Galactic Telescope Interpretations

[gnostic]

Well, it certainly isn´t me who believe in Newtons contradicted superstitious occult agency, in dark matter and dark energy and a superstitious creation from a super atom.

Superstitions are when you believed in the supernatural being, like god, cause the people who were building the Tower of Babel, to speak languages that people’s families didn’t understand, overnight.

You are the only one here who believe in such myths and superstitions.

 

[rational experiences]

Theists humans living on stone planet.

Knew the sun cooling big bang blasted is now smaller as compared to a sun metal machine looking into space about suns.

Mass holder of radiation as energy by mass holding.

The sun in space consuming energy its mass he says will end as stone.

How he asked.

Due to asteroid star stone visiting and UFO metal mass. Two variations blasted out.

The first stone was cooling mass closest to pressurized deep empty space.

Highest coldest law pressure and emptiness owned stone.

Hotter larger mass ejected equated to metal cooled in space pressure.

Law sun slowly consuming leaves stone residue. At the end he said.

As it was involved in mass consumption itself

When mass is not being consumed it was metal.

So metal owned a larger mass yet it can be activated into instant removal. Leaving no mass.

Reasoned why empty space existed itself as the proof the origin was highest amount of mass presence instantly gone.

Known evils about the history a sun. Why using metal and machine to look into space equalled machine data exactly transmitted back.

Machines not bio life.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Tthe Natural Philosophy of the Renaissance to the late 19th century isn’t the problem, it is the 20th and 21st centuries philosophies, especially Metaphysics.

I will grant you that the video in the OP and similar bunk is nonsense (both as metaphysics and physics), but I do not share the view that 20th and 21st century metaphysics is:

Metaphysics have been diluted into over-complicated sophistry; it is more talk than action.

Such a statement can certainly be true in some cases, such as in much of Bohr's writings (who was, obviously a physicist). But it is not true in general and I am curious as to where you get this idea. Just surveying some of my relevant shelves, the names that I see of authors who wrote about metaphysics hardly seem to fit the description of writing works that "have been diluted into over-complicated sophistry" e.g., David Bohm, Hans Reichenbach, Peter Mittelstaedt, Tim Maudlin, Paul Teller, Bridgett, Brigitte Falkenburg, Hans Primas, Laura Ruetsche, John Earman, Diederik Aerts, Karen Crowther, Dave Albert, Bernad d'Espagnat, Michael Heller, Gennaro Auletta, Jeffrey Bub, Nancy Cartwright, Tian Yu Cao,...
and I'm tired of looking around and writing the names. Many more can be mentioned and I can think of several I would add but whose names do not appear in the list above because of how my shelves are arranged not due to their relative merits.

I have no problems with Natural Philosophy, I do have problems with modern Metaphysics.

With what modern metaphysicians or works in modern metaphysics are you referring to when you make this statement?

And you don’t seem to be able to grasp no philosophies or any alternative concepts are not science, until they are TESTED, and have been VERIFIED by OBSERVATIONS and EVIDENCE.

This is simply not true. In fact, it flies in the face of most of the advancement of the sciences in general and especially physics.

Without evidence, any out-of-box ideas are not science, they are merely speculative opinions.

Evidence in modern physics is and has been based often enough on aesthetic, metaphysical grounds.

As examples, when Einstein started to formulate Special Relativity in 1905, his concept included a number of equations, including his famous mass-energy equivalence equation (E= m c^2), so his model was theoretical-based model, not an experimental one, like the usual falsifiable hypothesis.

