How much can we trust science?

[ReluctantMathematician]

Humanities absolutely use peer-review.

Here is a website with many such examples.

Reviews of Peer-Reviewed Journals in the Humanities and Social Sciences

 

[Native]

No, the proper term is "guess". We then used other techniques to verify that guess.

This makes no difference at all as it is the initial assumption of a matter which isn´t observed directly and followed up by more biased assumptions. The only thing which is confirmed here is the initial assumption.

No, of the other three fundamental forces, the weak and strong are *nuclear* forces and do not work on large scales (like for galaxies).

Then explain to me and other debaters how it is that strong gamma (nuclear) rays are found beaming of the galactic centers? (For your information gamma rays also is an E&M frequence).

The E&M force *is* considered where it is relevant. it doesn't resolve the problems of galactic rotation, however.

Nope! In standard cosmology formation the E&M forces is only considered in the standing consensus of these forces - and refuted on all other otherwise relevant and obvious areas. Which is why they´re struggling with finding an overall consensus of everything.

 

[Native]

For me personally, I preferred to read translations of ancient or medieval sources, eg Thucydides, Herodotus, Xenophon, Polybius, etc, than to read modern historians’ own commentaries, analysis, etc.
That just me. I preferred to read things or myself. It is the same with reading literature of myths, folklores, religious scriptures, etc, (eg Iliad, odyssey, tragedies, Edda, Gilgamesh, Beowulf, etc) I preferred to read the available translations, and not opinions, analysis or commentaries by modern authors.

Interesting readings indeed. So you read literature of quotes and texts from many ancient and medieval sources which most probably already are "peer revieved" as a standing consensus at the time when written?

How do you descide if an ancient mythical source and text is credible or not?

 

[Polymath257]

This makes no difference at all as it is the initial assumption of a matter which isn´t observed directly and followed up by more biased assumptions. The only thing which is confirmed here is the initial assumption.

But that is done all the time in science: we make a guess as to what is going on, then we verify that guess by other means. This *is* the scientific method.

If the guess concerning dark matter didn't hold up with other tests, it would have been dropped.

Then explain to me and other debaters how it is that strong gamma (nuclear) rays are found beaming of the galactic centers? (For your information gamma rays also is an E&M frequence).

You mean like these?
Galactic gamma-ray sources reveal birthplaces of high-energy particles.

Read the article: high energy pulsars produce these gamma rays.

Now, why do you think these have a significant impact on the rotation curve of stars?

Nope! In standard cosmology formation the E&M forces is only considered in the standing consensus of these forces - and refuted on all other otherwise relevant and obvious areas. Which is why they´re struggling with finding an overall consensus of everything.

Nope. It is considered where it is relevant: for example, in high energy environments like around pulsars or black holes, or at lower energies in HII nebulae. The E&M field is relevant for things like the background radio emissions of galaxies.

But, you have to consider not just the existence of such E&M fields, but their intensity. Are they enough to affect galactic dynamics on the large scale? And the answer is simply no.

In particular, they don't affect the rotation curves you like to point out. If you disagree, give a *detailed* description of the E&M fields involved and how those would affect the stellar rotation curve. Make sure you back up your claims with actual measurements of the strengths of those fields and how they affect the (uncharged) stars in such a way that their motion is what we see.

Until such a *detailed* description is given, the whole E&M proposal will be ignored since it has no *independent* evidence to back it up. But, dark matter *does*.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Science is a beneficial tool in the right hands....but its also a sledgehammer in the hands of those who use science as a weapon against faith. The likes of Dawkins for example, who looks down his nose at the poor deluded fools who believe in God and makes any ID believer out to be an uneducated moron.
Well, that is the way we see him too.....a poor deluded fool who will someday be brought face to face with the one whose existence he has ridiculed. I'd like to be a fly on the wall at that encounter.



I think of atomic weapons and try to see what good use they could possibly be put to....?
The fact that one nation actually used them on other human beings...twice....leaves me speechless.

I am dumbfounded that a number of nuclear power plants are actually built on earthquake fault lines.....like Fukushima...and we know what happened there......How many more will there be?

