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.