First, Einstein's 1905 paper didn't include this mass-energy equivalence, which even in special relativity is a limiting case that is incorrect in general (actually, the actual derivation Einstein used was mistaken too). Second, Einstein continued to derive the equation for mass-energy equivalence ~20 years after he published his theory of general relativity. He never got it quite right.
Finally, and most importantly, the entire paper from 1905 is based on aesthetics and metaphysical principles applied to known equations of dynamics from classical mechanics (governed by Galilean relativity) on the one hand and electromagnetism on the other. He starts the paper talking about the problems with the asymmetry between the two theories. He then raises a conjecture to a postulate (Voraussetzung) along with another he admits is seemingly contradictory.
Basically all of the mathematics behind his 1905 paper, not to mention most of the phenomena people commonly associate with special relativity (e.g., length contraction) were already known and derived before this paper by others. Nor did Einstein introduce 4-dimenionsal spacetime here (or ever). His teacher did later, and initially this repelled Einstein.
In 1905, Einstein took known empirical results and known mathematics and, based on metaphysical and philosophical presuppositions, postulated that systems in both classical mechanics and electrodynamics must obey the same symmetries where they can be compared (e.g., in the Lorentz transformations and more generally under the Poincaré group). It was mostly a paper that was "more talk than action." It is not even clear that Einstein was aware of the empirical evidence now commonly pointed to as the principle support for his 1905 work (namely, the famous 1887 Michelson–Morley failure to detect the ether). Nor, as Lorentz showed (due to his refusal to abandon the Either) did it make any predictions that could not be accounted for by known or yet formulated non-relativistic classical models of the electron and electrodynamics.
In short, what Einstein did in 1905 was begin an attempt explain away a metaphysical inconsistency. Actually, a great deal of what Einstein did was based on philosophical and metaphysical presuppositions and biases, particularly when it came to special and general relativity. In the case of special relativity and his 1905 paper, what Einstein most hated was that, in classical mechanics, Galilean relativity prevented one from detecting absolute uniform motion but electromagnetism did not.

The same thing occurred with Einstein’s General Relativity in 1915, where it started as theoretical concept that included a number of equations, eg Einstein’s Field Equations. Again, a number of experiments would go on to test General Relativity.

Einstein struggled to use known mathematics to formulate a theory of straight lines. He detested Newtonian action-at-a-distance for aesthetic and metaphysical reasons. He also sought to explain the equivalence of two entirely different concepts of mass. His combination of metaphsyics and self-described chlid-like thought-experiments led him to seek a way in which to explain gravitation locally via a generalization of Newtonian laws in which objects in motion travel in straight lines. It took him so long because of his unfortunate difficulties with differential geometry and his inability to let go of certain kinds of ingrained biases about the nature of space. But, being Einstein, he got there when nobody else did.
But it is vitally important to realize that in many ways real tests of general relativity only occurred in the past few years. The reason is not due to the long known unjustified claims Eddington made using his data from the eclipse. Rather, it is because certain implications of general relativity involving the nature of the entities described in the theory do not differ sufficiently greatly from Newtonian gravitation to have been tested by aberrations such as e.g., light curvature but required actual tests of the gravitational fields (as in gravitational waves).

So not only Samuel’s claims aren’t “scientific”, it is also isn’t “theoretical”.

The entire standard model is generally described as "theoretical physics." The term is used in modern physics generally to distinguish it from "experimental", as in particular for the past 70+ years physicists have been increasingly divided earlier and earlier in their educations with respect to whether or not to whether or not they pursue a career as experimentalists or theorists. In general, anything theoretical (as in "involving physical theories") falls under the purview of theoretical physics.

 

[Native]

"Orbital velocity resistance pressure"? Oh, I get it. You mean something like the solar wind.

No you dont quite get it.

Even as the solar wind has some effect, it is the very orbital velocity around the sun (and the Moon around the Earth) which causes different pressures on the planets according to their very velocities, sizes and their eventual atmospheres.

You keep asking for EM simulations of the Solar System which is an oxymoron as these motions are pure centrifugal dynamical motions and NOT EM governed.

Besides this, you have to incorporate the solar system formation in the galactic formation as the solar system is an integrated part of the Milky Way rotation.

But if that were the case, gravity on one side of the earth, mars, moon, etc would be higher than on the other side.

It isn´t "gravity" which is higher or lower on the "planetary sides". It is the orbital velocity pressure on the front of planets in their orbital motions which is higher on the front and the lee side of the orbital planets is used in order to make spacial slingshots.

