Impossible Galaxy Debunk Conventional Cosmology

[gnostic]

It´s the usual problem: You don´t or can´t focus on the posted topic or its complications.
All you can, is apparently focus on persons who´re giving you challenges and then you go after the man instead of the ball.

Would you take seriously a salesperson, accountant, general practitioner (eg family doctor), lawyer, electrician, bricklayer, fashion model, janitor, home cook, and so on, if he or she made YouTube videos that attempt to debunk any field in astrophysics or cosmology?

I wouldn't.

Just as I would treat a school teacher in English, maths and biology seriously, like Anton.

I would expect a person who try to debunk anything about astronomical or cosmological phenomena, by some people who have experiences in these fields, and have worked in some observatories or astronomical labs.

And if I want updates of James Webb mission, then I would go to the sources, like ESA, NASA, Aura or StScI, which have more reliable information than some hacks who make YouTube videos.

 

[Native]

Sub-OP: "Modern Cosmology, sitting on The Golden Needle, looking for a Dark Haystack".

"Strange New Phenomenon Found After Black Holes Destroy Stars, No Explanation Yet"

Once again, the dear Anton Petrov is referring from far away of an ancient strong electromagnetic radiation from collisions and explosions and of black hole devouring monsters in galaxies which shouldn't be there yet at all - and still "No Explanation Yet".

Several thousands of years ago, our ancestors all over the world had the answer to the creation/formation. Opposing to modern cosmological science, our ancestors searched the haystack - and found the Golden Needle.

I really feel sad for modern cosmology which has lost its natural roots

 

[Native]

Sorry for this delay, it seem that I wasn´t notified of your post.

I would expect a person who try to debunk anything about astronomical or cosmological phenomena, by some people who have experiences in these fields, and have worked in some observatories or astronomical labs.

I think you must have a kind of an authority complex going on.

And if I want updates of James Webb mission, then I would go to the sources, like ESA, NASA, Aura or StScI, which have more reliable information than some hacks who make YouTube videos.

Gnostic, it doesn´t matter if you listen to your cat or modern cosmological teachers and scientist as they only knows of 4 % of the observable Universe, and they cannot put the cosmological dots together at all.

- And when somebody Maverick with a broader mythical and cosmologically connecting perspective come along, you misses it all because it contains alternate explanations.

 

[Native]

James Webb Image Reveals an Unusual Star With Incredible Features

The Dear Anton is talking of the importance of ionization, but ignore which force does that job.

He also speaks of temperature dependency for making these strong forces – completely forgetting that it is the other way around: that the strong forces makes the high temperatures.

They can´t make themselves to talk about the real thing in cosmology.

 

[gnostic]

The Dear Anton is talking of the importance of ionization, but ignore which force does that job.

He also speaks of temperature dependency for making these strong forces – completely forgetting that it is the other way around: that the strong forces makes the high temperatures.

Actually both of you (you and Anton): are wrong, and don't understand strong nuclear force.

I also don't think either you or Anton know what "ionization" mean. I don't think either you or Anton understand basic physics and basic chemistry about atom.

Ionization have nothing to do with strong nuclear force.

Ionization is about an atom or molecule -

• losing one or more electron, thereby making the atom or molecule, positive-charged,
• or gaining one or more electrons, thereby making atom or molecule, negative-charged.

That's all it have to do with ionization.

The increase in temperature is the result of energy being expedited by the loss or gain of electron(s).

Losing or gaining electron have nothing to do with strong nuclear force.

Strong nuclear force has a much shorter range, being a force INSIDE THE NUCLEUS.

The only things "inside" the atom's nucleus, are proton and neutron; electrons exist outside of this nucleus.

The "binding energy" that keep electrons attached to atom or molecule, is rather weak, and can be easily knock out of electron from its bond with atom:

1. electromagnetic force
2. weak nuclear force: electrons are only weakly bonded to nucleus of atom, so radioactive decay can cause atom to lose its electrons; these electrons in radioactive decays are known as "beta particle".

Both EM force and radioactive decay can cause increase in temperature, but this has nothing to do with strong nuclear force.

Anton is wrong (highlighted in green) because temperature don't make strong nuclear force.

As I said earlier, strong nuclear force have very short range, like femtometre (fm), but at this very tiny range, it is the strongest of the 4 fundamental forces.