If only there were just good uses for the things human make with so little regard for the safety of others or even of the planet itself. I think of all the tons of pills (synthetic chemicals) that people swallow every day of their lives, with no thought to how much of that is excreted by the kidneys and is flushed into our sewage treatment works, only to end up in our ocean outfalls.....its affecting the fish, some of which are now presenting with mutant features.



Its hard not to when such a monster exists in the world.....its true that science can be a useful tool in the hands of some, but its a dangerous weapon in the hands of others.
Why should science be able to kill God? I don't think science has to compete with God at all....IMV God created what science studies, so the two have to be completely compatible.

I just wish there were more people who would look at science with a more critical eye....instead of just swallowing everything they suggest....it can be a substitute 'religion' in the eyes of some. A lot of theoretical science is based on assumption rather than fact...but that is not the way its sold...is it?

Science hasn't killed God(s). Science doesn't compete with God(s). Science doesn't address God(s).

 

[SkepticThinker]

Is that what I said...? That is what the orthodox medical system does to cancer patients who opt for chemo and radiation.....drugs to ease the symptoms you say? I'd rather die from the disease than be killed by the treatments. Have you sat with someone dying of cancer and who have endured rounds of chemo....they die looking lie escapees from Auschwitz.

Chemo and radiation saved my Uncle's life. And it has saved countless others' lives. Recovery rates from cancer have drastically improved over the last few decades.

I have no doubt that there are other ways to treat disease and suffering using what is available from the unorthodox, natural medical fraternity. Every time I visit my GP (which thankfully isn't often) I am left shaking my head at the ineptitude of his remedies.....the snails pace at which I am diagnosed, and the ridiculous wait for appointments to see specialists....and the exorbitant costs just for a consult.
I have a meniscal tear in my knee that is very painful.....so my GP gave me a letter to surgeon, but I had to wait six weeks for an appointment even to discuss my options....so I Googled my problem and found out what my options were without waiting for the guy in the Armani suit to tell me what I already know. So I cancelled my appointment and I am trying a range of other remedies.

The doc offered me strong painkillers...I said "no thanks".....so did my liver.

I usually see my natural therapist for health issues, and they have a radically different approach that is non-invasive and I get a diagnosis immediately.
I leave with naturopathic or homeopathic drops and perhaps some exercises or diet, and within a few days I feel so much better. The medicine is working with my body, not against it. Side effects from synthetic drugs are an expectation, with of course, other pre$cription$ offered to off$et them.
I never have that problem with natural medicine....there are no side effects.

Yeah, my Uncle tried all varieties of quackery before he turned to actual medicine. He was even drinking diluted hydrogen peroxide at one point and getting vitamin injections. His tumour just grew and grew. Not only that, but he wasted thousands and thousands of dollars on these "natural" remedies all while going on about what a rip-off medicine is (The same medicine that would later save his life).

He even had my grandfather (who also had cancer) drinking this peroxide concoction, which ended up causing an infection in my grandfather's eyes and ended up with him needing a fecal transplant because the peroxide had killed ALL the bacteria in his body, both good and bad. Thankfully, I convinced my grandfather to stop drinking it and his eyes eventually healed.

We have the leaflet that comes with the medication detailing the possible side effects.....sometimes its the size of a tablecloth. Prescription drugs kill more people that illicit drugs do. What about the Hippocratic oath? Isn't that first of all "do no harm"? Can we say that about prescription drugs?

Medicine that comes from nature, doesn't make you sicker. The medicinal cannabis issue is a case in point.
I know that most doctors (but not all) here are poisoned by the AMA and disinformation about cannabis that is widely circulated.
It is still demonized as a schedule 1 drug here....what a joke! when alcohol and tobacco are freely available and the cause of more ill health than cannabis could ever produce. Alcohol causes more visits to the ER than any other drug. It is at the root of most domestic violence incidents, and way too many road accidents.

I have no faith in the medical system who IMO have sold out to big pharma and made doctors their pimps. Its all about the money.....