What do you mean "in where the Solar System is an integrated part of the Milky Way rotation and formation"? Isn't that everywhere? Isn't that right here right now? Can you and your EMers calculate it? I didn't think so,

NOTE: I´m not connected or associated to any kind of a public EM or EU societies. I have my free philosophical, mythical and cosmological approach to this issue.

The rotational motion of the Milky Way galaxy IS measured and so is the orbital motion of the solar System and all motions were once thought to be governed by "gravity" and "Newton´s "celestial laws of motions" - but this old dogma failed by the observation of the galactic rotation curve and this contradiction led to the invention of "dark matter".

The scientists didn´t think the least of if other fundamental forces were at play in galaxies, they just inserted an occult matter "in order to prevent the stars away from flying out of the galaxies" because of their similar orbital motions around the galactic center.

The scientist were really presented for the real motion in galaxies, namely an EXPANDING CENTRIFUGAL MOTION from the galactic center and out in the galactic bars and arms, but they missed it all because of holding onto the contradicted gravitational theory.

This expanding motion from the galactic core STILL works today in our Solar System, which is confirmed by the increasing planetary distances from the sun and the same with the moon away from the Earth.

Edit: The scientists should have viewed the entire galactic formation and motion as caused by Electro Magnetic forces and if so, they wouldn´t need any gravity, dark matter or dark holes in their theories at all.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Well, it certainly isn´t me who believe in Newtons contradicted superstitious occult agency, in dark matter and dark energy and a superstitious creation from a super atom.

Superstitions are when you believed in the supernatural being, like god, . . .

I´ve otherwise told you that ancient deities represents natural forces and objects as for instants in the Egyptian story of creation, but you prefer to be safely in your fairy tale and ignorant mode when someone is mentioning cosmological facts in the ancient myths.

 

[Native]

I will grant you that the video in the OP and similar bunk is nonsense (both as metaphysics and physics),

You otherwise seem to have a balanced approach (thanks for this) to "philosophical matters" and methods, so why don´t you grant the video OP the same?

 

[gnostic]

Native said: ↑
Well, it certainly isn´t me who believe in Newtons contradicted superstitious occult agency, in dark matter and dark energy and a superstitious creation from a super atom.

I´ve otherwise told you that ancient deities represents natural forces and objects as for instants in the Egyptian story of creation, but you prefer to be safely in your fairy tale and ignorant mode when someone is mentioning cosmological facts in the ancient myths.

You keep saying that I believe in fairy tale, but the Tower of Babel never existed, it is fabricated story.

And even then, it had nothing to do with reality, nor with any science. All you do is speculate meaninglessly and without basis in reality about “ancient science” in your past threads that don’t exist.

What you do about associating “natural forces and objects” to Egyptian deities or any other ancient deities, is called SUPERSTITION.

But you are trying to spin in the other way around, by trying to turn the table around, hence strawman argument.

 

[Native]

You keep saying that I believe in fairy tale, but the Tower of Babel never existed, it is fabricated story.

Of course it is too you as you have no clues of any mythical contents at all. Just stay in your ignorance and don´t bother to bore me with your no knowledge.

 

[gnostic]

Of course it is too you as you have no clues of any mythical contents at all. Just stay in your ignorance and don´t bother to bore me with your no knowledge.

As long as you stopping pretending your fake knowledge is “science”, that’s fine by me.

 

[ecco]

Even as the solar wind has some effect, it is the very orbital velocity around the sun (and the Moon around the Earth) which causes different pressures on the planets according to their very velocities, sizes and their eventual atmospheres.

Yes. I do understand your concepts. See below

You keep asking for EM simulations of the Solar System which is an oxymoron as these motions are pure centrifugal dynamical motions and NOT EM governed.

According to you, the motions of the planets are not governed by gravity. Now you are saying they are not governed by EM either. Then you need to explain what is keeping the moon in an orbit around the earth. Your made-up phrase "pure centrifugal dynamical motions" is not an explanation.

