"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.