You should move to Canada where cannabis is legal.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
This makes no difference at all as it is the initial assumption of a matter which isn´t observed directly and followed up by more biased assumptions. The only thing which is confirmed here is the initial assumption.

If the guess concerning dark matter didn't hold up with other tests, it would have been dropped.

If "dark matter" was directy observed when first assumed, scientists could imediately stop making more guesses but now they´ve filled - via their continuos hindsight bias method - 26 % of this unseen stuff in the Universe and 69 % of the other dark unseen thing, "dark energy".

Modern cosmology knows only 5 % of the observable universe . . . the rest is cosmological darkness for modern consensus scientists.

Now, why do you think these have a significant impact on the rotation curve of stars?

I was referring to E&M gamma rays beaming out of the galactic funnel. Just make your own logical connection of how an electric current runs and how the perpendicular magnetic field is working and there you have the logical answer why E&M makes galaxies rotate.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Can we trust science? Yeah, I think we can:

 

[Quintessence]

Those are some pretty selective graphs, @Wandering Monk

They also relate more to technology and the implementation thereof than science itself. But if we're going to go that route, you'd be remiss to not include a graph of the sixth mass extinction and the global ecocide humans have inflicted on the planet...

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
This makes no difference at all as it is the initial assumption of a matter which isn´t observed directly and followed up by more biased assumptions. The only thing which is confirmed here is the initial assumption.

Wrong. it is followed up by more *observations*, not more assumptions. And those further observations support the hypothesis.

This *is* how science works.

If "dark matter" was directy observed when first assumed, scientists could imediately stop making more guesses but now they´ve filled - via their continuos hindsight bias method - 26 % of this unseen stuff in the Universe and 69 % of the other dark unseen thing, "dark energy".

Well, one of the things we know about dark matter is that it doesn't react much to light (hence, the designation 'dark').

But the gravitational lensing *does* offer a direct observation of dark matter (in the same way that any lensing phenomenon gives a direct observation of the original image).

Modern cosmology knows only 5 % of the observable universe . . . the rest is cosmological darkness for modern consensus scientists.

I was referring to E&M gamma rays beaming out of the galactic funnel. Just make your own logical connection of how an electric current runs and how the perpendicular magnetic field is working and there you have the logical answer why E&M makes galaxies rotate.

No, it is *your* hypothesis. You, or someone who actually knows some physics, needs to provide the details.

The fact of the matter is that E&M forces cannot and do not explain the observed motion. Any attempt to model what we see using only E&M give results even worse than what Newton's Laws do.

 

[Quintessence]

Here you go (and this is conservative since it is only using ICUN evaluated species):

Study: Humans Causing Sixth Extinction Event on Earth | SciTech Connect

We've lost 60% of wildlife in less than 50 years

It gets worse from here.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm truly sorry that you both have had to go through that. I have sat with two very dear friends who both died from their cancers. One went the orthodox route and had many rounds of chemo and radiation, only to be told that it was actually killing her quicker than the cancer, so they virtually told her to go home and die. Her final weeks of life were a nightmare for her family and friends, and she died unrecognizable....not from the cancer but from the treatments.

The other one opted for more natural therapies and the rest of her life was not spent with her head in a toilet and no hair. The cancer caught up with her at the end, but there was only two weeks of palliative care at the end and she still looked like herself. I would choose the second option any day. Who said you have to wait to die in agony anyway? Isn't euthanasia a more humane option? Why is that not offered?

In fact, one can end their own life simply by refusing to eat or drink. No one can force you to live if you choose to stop suffering and have no hope of recovery. That is an option my husband chose and we supported him. His disease was progressive and incurable, so he decided when it was time to go.....who could tell him it was wrong? Its called "passive euthanasia" and there is no law of God or man that is broken.

Besides which fact, cannabis is proving to be an effective pain medication and cancer fighter as more and more people are turning to it when told there is nothing more that orthodox medicine can do for them. Many have survived when doctors told them they should be dead. Not just remissions, but long term cures. The cancer has not returned. Olivia Newton John is dedicated to giving others the same opportunity that she has had. We need California's laws to be employed world wide. Guess who is standing in the way of that?

