong gravity force" of the Earth. And if it wasn´t for the Earth magnetic field we wouldn´t have an staying atmosphere at all.

No, the atmosphere stays close to the Earth because of gravity. The magnetic field has almost nothing to do with it.

I said:
Having said this, I don´t bother to reply on the rest of your "particle nonsense" as this is:
Hopeless selective and inconsistent "arguments" where all dots are blowing in the wind.

In fact I´m scared to use mathematical calculations as this could end up in similar grave miscalculations as with your "universal celestial motion gravity" which didn´t fit on the galactic scales - and caused Einstein to run screeming away from this ancient cosmological misfoster.

I see. You are scared because being specific could prove you wrong. Well, guess what? That is the risk that any true scientist has to take.

Regarding "scientific community models": Which of them? And why don´t these models works together? They´re not even in agrement of this!

The ones for the gravitational effects of dark matter all agree. They differ in the specifics of what dark matter is made of. But that isn't an issue for the cosmology. it is an issue for particle physics.

They are all just more disconnected cosmological dots blowing in the cosmological wind - but taken as the single truth and the whole truth by the indoctrinated which is just like the story of the Emperors Clothes.

When it comes to the matter there´s is no overall material substance at all.

Hmmm...that sounds MUCH more like how the E&M proponents act. They refuse to give specifics. They refuse to actually take into account the measurements of the fields involved. They refuse to say *exactly* how the motions in the solar system would work in their model.

ALL they have is bluster, misdirection, and misinformation.

 

[Native]

I said:
"Regarding "scientific community models": Which of them? And why don´t these models works together? They´re not even in agrement of this!

The ones for the gravitational effects of dark matter all agree.

Yes, isn´t that very sad? They all take an intellectual gravity ghost to count for their models - which of course explains why they cannot and don´t agree in an TOE.

Hmmm...that sounds MUCH more like how the E&M proponents act. They refuse to give specifics. They refuse to actually take into account the measurements of the fields involved. They refuse to say *exactly* how the motions in the solar system would work in their model.

Ha At least they´re trying to work with all fundamental forces outside the weakest one which you apparently take as the strongest one.

Besides this, it takes an open minded and critical approach to think otherwise and to take in alternative explanations. A huge lack in modern cosmology.

 

[Native]

ALL they have is bluster, misdirection, and misinformation.

May I remind you that as long as a TOE isn´t found and commonly confirmed, everything is blusters, misdirections and misinformations.

So maybe you should be less cocky and besserwissen when replying?

 

[Polymath257]

May I remind you that as long as a TOE isn´t found and commonly confirmed, everything is blusters, misdirections and misinformations.

So maybe you should be less cocky and besserwissen when replying?

On the contrary, any new theory (TOE) will have to agree with the observations already made to the degree that they have been tested. That is a condition on *any* new theory for obvious reasons.

We do understand E&M quite well. And we can use that understanding, along with measurements of the fields in the cosmos to determine the effects of those fields on the motion of the matter we see.

And, contrary to your claims, the actual fields simply don't produce the effects you claim.

That is why I have asked repeatedly for specific math, based on an understanding of E&M to produce the observed effects. The fact that you (nor anyone else, by the way) cannot do this is the basis for rejecting this 'model' (it isn't even a model; at best it is pure speculation).

On the contrary, by adding in dark matter, which is predicted by particle physics, we find agreement between our model and our observations. And this is *in detail*, not just in grand speculation, but in specific motion and observations.

I find it interesting that you claim I am 'cocky' when you cannot give a detailed mathematical model (you are scared of such), when your speculations go directly against actual observations (both of our galaxy and of other galaxies), and where your claims go directly against the known behavior of E&M fields.

Your are the one that, consistently, ignores the evidence from star producing nebula, who consistently misunderstands simple models, and who seems to not understand the first things about gravity (which any beginning physics student would learn in a basic course).

 

[Polymath257]

I said:
"Regarding "scientific community models": Which of them? And why don´t these models works together? They´re not even in agrement of this!

Yes, isn´t that very sad? They all take an intellectual gravity ghost to count for their models - which of course explains why they cannot and don´t agree in an TOE.

No, the TOE has nothing to do with this. The reason there is no accepted TOE is that it involves energy realms we cannot yet explore. The cosmology isn't affected except during *very* early stages of the universe where such energy levels are relevant.

Ha At least they´re trying to work with all fundamental forces outside the weakest one which you apparently take as the strongest one.

Besides this, it takes an open minded and critical approach to think otherwise and to take in alternative explanations. A huge lack in modern cosmology.

On the contrary, if you actually read any modern cosmology, a great deal of open mindedness is apparent along with a host of proposals on how to get agreement with observation. The reason the E&M forces are not used is because they don't work to explain *in detail* what we actually see.

And, like I have suggested, if you think you *can* explain what is actually seen *in detail* using E&M forces and no gravity, please provide a source that does so. In particular, provide a model of the motion of planets in our solar system using E&M forces (linked to the galactic center or not).

 

[Native]

On the contrary, any new theory (TOE) will have to agree with the observations already made to the degree that they have been tested. That is a condition on *any* new theory for obvious reasons.

I in fact agree with the principles in the first sentense.

The observations of the galactic rotation curve IS observed and tested since decades ago. This observation went against the assumed law of celestial motions around a gravitational center and subsequently an eventual TOE must be made on revised gravitational ideas if succeded. Which is excactly what several scientists express here and there.

What is NOT tested is "dark matter". It´s just an intellectual invention based on INDIRECT assumptions.

On the contrary, by adding in dark matter, which is predicted by particle physics, we find agreement between our model and our observations.

This is a pure HINDSIGHT BIAS method as the prime prediction of celestial motions around a gravitational center failed totally in galaxies. And of course you can get everything to fit with inventing matters which isn´t there and by fiddling around with the connected math calculations.

I don´t bother to reply to the rest of your misunderstandings and assumptions in this post.

 

[ecco]

And, like I have suggested, if you think you *can* explain what is actually seen *in detail* using E&M forces and no gravity, please provide a source that does so. In particular, provide a model of the motion of planets in our solar system using E&M forces (linked to the galactic center or not).

I don´t bother to reply to the rest of your misunderstandings and assumptions in this post.

The reason you don't bother to reply to his requests is the same reason you did not respond when I made the same request over a year ago. You didn't and don't respond because you and your fellow EMers can't respond. None of you can model the comings and goings of the planets using EM because your EM is just made up silly stuff.

You haven't been able to do what a high school kid can do and you cannot even explain why you can't.

 

[Native]

The reason you don't bother to reply to his requests is the same reason you did not respond when I made the same request over a year ago. You didn't and don't respond because you and your fellow EMers can't respond. None of you can model the comings and goings of the planets using EM because your EM is just made up silly stuff.

It may be "silly stuff" for you, but apparently you haven´t heard of "Quantum Mechanics" and the focus on the three EM fundamental forces, and until you have, there is no reason to reply to you at all.

Note the link - if you bother to read it this time.