Besides this, you have to incorporate the solar system formation in the galactic formation as the solar system is an integrated part of the Milky Way rotation.

If you believe that is necessary, then get the values and incorporated them into an overall formulation.

It isn´t "gravity" which is higher or lower on the "planetary sides". It is the orbital velocity pressure on the front of planets in their orbital motions which is higher on the front and the lee side of the orbital planets is used in order to make spacial slingshots.

Scientists can measure the force of gravity at any place on earth. They can also measure atmospheric pressure. If your pressure is greater on the front of the planets, that would be very noticeable. Barometers have been around a long time. Scientists have found no difference attributable to the "front" or "back" of the earth. Please explain why.

 

[ecco]

The rotational motion of the Milky Way galaxy IS measured and so is the orbital motion of the solar System and all motions were once thought to be governed by "gravity" and "Newton´s "celestial laws of motions" - but this old dogma failed by the observation of the galactic rotation curve and this contradiction led to the invention of "dark matter".

The scientists didn´t think the least of if other fundamental forces were at play in galaxies, they just inserted an occult matter "in order to prevent the stars away from flying out of the galaxies" because of their similar orbital motions around the galactic center.

In your unsupported opinion.

The scientist were really presented for the real motion in galaxies, namely an EXPANDING CENTRIFUGAL MOTION from the galactic center and out in the galactic bars and arms, but they missed it all because of holding onto the contradicted gravitational theory.

This expanding motion from the galactic core STILL works today in our Solar System, which is confirmed by the increasing planetary distances from the sun and the same with the moon away from the Earth.

If your EM is putting pressure on the "front" of the earth it would result in the earth slowing. If the earth slows, its orbit would be decreasing, not increasing. Your own comments argue against your "theory".

Edit: The scientists should have viewed the entire galactic formation and motion as caused by Electro Magnetic forces and if so, they wouldn´t need any gravity, dark matter or dark holes in their theories at all.

The scientists could have viewed the entire galactic formation and motion as caused by Psychic Snowflakes and if so, they wouldn´t need any gravity, dark matter or dark holes in their theories at all.

Psychic Snowflakes are just as real a force in the universe as your concepts of EM.

 

[Native]

gnostic said here:
#42gnostic, Monday at 2:31 AM

I think I am nearing done with this topic.

What about keeping your promises and leave this thread to those who have some real insights?

 

[ecco]

NOTE: I´m not connected or associated to any kind of a public EM or EU societies. I have my free philosophical, mythical and cosmological approach to this issue.

Whether you are or are not part of a group, neither you nor any proponent of EM can simulate the motions of the planets in our solar system. You still have not explained why.

Here is a typical program simplified for only the sun, earth, and moon.
‪Gravity and Orbits‬

Surely someone could make one using EM instead of the formulas for gravity.

Nah. We both know it cannot be done because your concepts of EM are nonsensically wrong.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
NOTE: I´m not connected or associated to any kind of a public EM or EU societies. I have my free philosophical, mythical and cosmological approach to this issue.

Whether you are or are not part of a group, neither you nor any proponent of EM can simulate the motions of the planets in our solar system. You still have not explained why.
Here is a typical program simplified for only the sun, earth, and moon.
‪Gravity and Orbits‬
Surely someone could make one using EM instead of the formulas for gravity.
Nah. We both know it cannot be done because your concepts of EM are nonsensically wrong.

I don´t like your way of concluding something before I´ve replied on your former questions above, so please take your time to await replies and not posting hasted "carpet bombings".

Native said: ↑
You keep asking for EM simulations of the Solar System which is an oxymoron as these motions are pure centrifugal dynamical motions and NOT EM governed.

According to you, the motions of the planets are not governed by gravity. Now you are saying they are not governed by EM either. Then you need to explain what is keeping the moon in an orbit around the earth. Your made-up phrase "pure centrifugal dynamical motions" is not an explanation.

