Impossible Galaxy Debunk Conventional Cosmology

[Native]

* sigh *

Another conspiracy theory, and a strawman to boot.

As usual, you don´t have any independent factual arguments of your own, hence everything you don´t grasp, becomes conspiracy theories in your mind.

 

[Native]

From my perspective, astrophysicists and cosmologists do AMAZING work. Try putting a dime and a penny at one end of a field and going to the other end, and using binoculars to measure the difference in the thickness of the two coins. This is a FAR EASIER task than the difficulties involved in measuring stuff billions of light years away.

I´m not questioning the personal strains cosmological scientists are investigating. I´m questioning their cosmological perceptions, interpretations, inconsistencies, predictions and conclusions.

 

[Native]

It appears that you don't understand the scientific method. Scientists collect data and devise narratives to account for all relevant observations, the simplest one that can do this (Occam's Razor). Later, when new data arises no longer accounted for by that narrative, the narrative is modified to account for that new data.

Well, if so, how long shall we wait for the cosmological science to act according to the scientific method and modify Newtons "universal law of celestial motions around a central gravity force/object", which was contradicted by the discovery of the Galactic Rotation Curve back in 1932?

Adding unknown dark matter to a de facto contradicted prediction, isn´t science, but occult science fiction.

With your own words: It appears that you dont recognize how modern cosmology really works and acts when it comes to obeying the "strict scientific method".

 

[icehorse]

Well, if so, how long shall we wait for the cosmological science to act according to the scientific method and modify Newtons "universal law of celestial motions around a central gravity force/object", which was contradicted by the discovery of the Galactic Rotation Curve back in 1932?

Adding unknown dark matter to a de facto contradicted prediction, isn´t science, but occult science fiction.

With your own words: It appears that you dont recognize how modern cosmology really works and acts when it comes to obeying the "strict scientific method".

In what specific ways do you think these scientists are not using the scientific method? It strikes me that they're forthcoming about the uncertainties they have, and ideas that are just theories, not laws.

 

[gnostic]

To whom does "your" refer?

Native.

He is the one who believe in Electric Universe, and ignoring gravitational forces, and that only electromagnetic forces exist, and light being the source of all creation.

He wanted to replace the standard model of the Big Bang cosmology with Electric Universe model.

However, I find it funny that Native want to refute the observational measurements of redshift, because it was developed in the 1920s BB pioneers, Howard Percy Robertson (1924-25) and Georges Lemaître (1927), especially when these measurements are observing the wavelengths EM (light) of objects (eg stars, nebulas, galaxies, quasars, etc), either shift towards the red or blue.

I’d guess that Native don’t like the redshift concept is because gravitation are considerations in the measurements EM shifting, for instance, the spectral shift have to take into account of gravitational lens.

I do agree with @Revoltingest. I wished @Meow Mix’s here too, she understand the current cosmology better and explain it better than anyone, but I’d guess she’s still busy with her studies.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I´m not questioning the personal strains cosmological scientists are investigating. I´m questioning their cosmological perceptions, interpretations, inconsistencies, predictions and conclusions.

So, one would hope, are most cosmologists. The best scientists always do this, question every assumption and every premise on which their models are built, when those models show inconsistencies.

Of course, some parties will have vested interests which may prompt them to defend flawed models, in order to protect those interests. Dark Matter may be a case in point; staggering sums of money have been invested in efforts to detect dark matter particles, as yet drawing a complete blank. Some people will be getting nervous, and ad hoc theories to explain the lack of evidence appear from time to time.

Bear in mind though, that the standard model of Big Bang cosmology was arrived at using general relativity, and has been repeatedly confirmed by observations; Hubble's Law and the expansion of space, Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), ratio of hydrogen to helium throughout the universe, the evolution of galaxies evidenced by Hubble Deep Field images, etc, all confirm predictions of the Big Bang theory.

In 1970, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose declared that if general relativity was correct, using Hubble's Law and refining Alexander Friedmann's GR derived equations, they could prove that the universe began with a Big Bang singularity. Neither Einstein nor Hawking were ever afraid to be wrong, or to admit it when they were. But predictions of general relativity have been confirmed countless times, so I wouldn't bet on the standard model of cosmology going in the bin any time soon. Though one might naturally expect revision and refinement, perhaps in the manner that general relativity refined classical Newtonian physics (while QM threatens to fundamentally undermine it, but that's another story).

