"Dark Matter": Blaming Newton

[Native]

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).

We are just discussing from two different scientific models, that´s all. Of course I sort of refuse and ignore issues in a model which in my perspective is non sense.

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.

I don´t buy the premise of an early stage of the Universe and a miraculous birth and strength of fundamental forces.

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.

Do you think it is openminded to state that your one cosmological model is the only one and argue as it is?

What "we actually see" is just what "you see" in a specific cosmological model. Other persons may see quite different issues from other cosmic models.

 

[Native]

Polymath257 said: ↑
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.

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.

OK, it seems that you don´t understand ironic or sarcastic comments but turning these to strawmen arguments. (At least you now indirectly admit that the used math of celestial motions was wrong on the universal scale).

 

[Polymath257]

We are just discussing from two different scientific models, that´s all. Of course I sort of refuse and ignore issues in a model which in my perspective is non sense.

But you haven't given a model yet! NOBODY on the E&M side has as yet. At *best* they have vague suggetions. But when asked to actually give a detailed model, they run.

We have asked several times for a model of the solar system. Or, for that matter, a model for the center of the galaxy. ANYTHING with actual mathematics based on Maxwell's equations that can be compared to what we actually see. But that request is always pushed aside. You even admitted to being scared because the math might not match the observations.

Well, sorry, that is how science actually works. you need to make detailed calculations and compared those to actual observations. Until you can do that, you don't have a model at all.

I don´t buy the premise of an early stage of the Universe and a miraculous birth and strength of fundamental forces.

OK, so you don't buy it. How do you propose to explain the evidence that is usually interpreted as giving that conclusion? Again, be specific and detailed with a mathematical model.

Do you think it is openminded to state that your one cosmological model is the only one and argue as it is?

Well, 'my' model actually has math and observations to support it, including detailed predictions that are supported by subsequent observation (gravitational lensing, for example).

You have nothing even close to an actual model.

So, yes, it is both open minded and a statement of fact that there is essentially only one model for cosmology after, say, the time of nucleosynthesis.

What "we actually see" is just what "you see" in a specific cosmological model. Other persons may see quite different issues from other cosmic models.

No, what we see is what we *actually observe*. We can, and do, measure the strengths of electromagnetic fields. We can, and do, measure gravitational lensing. We can, and do, observe star formation in nebula and NOT in the galactic center. We can, and do, see the same phenomena in other galaxies.

So, if you see things 'quite differently', give the *detailed model* that uses Maxwell's equations (for E&M) and gives results that match those observations that you think are misinterpreted.

 

[Polymath257]

Polymath257 said: ↑
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.

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.

OK, it seems that you don´t understand ironic or sarcastic comments but making these to strawmen arguments.

Well, your refusal to give a mathematical model is ultimately an admission that you have nothing.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
We are just discussing from two different scientific models, that´s all. Of course I sort of refuse and ignore issues in a model which in my perspective is non sense.

But you haven't given a model yet! NOBODY on the E&M side has as yet. At *best* they have vague suggetions. But when asked to actually give a detailed model, they run.

Maybe you should differ from your general biases against "the E&M proponents" and for instants include the concepts of Quantum Mechanics and it´s general model regarding the 3 fundamental EM forces?

Well, your refusal to give a mathematical model is ultimately an admission that you have nothing.

I´ve already addressed your lack of ironic and sarcastic understanding here: "OK, it seems that you don´t understand ironic or sarcastic comments but making these to strawmen arguments".

Quotes
# 1:
General relativity is a theoretical framework that only focuses on gravity for understanding the universe in regions of both large scale and high mass: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc.

My comment: Here you have the 1/4 part of your Universe.

# 2:
On the other hand, quantum mechanics is a theoretical framework that only focuses on three non-gravitational forces for understanding the universe in regions of both small scale and low mass: sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, etc. Quantum mechanics successfully implemented the Standard Model that describes the three non-gravitational forces -- strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electromagnetic force -- as well as all observed elementary particles.