I was expecting this logical question.

The cosmic EM filament web of connections. The lighter points represent a major cosmic formation of galactic clusters.

In order to fully explain the motions in our Solar System, we have to deal with the its formation which is closely connected to the formation of our Milky Way galaxy as the Solar System already has its prime orbital motion around the galactic center.

The EM current has a double twisted helical core which provides rotation to all objects.

The E&M has its strongest formative action in plasmatic clouds, from where our entire galaxy is electromagnetically formed via the EM attractive force which assemble gas and dust into a central swirling motion where gas and dust are sorted out and assembled via the Z-Pinch effect to form stars and subsequently planets and their moons.

This formative motion in galactic centers has also formed our Solar System. When the pre-solar system sphere was assemble into a larger critical mass, it was centrifugally ejected from the galactic center, out in the barred structure and further out in the galactic arms to it´s actual position - and STILL moving further away from the galactic center.

Fairly early in the still molten hot solar sphere, the planets were dispersed directly out from the sun - and later on, the planetary moons were also ejected from their mother planets.

Resumé: Our galaxy and solar system is E&M made - and its orbital motions are a simple result of centrifugal forces. "Gravity" has no role in this at all.

If you believe that is necessary, then get the values and incorporated them into an overall formulation.

To the best of my actual intuitive/logical knowledge, I´ve now provided the mythological, philosophical and cosmological explanation and description of the galactic formation and the motions in our solar system.

The scientists could have viewed the entire galactic formation and motion as caused by Psychic Snowflakes and if so, they wouldn´t need any gravity, dark matter or dark holes in their theories at all.
Psychic Snowflakes are just as real a force in the universe as your concepts of EM.

I you really like to have a sane discussion, you don´t succeed by such childish comments.

Native said: ↑
NOTE: I´m not connected or associated to any kind of a public EM or EU societies. I have my free philosophical, mythical and cosmological approach to this issue.

Whether you are or are not part of a group, neither you nor any proponent of EM can simulate the motions of the planets in our solar system.

As I´m not a part in any EM group, you have to ask an EM-group if they can provide answers to your question. The only thing you can ask from me is answers according to my personal approaches to the relevant and actual issues.

Here is a typical program simplified for only the sun, earth, and moon.
‪Gravity and Orbits‬

Why are you linking me to a site with "gravity" as this occult and unexplained and contradicted invention has nothing to do with motions in our galaxy and solar system?

Surely someone could make one using EM instead of the formulas for gravity.
Nah. We both know it cannot be done because your concepts of EM are nonsensically wrong.

Maybe you should get your perceptions of the E&M cosmic forces correct before ridiculing yourself all too much

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You otherwise seem to have a balanced approach (thanks for this) to "philosophical matters" and methods, so why don´t you grant the video OP the same?