The orthodox approach is to use only one or more of the only options on offer.....chemo, radiotherapy or surgery. Each one has the propensity to offer a short term fix. But I guess for some, that is all they expect when the recovery rate long term is only about 2%.



I am by no means in a minority. Many people are so fed up with the endless drug treatments that often make their lives a misery, (especially pain killers) often creating crippling dependencies, with no cures ever offered or sought in many cases. Natural therapies get to the cause of the problem instead of just throwing a blanket over the symptoms.


OK, so would you settle for an extension of life.....or a cure if there was one?

Cancer has been continuing to take lives even up to this minute in an age where it seems that they can do everything else but hit this thing on the head. Cancer treatments have not virtually changed in decades. Do they not know what causes it? Do they not know how apoptosis (destruction of cancer cells) works naturally in a healthy body? All we need to prevent cancer in the first place is a healthy immune system, and the world we live in is robbing all of us of a chance to have one. The food we eat, the air we breathe, and the water we drink, are all vital to life on this planet, but we are killing ourselves by polluting every one of them.



Who told you that placebos provide no long term cures? You need to broaden your knowledge base if you think that orthodox medicine is in any way superior to natural medicine. Many MD's are opting out of the orthodox system because they are tired of being told what they can and cannot do for their patients.
Epilepsy in children for example....cannabis has been shown to be a superior medicine in the treatment of intractable epilepsy, yet many countries still outlaw its use despite evidence that it works. These children are forced to take ineffective pharma medications that have awful side effects, when cannabis has a high success rate with no side effects at all. Who is responsible for that do you think?

What licensed medicos are permitted to do isn't working and hasn't been for a long time. Many are defecting when they see the results of the alternative therapies.

Science.

 

[Deeje]

Chemo and radiation saved my Uncle's life. And it has saved countless others' lives. Recovery rates from cancer have drastically improved over the last few decades.

I’m not sure that “saved” is exactly an accurate description of what chemo does.....at best it gives some people more time...but often when the cancer invariably returns, what “time” they have left is often spent going through the awful experience of chemical poisoning of an already weakened body.

People can choose what ever treatment they have faith in, because the survival rate for cancer is still disappointingly small....not to mention ridiculously expensive. What price will people put on their lives? There are no limits apparently. The medical system, especially in some first world nations is nothing but a cash cow. Success rates don’t seem to matter.
In the Bible, the devil asked in relation to his persecution of Job, “what will a man give in exchange for his life?”....everything they have apparently....

Yeah, my Uncle tried all varieties of quackery before he turned to actual medicine. He was even drinking diluted hydrogen peroxide at one point and getting vitamin injections. His tumour just grew and grew. Not only that, but he wasted thousands and thousands of dollars on these "natural" remedies all while going on about what a rip-off medicine is (The same medicine that would later save his life).

No one said quackery doesn’t exist in both camps, which is why we see “treatments” that don’t work, no matter what course they take. But some treatments have better success rates than others. It would be nice to have all systems regulated so that actual results can be honestly evaluated before they are chosen. It can be “complimentary” medicine, rather than “alternative”. That always seems to be the problem with us humans.....the “them and us” divide.

He even had my grandfather (who also had cancer) drinking this peroxide concoction, which ended up causing an infection in my grandfather's eyes and ended up with him needing a fecal transplant because the peroxide had killed ALL the bacteria in his body, both good and bad. Thankfully, I convinced my grandfather to stop drinking it and his eyes eventually healed.

This just proves my point. Some years ago I was prescribed a very strong antibiotic for a belly bug I unknowingly picked up from contaminated water.....it killed every bug in my whole body so that I ended up with major infections in every orifice because the good bacteria that keeps those bugs under control were completely destroyed....and the bad ones survived and took over. So yes, treatments can be worse that the complaint. Some common sense should be exercised. It’s not like we can’t do our own research these days.

You should move to Canada where cannabis is legal.