 

[Native]

I clearly stated that:
Native said: ↑
Well, if so, how long shall we wait for the cosmological science to act according to the scientific method and modify Newtons "universal law of celestial motions around a central gravity force/object", which was contradicted by the discovery of the Galactic Rotation Curve back in 1932?

Adding unknown dark matter to a de facto contradicted prediction, isn´t science, but occult science fiction".

In what specific ways do you think these scientists are not using the scientific method? It strikes me that they're forthcoming about the uncertainties they have, and ideas that are just theories, not laws.

The specifics in this problematic is that we, via Newtons "gravitational law of celestial motion", have TWO different orbital motions ascribed to the same Newtonian law in the Milky Way galaxy, of which the Solar System is an integrated part of the galactic rotation.

Instead of completely revising Newtons gravitational ideas, scientists simply invented and theoretically inserted "dark matter" in a galactic system, not thinking of that our Solar System (assumingly) worked nicely in the galaxy without this invented "dark matter".

If THAT isn´t a clear case for strictly using the correct scientific method and discard an inconsistent idea, I leave no hope for the future in modern cosmology.

Edit: I´m fully aware of the validity of Newtons calculations of planetary motions, but even our ancient ancestors knew of these motions for 6-5.000 year ago, just by physically observing these motions of "wandering stars" throughout some generations.

 

[icehorse]

The specifics in this problematic is that we, via Newtons "gravitational law of celestial motion", have TWO different orbital motions ascribed to the same Newtonian law in the Milky Way galaxy, of which the Solar System is an integrated part of the galactic rotation.

Instead of completely revising Newtons gravitational ideas, scientists simply invented and theoretically inserted "dark matter" in a galactic system, not thinking of that our Solar System (assumingly) worked nicely in the galaxy without this invented "dark matter".

Where do you factor Einstein into your argument?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well, if so, how long shall we wait for the cosmological science to act according to the scientific method and modify Newtons "universal law of celestial motions around a central gravity force/object", which was contradicted by the discovery of the Galactic Rotation Curve back in 1932?

What? What is it specifically that you are criticizing? That you are still waiting for some question to be answered that you believe should already have been answered, and that somehow this is a failure of science or the scientific method?

Adding unknown dark matter to a de facto contradicted prediction, isn´t science, but occult science fiction.

No. It is science. It's exactly the kind of science I just described: "Scientists collect data and devise narratives to account for all relevant observations, the simplest one that can do this (Occam's Razor). Later, when new data arises no longer accounted for by that narrative, the narrative is modified to account for that new data." That perfectly describes why dark matter was hypothesized. New data suggested that there was an unseen gravitational source not accounted for by the previous narrative, which was modified to reflect this new knowledge. Being a source of gravity, it is postulated that some form of matter besides that which we see in telescopes exists, and it has been called dark matter for that reason. That's good science. And yes, it is occult in the narrow sense of being hidden and mysterious, but not fiction.

Now, to find a way to identify the nature of this gravitational source is next.

You've still never explained why you're hostile to science. In my experience, such people hold some belief that science contradicts. Most of those are [1] religious beliefs like creation stories, but sometimes, they're into the occult themselves - the more broad definition including [2] UFOs, alien visitations, beliefs about the pyramids. Sometimes, it's [3] because they are afraid of a vaccine or are angry at climate science's warnings. I've asked you in the past, and you have declined to answer, so I have decided that it is most likely the middle category, since you like to play it close to the vest. People in the other two categories generally aren't secretive about it, so it seems likeliest that you hold some occult belief contradicted by science that you feel reluctant to reveal, something you worry will be ridiculed if you share it.

The specifics in this problematic is that we, via Newtons "gravitational law of celestial motion", have TWO different orbital motions ascribed to the same Newtonian law in the Milky Way galaxy, of which the Solar System is an integrated part of the galactic rotation. Instead of completely revising Newtons gravitational ideas, scientists simply invented and theoretically inserted "dark matter" in a galactic system, not thinking of that our Solar System (assumingly) worked nicely in the galaxy without this invented "dark matter".

So you think you know what the scientists should be doing to explain something that troubles you - I can't tell what that is, or why you consider the issue pressing - and your solution is to throw out Newton, revise it from the ground up? That's not how science works. I've explained the process. Newton's description of gravity works fine at the scale of daily life, not at cosmological scales, so there is no need to modify it. NASA has used it to get to the moon and beyond with stunning success.

If THAT isn´t a clear case for strictly using the correct scientific method and discard an inconsistent idea, I leave no hope for the future in modern cosmology.