My comment: Here you have "my" 3/4 part of the Universe. (In fact a 4/4 part of the Universe)

# 3:
As it turns out, this incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics is only an issue in regions of extremely small scale - the Planck scale - such as those that exist within a black hole or during the beginning stages of the universe (i.e., the moment immediately following the Big Bang).

My comment: NO problem as "black holes" doesn´t exist and Big bang never happend. They all belong to the science fiction fantasies of General Relativity and bad cosmic distance measurement methods.

# 4:
To resolve the incompatibility, a theoretical framework revealing a deeper underlying reality, unifying gravity with the other three interactions, must be discovered to harmoniously integrate the realms of general relativity and quantum mechanics into a seamless whole: the TOE is a single theory that, in principle, is capable of describing all phenomena in the universe.

My comment: A claim of "unifying gravity" by its consensus ideas is nonsense as the 3 fundamental EM forces does all the works by itself via different ranges, charges, frequensies and attractive and repulsive qualities on the plasma stages.

# 5:
Nevertheless, general relativity and quantum mechanics are mutually incompatible – they cannot both be right”.

My comment: Correct, but as:
"Quantum mechanics successfully implemented the Standard Model that describes the three non-gravitational forces -- strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electromagnetic force -- as well as all observed elementary particles" - it´s about time that the 3/4 part of the fundamental explainable and stronger forces takes over the weakest 1/4 part which cannot be explained dynamically.

On the other hand, the 1/4 part of gravity doesn´t explain scientifical/dynamical the rest 3/4 part of the fundamental EM forces.

The 3 fundamental EM forces all have attractive and repulsive qualities and rotational motion which very well explains the formation and motion everywhere in the Universe.
------------------
- I´ve earlier asked you to address the galactic rotation observation and the galactic structure in this scenario, but I never heard from you in this matter.

Feel welcome (once again) to explain the “big picture” of this barred structure in the Milky Way (or other barred galaxies) with the theories of Newton´s gravity and General Relativity in general.

 

[Polymath257]

Still awaiting a detailed model.

 

[Native]

Still awaiting a detailed model.

Still awaiting a response on my latest reply.

 

[ecco]

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.

A model of the planetary motions using EM. That's all I have been asking for. Basic stuff that a high school kid can do it.

I don't have to understand Quantum Mechanics to know that EM proponents can't do with EM what a high schooler can do with gravity.

The dialogue between you and @Polymath257 shows that you don't understand QM (and a whole host of other things as well) either.

Where is the EM model of the planetary motions? For that matter, can you and yours show why a body "falls" toward the earth at 9.8 m/s/s using EM?

Can you and yours produce a chart like this...

...using EM?

What's that ya say? You can't! Hmm.

 

[Native]

A model of the planetary motions using EM. That's all I have been asking for. Basic stuff that a high school kid can do it.

Oh, so your inner "high school kid" knows that using EM really CAN describe the planetary motions

That must be a Freudian Slip:
"A Freudian slip, also called parapraxis, is an error in speech, memory, or physical action that occurs due to the interference of an unconscious subdued wish or internal train of thought".

In rewriting: Your fingers types words and sentenses which your mind is unaware off. Or reverse: Your mind is unaware of what your fingers types.

I don't have to understand Quantum Mechanics to know that EM proponents can't do with EM what a high schooler can do with gravity.

OK, if "your high schooler" don´t bother to read of the basic Quantum Mechanics Model which works with the 3 fundamental EM forces, then it´s obviously useless to explain anything to you as these 3 fundamental forces primarily rules all motions in the Universe.

The dialogue between you and @Polymath257 shows that you don't understand QM (and a whole host of other things as well) either.

I bet you didn´t read that in detail either You´re just parotting (ecco-ing) Polymath257.

Can you and yours produce a chart like this...

...using EM?

What's that ya say? You can't! Hmm.

This is a non sense and illogical question as EM in general describes swirling and circular motions and not a curved line in a squared box.

A more logical and reverse question to you: Can you describe EM via gravity?

What's that ya say? You can't! Hmm