I just wish that it was legal everywhere.....there are more applications with this one medicine than any other....it’s like our body was designed to use it wherever it is needed. It’s medicinal usage goes back for millenniums. The level of its major components in various strains can treat everything from intractable epilepsy to PTSD, to Crohn’s disease, Parkinson’s and cancer......and so many more conditions, with no damaging side effects in its medicinal usage.

Californian Cannabis Pharmacies are a good model for the rest of the world. Israel too are setting a good example. We need this medicine......or at least to have the choice of using it medicinally.

As far as the placebo effect is concerned, it demonstrates that the mind is vitally involved in the state of our health. Can science explain the placebo effect? Imagine if they could harness it and give people benign and harmless pills that will make them well....prompting the body to virtually heal itself, which it was designed to do IMO.
Why treat it as if it’s a bad thing? If it works for some, why give them dangerous drugs with unwanted side effects?

Same with cannabis....why use expensive artificial chemicals that don’t sit well with the body, rather than a natural plant based medicine that has been proven to stop or reduce the symptoms of many illnesses, especially in children with epilepsy?

Choices.....that’s what life is all about....isn’t it?

 

[gnostic]

This makes no difference at all as it is the initial assumption of a matter which isn´t observed directly and followed up by more biased assumptions. The only thing which is confirmed here is the initial assumption.

But that is done all the time in science: we make a guess as to what is going on, then we verify that guess by other means. This *is* the scientific method.

To @Native

You are misunderstanding how the Scientific Method work. It would include number of steps or stages, and always start with the initial observations of phenomena that can be either DIRECTLY observed or INDIRECTLY observed (evidence), BEFORE the initial assumptions (this “initial assumption” is known as FORMULATION OF THE QUESTION in Scientific Method) are ever made.

The initial observations of the phenomena plus initial assumptions always begin in Scientific Method, before starting the explanations to a model - known as FORMULATION OF HYPOTHESIS.

But one thing should know that observation can occur at any time, including between stages of Scientific Method or during the stage of Formulation of Hypothesis.

So not only you can have initial observations before initial assumptions (Formulation of Questions), you can have -

1. “follow-up observations” between Formulation of Questions and Formulation of Hypothesis,
2. and more “follow-up observations” during scientist(s) writing up the hypothesis.

Once you have completed the hypothesis, then the next stages in scientific method is the testing stage, meaning more observations, and analysis of observations and evidence. You can and would do these stages - TEST then ANALYSIS - as many times as necessary, to acquire as many test results and evidence as possible, before reaching the CONCLUSION.

Scientists who start the investigation of phenomena are not restricted initial observations before the first set of assumptions and testing stage of scientific method. Observations or gathering of evidence can occur at anytime, anywhere.

What I mean by “anywhere” is that observations can happen in the field, hence “fieldwork”, or it can happen in controlled environment like laboratory for experiments.

Ideally, field observations and test results in lab experiments are both desirable to maximize the numbers of observations.

Every evidence will yield data, like measurements, quantities and any other properties.

But even when the whole scientific method is completed and the hypothesis along with evidence and data submitted for PEER REVIEW...even after hypothesis is accepted and the hypothesis has been elevated to Scientific Theory status, a good solid model (theory) will include more observations post-scientific-method in the years and decades that follow.

For example. When Natural Selection was first published in 1859, (On Origin Of Species), particularly with human evolution, paleontologists did stop looking for more evidence after they first identified the Homo erectus in Java and then another one in China.

Finding more evidence and identifying other species of the genus Homo continued throughout the 20th century to this very day.

Science don’t stop looking for more evidence simply because of being a successful hypothesis has been accepted as a scientific theory.

Even when CMBR was discovered in 1964, astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologists didn’t stop with this discovery alone. They continued trying to get better images of CMBR in the decades that followed, including launching COBE, WMAP and Planck spacecraft, each times getting better resolution, which yielded more information than the original discovery.

Science don’t stop searching for new evidence that could increase our knowledge in specific fields.