Well, when it comes to the Michael Strevens video, then I am probably not going to watch it because I've read several of his published works and met him (briefly) once and agree with much that he has to say. It's also nothing new (although in some of his more technical publications he does offer new takes on certain matters; I first came across him in grad school when I was concentrating more on the physics of complex systems, and read his book on a probabilistic approach to better conceptualizations of such systems).
When it comes to the OP video, I watched it about two and a half times in all I'd say. I had to pause a lot to try and glean any hints as to where to go for any substantial information, such as the "new study" he refers to ("Tidal Tails in Star Clusters") or the reference to Halton Arp (who did most of his work some ~50 years ago). But none of this helps much.
Firstly, a great many of the "simple" statements made about distances to stellar structures, their constituents ("stars in this cluster are more enriched in the heavier elements than our sun and the other stars in our neighborhood"), etc., are anything but trivial. For example, in the case of distances there exists an extensive literature that thankfully can be easily referenced for the non-specialist in stellar astrophysics and galactic structures (providing that non-specialist has at least a beginning graduate level familiarity with certain prerequisites) in e.g., the textbook by de Grijis (An Introduction to Distance Measurements in Astronomy). The claim about "heavier elements" is much, much more complicated as it requires a working knowledge and familiarity not only with atomic and nuclear physics but also with the rather idiosyncratic ways in which these (as well as other topics in the physical sciences) are used in stellar physics, astronomy, and astrophysics. In fact, a great deal of the kinds of claims the author of the video makes (judging by his website and other materials) on similar topics contradicts the foundations for "simple" statements made in the video and others like it.
Also, I'm rather obsessive when it comes to a lot of topics, which can be problematic when specialization is ever-increasing. This is particularly true when it comes to fields that have nothing to do with my own. When I was an undergraduate, I added a major (Ancient Greek and Latin) and took courses on other languages in order to study classics, NT studies, Biblical studies, ancient religions and civilizations, and the history of scholarship regarding such matters. I do not keep up with such matters as much as I would like, as I simply do not have the time. But I can and still do take the time to go back to e.g., Aristotle and other authors to ensure that my knowledge of ancient languages remains (and, as linlguistics is another interest of mine, it is not without additional benefits to examine texts written in Biblical Hebrew or other dead languages).
So I have a very, very serious problem with popular misconceptions not only with the sciences (most of them perpetuated by science education, alas) but also with the nature of religion and myth. In particular, nothing has been so destructive to our understanding of ancient religions than comparative mythology, in which the seeking of patterns by Western intellectuals (who couldn't wrap their heads around the idea of religious practice that contained little to no ideology or belief system that could be readily identified as "religious" and separated from other spheres of everyday life) as well as armchair psychoanalysis bunk combined into that most pernicious form of would-be historiography and ethnology commonly called "comparative mythology" or "comparative religion". There are some approaches that have some merit, but alas too often we find the culmination of a serious of misconceptions and outdated approaches in paradigms most associated with (and dependent upon) Jungian archetypes and suchlike, thanks largely to those like Campbell.
Humans will find patterns. We're very good at it. We're too good at it. And we need to constantly take into account the nature of current evidence and how new evidence can and should be evaluated both in the light of previous evidence as well as with the lenses provided by new approaches and knowledge from other fields (and the death of failed approaches).
The entire lens of 18th to 19th century history of religion and of societies in general (e.g., Das Mutterrecht, the Golden Bough, the kinds of "folklore" studies that were used in e.g., Formgeschicte in outdated historical Jesus studies, Marxist evolutionary approaches, etc.), and in particular the formation of cohesive "bibles" of myths that were supposed to represent the vastly more dynamic, fluctuating religious practices of antiquity in the form of encyclopedic mythologies are problematic at virtually every level.
I see no need to compound the already very, very flawed approaches from anthropology, history, and similar fields that should have (and largely have been) abandoned in all serious scholarship years and years ago by adding to these flawed approaches a conception of cosmology rooted in contradictions and inconsistencies.
For example, it is not entirely clear just what it is that classical electromagnetism consists of. For the practicing physicist, even those of us working in foundation physics, this isn't a big problem. Issues of the sort raised by Frisch in his Inconsistency, Asymmetry, and Non-Locality: A Philosophical Investigation of Classical Electrodynamics are superseded by the fact that classical electromagnetism breaks down at a far more fundamental level than can be addressed by any attempt at a cohesive "rational reconstruction" (or any other type) at a classical level.
I have, nonetheless, spent a fairly considerable amount of time devoted to understanding the issues raised by historians and philosophers when it comes to such classical models approached in the contexts of classical physics (rather than anachronistically). And I don't see anything in your sources about the issues that would later give rise to renormalization due to self-energy of the electron that plagued the classical theory of the Lorentz electron even after it was extended (principally by Abraham; see e.g., Rohrlich's Classical Charged Particles (3rd Ed.) or Whittaker's excellent though dated treatise A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, or even Lorentz book on electrons). I don't even see the issues that plagued the 19th century developers of electromagnetism, but rather an elementary high school or first year undergraduate exposition of an idealized, highly simplified version of the vector formalisms and conceptual (simplified) descriptions of E&M in the website behind the OP's video.
I also see in it a lot of great graphics of the type that cannot come from direct observation but have to be reconstructed using modern methods from astrophysics, which rely on GR, a modern understanding of electrodynamics and radiation (among other things) that are either explicitly denied or ignored in the video and the other sources from authors website.
I see a 2010 paper "Tidal tails of star clusters" called "recent" even though the authors published a follow up "More on the structure of tidal tails" a year later. I see the use of graphs taken from sources that aren't cited and references to persons without providing the context I know to be appropriate (indeed necessary) because I've read two of Arp's books.
I see a lot of images from astrology and lines connecting dots while references are made to distances, structures, and matter that are inherently contradictory.
What I don't see is content, substance, or contact either with the actual theories and work refuted or substantive claims beyond analogies made out of oversimplifications or outright misconceptions/mistakes.
I already have issues with the current approaches, paradigms, interpretations, and so forth used by my peers and by those in related fields (including astrophysics and certainly cosmology). I am willing to read and engage with those who are usually dismissed for being overly radical so long as they can present a case that at the very least shows they are aware of the the nature, structure, and formalisms of the theories they are contesting. Your sources do not rise even to this minimal level.