So it appears that your interest is limited to cosmology and gravity. That must be the place where your specific objection lies. I'm not aware of either of these areas contradicting any religious belief. Religious people don't care about gravity or electronics or the germ theory of infectious disease, because none of that intersects with scripture to my knowledge. You really want that science rewritten, and as far as I can tell, no other science offends you.

 

[Native]

Where do you factor Einstein into your argument?

Honestly, I can´t factor Einsteins "rubber sheet illustration" and his "bended space-time" into anything at all.
Both Newton and Einstein had a gravity concept on their minds without being able to explain scientifically or causally by what dynamical means it should work.

 

[Native]

What? What is it specifically that you are criticizing? That you are still waiting for some question to be answered that you believe should already have been answered, and that somehow this is a failure of science or the scientific method?

Is this your discussion method in debates? It certainly isn´t mine for sure.

Native said: ↑
Adding unknown dark matter to a de facto contradicted prediction, isn´t science, but occult science fiction.

No. It is science. It's exactly the kind of science I just described: "Scientists collect data and devise narratives to account for all relevant observations, the simplest one that can do this (Occam's Razor). Later, when new data arises no longer accounted for by that narrative, the narrative is modified to account for that new data." That perfectly describes why dark matter was hypothesized. New data suggested that there was an unseen gravitational source not accounted for by the previous narrative, which was modified to reflect this new knowledge. Being a source of gravity, it is postulated that some form of matter besides that which we see in telescopes exists, and it has been called dark matter for that reason. That's good science. And yes, it is occult in the narrow sense of being hidden and mysterious, but not fiction.

If ONE fundamental force seems to cause cosmological predictive contradictions, the natural method would be to investigate the problem via the other known fundamental forces.

Why didn´t such a logical investigation happen? I´ll tell you why. It was/is because the conventional science is completely stuck in Newtons unexplained occult agency, called "gravitation", and by holding onto this occult agency, it naturally leads to further "occult agencies", in this galactic case to the assumption of "dark matter".

Again: Inserting an unknown "dark matter" agency upon an initial unexplained gravity agency, without investigate a cosmic problem via other fundamental forces, isn´t science but narrowminded and biased science fictions. I´ll even describe such a method to be outright superstitious.

 

[icehorse]

Honestly, I can´t factor Einsteins "rubber sheet illustration" and his "bended space-time" into anything at all.
Both Newton and Einstein had a gravity concept on their minds without being able to explain scientifically or causally by what dynamical means it should work.

What theory do you think cosmologists should be putting forth?

 

[Native]

What theory do you think cosmologists should be putting forth?

@icehorse,
Thanks for the question.

As all atoms have electromagnetic properties which can be strongly electromagnetically affected on the plasma stage, and all solid forms are electro-chemically "glued" together, the logical theory to put forth is a basic Electromagnetic Universe Model.

The observable Universe is filled with highly electromagnetically ionized strings in where galaxies are formed electromagnetically. The standing theory of these strings, is that gravity make these ionized strings, but of course "gravity" doesn´t create results of the other electromagnetic fundamental forces.

Strong electromagnetic gamma- and x-rays are beaming out of the galactic poles on both planes of the galactic disk as an evidence of strong electromagnetic nuclear formation, especially in the galactic centers and in the barred structures of one of two galactic types, as our Milky Way galaxy.

- Inspired by the Danish scientist Hans Christian Oersted, who discovered the connection between electricity and magnetism back in 1820, I have in fact made an attempt to launch a hypothetical Theory of Everything, called The TOTOE Model, "The Oersted Theory of Everything", which can be studied here.

The TOTOE Model abstract goes:
"Even if Newton´s calculations of celestial motions are used in spacecraft launching and navigation, it is astonishing that Newtons about 350 years old *occult agency law* still is generally accepted as a natural force by most theoretical astrophysicist and cosmologists. This uncritical accept of an unexplained force has led modern science far astray in space speculations since Newton was contradicted in the galactic realms, which was the start of *The Dark Age of Cosmology* by inventing and adding *dark matter* to the other initial *occult agency attraction assumption*. In the following paragraphs and linked articles, natural conditions and motions are explained logically, hence Newtons *occult agency force* is totally dismissed and replaced by *Laws of Pressures*. And then with *gravity* gone everywhere, it will be replaced by the logical and Universal Electro-Magnetic Force (EMF) everywhere".
-----------------
Enjoy and give a constructive respons.