 

[Polymath257]

You are misunderstanding how the Scientific Method work. It would include number of steps or stages, and always start with the initial observations of phenomena that can be either DIRECTLY observed or INDIRECTLY observed (evidence), BEFORE the initial assumptions (this “initial assumption” is known as FORMULATION OF THE QUESTION in Scientific Method) are ever made.

The initial observations of the phenomena plus initial assumptions always begin in Scientific Method, before starting the explanations to a model - known as FORMULATION OF HYPOTHESIS.

But one thing should know that observation can occur at any time, including between stages of Scientific Method or during the stage of Formulation of Hypothesis.

So not only you can have initial observations before initial assumptions (Formulation of Questions), you can have -

1. “follow-up observations” between Formulation of Questions and Formulation of Hypothesis,
2. and more “follow-up observations” during scientist(s) writing up the hypothesis.

Once you have completed the hypothesis, then the next stages in scientific method is the testing stage, meaning more observations, and analysis of observations and evidence. You can and would do these stages - TEST then ANALYSIS - as many times as necessary, to acquire as many test results and evidence as possible, before reaching the CONCLUSION.

Scientists who start the investigation of phenomena are not restricted initial observations before the first set of assumptions and testing stage of scientific method. Observations or gathering of evidence can occur at anytime, anywhere.

What I mean by “anywhere” is that observations can happen in the field, hence “fieldwork”, or it can happen in controlled environment like laboratory for experiments.

Ideally, field observations and test results in lab experiments are both desirable to maximize the numbers of observations.

Every evidence will yield data, like measurements, quantities and any other properties.

But even when the whole scientific method is completed and the hypothesis along with evidence and data submitted for PEER REVIEW...even after hypothesis is accepted and the hypothesis has been elevated to Scientific Theory status, a good solid model (theory) will include more observations post-scientific-method in the years and decades that follow.

For example. When Natural Selection was first published in 1859, (On Origin Of Species), particularly with human evolution, paleontologists did stop looking for more evidence after they first identified the Homo erectus in Java and then another one in China.

Finding more evidence and identifying other species of the genus Homo continued throughout the 20th century to this very day.

Science don’t stop looking for more evidence simply because of being a successful hypothesis has been accepted as a scientific theory.

Even when CMBR was discovered in 1964, astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologists didn’t stop with this discovery alone. They continued trying to get better images of CMBR in the decades that followed, including launching COBE, WMAP and Planck spacecraft, each times getting better resolution, which yielded more information than the original discovery.

Science don’t stop searching for new evidence that could increase our knowledge in specific fields.

Yes, that is a more extensive treatment of the method.

But, we do have extensive data about the distribution of dark matter. We have (indirect) detection. And we know a fair amount about it.

What we lack is the actual composition of dark matter and observation of dark matter particles in accelerators.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, that is a more extensive treatment of the method.

But, we do have extensive data about the distribution of dark matter. We have (indirect) detection. And we know a fair amount about it.

What we lack is the actual composition of dark matter and observation of dark matter particles in accelerators.

My reply was more to @Native than to you. I have edited my last reply with “To @Native” and the beginning of post.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
This makes no difference at all as it is the initial assumption of a matter which isn´t observed directly and followed up by more biased assumptions. The only thing which is confirmed here is the initial assumption.

Wrong. it is followed up by more *observations*, not more assumptions. And those further observations support the hypothesis.

The initial assumption of an unseen and directly undecteted and "dark matter" is followed up with more observations which is interpreted to support the initial assumption.

This *is* how science works.

This interpretative method is why some scientists hypothetically have filled the universe with 26 % undetected "dark matter" and 69 % undetected "dark energy". - This is how your "science" works.

Well, one of the things we know about dark matter is that it doesn't react much to light (hence, the designation 'dark').

Of course it doesn´t since the "dark matter" invention is the result of not including and understanding the E&M electromagnetic frequensies and formative motion in cosmos.

But the gravitational lensing *does* offer a direct observation of dark matter (in the same way that any lensing phenomenon gives a direct observation of the original image).