 

[Native]

When it comes to the OP video, I watched it about two and a half times in all I'd say.

First: Thank you for your much elaborated reply on your backgrounds which provide a better understanding of your approaches in general - which again provides better discussions.
Personally, I`m having NO troubles of combining ancient and modern cosmological knowledge. I was raised in a very religious family and have spent oceans of time to "get the cultural religious dots together" in a natural way which relates to the natural terrestrial and celestial scenario, "the Creation" for short.

I´ve come to the conclusion that ancient cultural stories of creation doesn´t deal with the creation of the entire Universe, but "just" with the pre-conditions and factual formation of the Milky Way galaxy and everything in it, including our Solar System.

So I have a very, very serious problem with popular misconceptions not only with the sciences (most of them perpetuated by science education, alas) but also with the nature of religion and myth. In particular, nothing has been so destructive to our understanding of ancient religions than comparative mythology, in which the seeking of patterns by Western intellectuals (who couldn't wrap their heads around the idea of religious practice that contained little to no ideology or belief system that could be readily identified as "religious" and separated from other spheres of everyday life) as well as armchair psychoanalysis bunk combined into that most pernicious form of would-be historiography and ethnology commonly called "comparative mythology" or "comparative religion".

I generally agree with you in this - except from "studying comparative mythology" which IMO in the best of cases, should provide better cultural understanding of our common world perception. It seem to me that we have forgotten the initial meaning of these cultural stories to such degree that it has become a matter of cultural fight instead of communion.

I also like Joseph Campbell, but his and his followers approach are IMO much to much connected to Carl Gustav Jungs phycological ideas of personal development whereas the numerous cultural mythological telling ALSO are connected to collective ideas and conditions.

The claim about "heavier elements" is much, much more complicated as it requires a working knowledge and familiarity not only with atomic and nuclear physics but also with the rather idiosyncratic ways in which these (as well as other topics in the physical sciences) are used in stellar physics, astronomy, and astrophysics. In fact, a great deal of the kinds of claims the author of the video makes (judging by his website and other materials) on similar topics contradicts the foundations for "simple" statements made in the video and others like it.

Well, I guess all claims and perceptions derives from the personal and collective points of views, personal educations, analytical and logical skills and so on.

The question of "heavier elements" is to me also a question of locating a force which is strong enough to make heavier elements. This isn´t the Sun and some scientists have this to be super novas, but this is contradicted by "super-novas" which seemingly are "exploding" several times in a row according to the standard theory of formation. This leaves IMO only galactic cores to make the heavier elements which IMO is confirmed by the strong nuclear gamma- and z-rays beaming out of the galactic poles.

For example, it is not entirely clear just what it is that classical electromagnetism consists of.