 

[icehorse]

The TOTOE Model abstract goes:
"Even if Newton´s calculations of celestial motions are used in spacecraft launching and navigation, it is astonishing that Newtons about 350 years old *occult agency law* still is generally accepted as a natural force by most theoretical astrophysicist and cosmologists. This uncritical accept of an unexplained force has led modern science far astray in space speculations since Newton was contradicted in the galactic realms, which was the start of *The Dark Age of Cosmology* by inventing and adding *dark matter* to the other initial *occult agency attraction assumption*. In the following paragraphs and linked articles, natural conditions and motions are explained logically, hence Newtons *occult agency force* is totally dismissed and replaced by *Laws of Pressures*. And then with *gravity* gone everywhere, it will be replaced by the logical and Universal Electro-Magnetic Force (EMF) everywhere".
-----------------
Enjoy and give a constructive respons.

I think there is at least one important logical fallacy in this abstract. That is the implication that scientists / physicists / cosmologists have somehow accepted Newton's claims about gravity. ASAIK, trying to understand gravity is very much an open question and quite vigorously pursued.

As for the TOTOE model, I'm open minded about it. Perhaps it's correct. But it has to stand up to harsh scrutiny just like any other idea would. Does it explain all relevant observations? Does it accurately predict the behavior of celestial objects?

 

[Native]

I think there is at least one important logical fallacy in this abstract. That is the implication that scientists / physicists/cosmologists have somehow accepted Newton's claims about gravity.

I know. (More on this below)

Does it explain all relevant observations? Does it accurately predict the behavior of celestial objects?

Newtons most credibility in science regards his calculations of planetary motions, but these motions were already known by our ancestors, and the only thing left to give Newtons credibility, was/is his occult and unexplainable "terrestrial gravitation". And this can easily be looked on in an alternate way, as suggested below.

The TOTOE Model explains naturally and logically all preconditional and factual motions in our Milky Way galaxy and it also explains how the Milky Way formation led to the formation of the Solar System and its rotation and different orbital motions compared with the galactic one.

The TOTOE Model suggests:

1) A terrestrial gravitational model which can be exchanged by an aerodynamic pressure model.

2) A gravitational nucleosynthesis formation model, which can be exchanged by an E&M formation model based on the E&M properties in all atoms and molecules.

3) A formational gravitation model of the Solar System, which can be exchanged by an E&M model which includes the formation of the Solar System with the Milky Way formation and rotation.

And lastly:
4) A basic perceptional change of the E&M as being ONE FORCE, which works in plasmatic “clouds” via its attractive and repulsive polarity, works in all kinds of frequencies, charges and ranges.

Besides these claims and explanations, there of course are lots of other standing conventional cosmological issues which needs discussed in the light of the above suggested concepts.

In all of these issues, my approach will philosophically and scientifically be "back to nature and its cyclicity".

 

[Native]

Sub OP Addition: "Our Ignorance About Gravity".

I´m convinced that scientists since Newtons time have been collectively hypnotized to take all gravitational dogmas for granted, but they surely aren´t.

The video abstract say:
This video is about how little we know about the behavior of gravity at short length and distance scales, what the constraints are on the inverse square law/Newton's law of universal gravitation, at the human and microscopic and atomic scales. Only on solar system scales or larger do we have good constraints on Newton's law of gravitation".

VIDEO CONTENT REFERENCES
Review of short-range gravity experiments in the LHC era https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3588v2
Zeptonewton force sensing with nanospheres in an optical lattice https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.02122
Large extra dimensions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_e...
Search for Screened Interactions Associated with Dark Energy Below the 100 μm Length Scale https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.04908 T
ests of the Gravitational Inverse-Square Law below the Dark-Energy Length Scale https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0611184v1
Photon Mass Experiment http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.13149
Torsion balance experiments: A low-energy frontier of particle physics E.G. Adelberger, J.H. Gundlach, B.R. Heckel, S. Hoedl, S. Schlamminger doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2008.08.002
TESTS OF THE GRAVITATIONAL INVERSE-SQUARE LAW E.G. Adelberger, B.R. Heckel, and A.E. Nelson Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 2003. 53:77–121 doi: 10.1146/annurev.nucl.53.041002.110503
Physical Review A, Vol 33, No 1: Improved result for the accuracy of Coulomb's law: A review of the Williams, Faller, and Hill experiment. Lewis P. Fulcher.
----------------------------------
My comments:
As shortly summarized and conclude in the video, Newtons gravity fits at best in the Solar System and fails significantly on the micro- (Atomic) and macro (galactic) scales.