This is called "refraction" and this goes on everywhere a light is bend in a media and this has nothing to do with your "gravitation".

Quote:
I was referring to E&M gamma rays beaming out of the galactic funnel. Just make your own logical connection of how an electric current runs and how the perpendicular magnetic field is working and there you have the logical answer why E&M makes galaxies rotate.

No, it is *your* hypothesis. You, or someone who actually knows some physics, needs to provide the details.

"Knows some physics"? At least I´m not just counting on 1/4 of the fundamental forces and the weakest one of these.

The fact of the matter is that E&M forces cannot and do not explain the observed motion. Any attempt to model what we see using only E&M give results even worse than what Newton's Laws do.

I sincerily hope for you that you deliberately suppresses your natural sence of logics when you´re judging these matters as you do.

 

[Native]

To @Native

You are misunderstanding how the Scientific Method work. It would include number of steps or stages, and always start with the initial observations of phenomena that can be either DIRECTLY observed or INDIRECTLY observed (evidence), BEFORE the initial assumptions (this “initial assumption” is known as FORMULATION OF THE QUESTION in Scientific Method) are ever made.

Your description and explanation of the method is OK fine, but I don´t care with your theory of Scientific Method since the initial assumption in the question of "dark matter" is based on pure speculation and not on a direct observation of the such "dark matter".

When the galactic rotation curve was observed, scientists should have formulated their first questions as this:

1) Why is it that the Newtonian law of celestial motion is contradcted on the galactic scale?
2) Why is it that starry celestial motions differs in the in the Milky Way compared to the planetary motions in the Solar System - which is an integrated part of the Milky Way?
3) Since the gravitational theory of celestial motion is contradicted, which other fundamental forces can possibly explain this?

This is a scientific method! If having asked these relevant scientific questions, they couldn´t possibly and logically come up with the invention of "dark matter" because of the two different celestial motions in the same closed system. This is basic logics!

As for the rest of your post, I´ll just say that the Scientific Method is just a theory in modern cosmology. Adding stuff to the Universe isn´t a scientific method at all. It is science fictions and pure speculative assumptions which has darkened the entire cosmology for almost a century.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
This makes no difference at all as it is the initial assumption of a matter which isn´t observed directly and followed up by more biased assumptions. The only thing which is confirmed here is the initial assumption.

The initial assumption of an unseen and directly undecteted and "dark matter" is followed up with more observations which is interpreted to support the initial assumption.

This interpretative method is why some scientists hypothetically have filled the universe with 26 % undetected "dark matter" and 69 % undetected "dark energy". - This is how your "science" works.

Of course it doesn´t since the "dark matter" invention is the result of not including and understanding the E&M electromagnetic frequensies and formative motion in cosmos.

This is called "refraction" and this goes on everywhere a light is bend in a media and this has nothing to do with your "gravitation".

Quote:
I was referring to E&M gamma rays beaming out of the galactic funnel. Just make your own logical connection of how an electric current runs and how the perpendicular magnetic field is working and there you have the logical answer why E&M makes galaxies rotate.

"Knows some physics"? At least I´m not just counting on 1/4 of the fundamental forces and the weakest one of these.

I sincerily hope for you that you deliberatly suppresses your natural sence of logics when you´re judging these matters

When you come up with a real, predictive description that can give *detailed* calculations and agrees with observation, then, and only then, will you have something to say in terms of the science.

Good luck.

 

[Native]

When you come up with a real, predictive description that can give *detailed* calculations and agrees with observation, then, and only then, will you have something to say in terms of the science.
Good luck.

Via my participation for many years on cosmological fora, It is my opinion that it is mostly impossible to convince debaters who have settled with the squared box consensus way of thinking and understanding cosmos.

Therefore I recommend you to make the detailed calculations, predictions and observations yourself - if you dare.

Just forget the contradicted "gravity"; include the E&M qualitative attractive and repulsive motions and calculate which amount of E&M powers are needed in order to make the Milky Way to revolve as it does, beginning with the plasma E&M formation in a cosmic cloud.

Good Luck - if you dare