I just take the about 200 year discovering of the EM force by the Danish scientist, Hans Christian Ørsted, and the following EM scientists and cosmic discoveries. I have this force to work "all over the places", just with different charges, with different polarities, frequencies and ranges.

What I don't see is content, substance, or contact either with the actual theories and work refuted or substantive claims beyond analogies made out of oversimplifications or outright misconceptions/mistakes.

Agreed.

I am willing to read and engage with those who are usually dismissed for being overly radical so long as they can present a case that at the very least shows they are aware of the the nature, structure, and formalisms of the theories they are contesting.

Me too.

Your sources do not rise even to this minimal level.

Well, if so, I hope my reply here is better off

As said above:
"Well, I guess all claims and perceptions derives from the personal and collective points of views, personal educations and interests, analytical and logical skills and so on".

Besides this, we can have further discussions of it all.

Thanks again for your interesting reply.
Regards
Native

 

[ecco]

You keep asking for EM simulations of the Solar System which is an oxymoron as these motions are pure centrifugal dynamical motions and NOT EM governed.

According to you, the motions of the planets are not governed by gravity. Now you are saying they are not governed by EM either. Then you need to explain what is keeping the moon in an orbit around the earth. Your made-up phrase "pure centrifugal dynamical motions" is not an explanation.

In order to fully explain the motions in our Solar System, we have to deal with the its formation which is closely connected to the formation of our Milky Way galaxy as the Solar System already has its prime orbital motion around the galactic center.

The EM current has a double twisted helical core which provides rotation to all objects.

That sounds like more speculative, unsupported nonsense (I'm being kind).

The E&M has its strongest formative action in plasmatic clouds, from where our entire galaxy is electromagnetically formed via the EM attractive force which assemble gas and dust into a central swirling motion where gas and dust are sorted out and assembled via the Z-Pinch effect to form stars and subsequently planets and their moons.

That sounds like more speculative, unsupported nonsense (I'm being kind).

This formative motion in galactic centers has also formed our Solar System. When the pre-solar system sphere was assemble into a larger critical mass, it was centrifugally ejected from the galactic center, out in the barred structure and further out in the galactic arms to it´s actual position - and STILL moving further away from the galactic center.

Are you really saying that our solar system was formed much closer to the center of our galaxy and then tossed out when the planets started to form? How close to the galactic core did it form? How many years ago did this "pre-ejection" formation occur. Have you calculated the speed at which our solar system was traveling during the ejection period? Is it still being tossed outwards at the same speed or has it slowed?

If you can't answer most of these simple questions, then we have more evidence that your "theories" have no basis in fact or reality. Opinions and speculation are not science.

 

[ecco]

Fairly early in the still molten hot solar sphere, the planets were dispersed directly out from the sun - and later on, the planetary moons were also ejected from their mother planets.

Are you really saying that the planets were formed in the sun and then spat out into their current orbits? If so, then please explain how this occurred. If not, then please clarify you comment.

Resumé: Our galaxy and solar system is E&M made - and its orbital motions are a simple result of centrifugal forces. "Gravity" has no role in this at all.

IYO

 

[ecco]

To the best of my actual intuitive/logical knowledge, I´ve now provided the mythological, philosophical and cosmological explanation and description of the galactic formation and the motions in our solar system.

If you have this information, then you should be able to write a computer simulation of the motions of the planets in our solar system. Well, not you. But someone in the realm of EMers.

But they haven't because they can't because it's hard to write a program based on male equine feces.

 

[ecco]

The scientists could have viewed the entire galactic formation and motion as caused by Psychic Snowflakes and if so, they wouldn´t need any gravity, dark matter or dark holes in their theories at all.

Psychic Snowflakes are just as real a force in the universe as your concepts of EM.

I you really like to have a sane discussion, you don´t succeed by such childish comments.

If my comments sound childish to you then you know exactly how I, and most other people in this thread, feel about your theories.

There is as much evidence for Psychic Snowflakes governing the motion of the planets as there is for EM being responsible.






Gotta go. I'll respond to the rest of your post later.