Coulombs Electromagnetic Laws fits immensely better than Newtons on the microcosmic (atomic) scales - and Maxwell´s electromagnetic Laws fits immensely better on the macrocosmic scales.

And in between, the ordinary electromagnetic chemistry and bio-electromagnetism contains more cosmological knowledge than the conventional astrophysics and cosmology all together.

On the microcosmic scale, Newtons gravity should never have been considered as an accretion law of formation at all, as it even cannot be gravitationally measured between two atoms - which otherwise is the formation theory in "cosmic clouds of gases and dusts".

In this connection and comparison, the electromagnetic force between atoms is a million billion time stronger than the predicted gravitational attraction, hence the EM force logically is the best qualified, when it comes to attract atoms and molecules and making galaxies, stars and planets by its attractive polarity working on the plasm stage in cosmic clouds.

On the macrocosmic scale Newtons gravitational "law of celestial (orbital) motions around a gravitational object/center" was directly contradicted by the discovery of the galactic rotation curve. STILL conventional scientist have Newtons ideas to work here by their invention of yet another occult matter but gravity, "dark matter".

The worst case for Newton and for modern cosmology on the macrocosmic scales is, that later cosmological scientists have projected a terrestrial law and value of pressure, onto everything outside the Earth, to which this extra terrestrial pressurized value specifically belongs and nowhere else.

In fact, modern scientists have de facto in their gravitational confusion, really theorized the entire Universe to be governed by a terrestrial pressure law, instead of their otherwise theories with lots of pulling accretions, collisions, implosions and explosions - and lots of the "dark this and that"-patching´s in order not to think critically and logically and get rid of this gravitational confusion.

Newton on the Solar System
To me, this is no surprise, that Newtons idea works at best in the Solar System and on the Earth at al, as I have Newtons 1 g, to be confused for Pascal´s 1 P, which is determining a general spacial orbital velocity aerodynamic draft PRESSURE on the Earth, instead of Newtons PULL from the Earth. So Newtons gravitational calculations are OK, but not his PULLING assumptions.

Of course Newtons pulling ideas fits nicely, as the value and law of his gravity, is similar to the value and law of the extra terrestrial orbital velocity pressure on the Earth. This extraterrestrial pressure has to be overcome when launching spacecrafts and when maneuvering these behind other planets to gain energy, it is the orbital direction lee side of the planets which provides an extra energy to the further space craft journey. On its return to Earth, the scientists once again have to consider the extra terrestrially pressurized "weight) atmospheric density in the Earth´s atmosphere and find the correct entering angle.

This post shall be read and understood in connection with my former posts in this OP.

Thanks and regards from
Native.

 

[gnostic]

@Native

You do realize that we don’t live in the 17th-18th centuries, don’t you?

We have come a long way from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687).

Sciences don’t sit still for any one scientist. Physics and mathematics have gone beyond Newton’s original concepts, and there are many things he didn’t know in his time and the limitations of his technology.

Technology have leapfrogged since 1919, with the largest optical telescope at that time, the Hooker Telescope (Mount Wilson Observatory), where & when Edwin Hubble discovered the Universe is much larger than the tiny speck that we called the Milky Way.

Since then, more powerful telescopes were constructed, some using radio astronomy, and later still, near the end of the century, space telescopes were orbiting in space.

The Milky Way was just one of hundred of billions of galaxies in the Observable Universe.

All cosmologies before 1919, have to be revised, and throw out the proverbial window.

You go on and on about Isaac Newton, as if he is the only physicist and astronomer to exist.

 

[gnostic]

Of course, some parties will have vested interests which may prompt them to defend flawed models, in order to protect those interests.

Yes, Fred Hoyle.

He was one of 3 (the others being Hermann Bondi & Thomas Gold), who were proponents of the Steady State model in 1948-1951, competing against the 1948 papers of George Gamow, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman’s Big Bang model.

The Steady State model was debunked with the discovery of CMBR in 1964.

Then in 1993, he tried to revive SS with the Quasi-Steady State model, which was no more successful than the first one.

 

[cladking]

As shortly summarized and conclude in the video, Newtons gravity fits at best in the Solar System and fails significantly on the micro- (Atomic) and macro (galactic) scales.

Great video.

Even at the scales at which we observe gravity there is no means to understand what it is or what causes it. We merely observe the effects and can make predictions based on observing these effects and the derivation of formulae.

Based on the fact we've been largely stuck for over a century my guess is that there are fundamental errors in our definitions.

 

[Native]

You do realize. . .

None of your comments are related to the posted specific video content, hence I must conclude you haven´t watched it.