Strong nuclear force does 2 things:

1. It bonds 3 quarks together, to make a hadron particle, eg proton particle or neutron particle; or bond a quark particle & antiquark particle together as a meson particle.
2. It what keep neutrons and protons together INSIDE the nucleus of atom.

If Anton understood basic physics and basic chemistry, he should already know that proton is a positive-charged particle, and being positive charged protons should be repelling each other.

What stop multiple protons from repelling each other inside the nucleus is the strong nuclear force, not temperature. Strong nuclear force don't make temperature increase.

What you got wrong (highlighted in red) is assuming that the strong nuclear force is the cause increase in temperature.

Temperature do rise is during ionization, because atom can lose its electrons, hence atom become "ionized atom", but this have to do with what I said earlier about EM force and weak nuclear force, NOT strong nuclear force. The temperature rise is caused by the release of this "binding energy", when the atom loses its electrons (eg ionization).

I think you are confusing strong nuclear force with weak nuclear force, because you got everything backward.

You really need to read up what "ionization" is, what "strong nuclear force", because it is clear even to me, that you don't understand either of them.

PS

If you are confused by my explanation about “ionization” and “strong force”, then I would suggest that you ask either @exchemist or @Polymath257 , because they have better understanding of physics and chemistry than I do.

 

[Native]

Actually both of you (you and Anton): are wrong, and don't understand strong nuclear force.

I also don't think either you or Anton know what "ionization" mean. I don't think either you or Anton understand basic physics and basic chemistry about atom.

Ionization have nothing to do with strong nuclear force.

And I don´t think you´re in any position to judge these matters at all.

Ionization is about an atom or molecule -

• losing one or more electron, thereby making the atom or molecule, positive-charged,
• or gaining one or more electrons, thereby making atom or molecule, negative-charged.

That's all it have to do with ionization.

The increase in temperature is the result of energy being expedited by the loss or gain of electron(s).

Losing or gaining electron have nothing to do with strong nuclear force.

Strong nuclear force has a much shorter range, being a force INSIDE THE NUCLEUS.

The only things "inside" the atom's nucleus, are proton and neutron; electrons exist outside of this nucleus.

How can you elaborate in this amount without even mentioning the force behind all this?

The "binding energy" that keep electrons attached to atom or molecule, is rather weak, and can be easily knock out of electron from its bond with atom:

1. electromagnetic force
2. weak nuclear force: electrons are only weakly bonded to nucleus of atom, so radioactive decay can cause atom to lose its electrons; these electrons in radioactive decays are known as "beta particle".

This is NOTORIOUSLY WRONG! And you make this conclusion without even THINKING of the electromagnetically attractive force which binds all electromagnetically atoms and molecules together, The E&M STRONG FORCE.

How difficult can it be intellectually TO connect the E&M qualities in atoms and molecules to be worked at by an external E&M force and be bounded together?

Well, I´m not surprised at all, as you never in our conversation have got anything connected at all.

Note: For some reasons I didn't got notified by the RF administration of your posting.

 

[gnostic]

How can you elaborate in this amount without even mentioning the force behind all this?

The problem with your post on Anton’s claim on ionization (post 84) is that you had confuse the wrong force relating to ionization.

It is the weak nuclear force that is the force relating to ionizing of atom, through loss of electrons.

In radioactive decay, these ejections of electrons, are known as beta decay, and electrons are referred to beta particles or beta radiation.

This is NOTORIOUSLY WRONG! And you make this conclusion without even THINKING of the electromagnetically attractive force which binds all electromagnetically atoms and molecules together, The E&M STRONG FORCE.

It is you that have no understanding what strong nuclear force.

The strong nuclear force and EM force are two very different types of forces. You are mixing them up.

You really should read up on nuclear physics, before making up unsubstantiated assumptions as to what strong and weak forces are.

 

[Native]

The strong nuclear force and EM force are two very different types of forces. You are mixing them up..

Yes I´m blending "related E&M things" together logically - and you don´t get the overall picture.

You too is a victim of a science which excludingly has divided the basic E&M up in three departmental branches, and you simply deny to look at the commonalities in these scientifically stupid E&M divisions.

As one who always claim to go for the scientific informations, you should be ashamed by yourself nagging on Anton, who constantly practice just that himself, citing scientific articles and the latest observations in space.

When I´m criticizing what he presents, it´s because the sources he refers to, constantly misses to see the logical solutions.

And that's exactly why I´m nagging on you too, as you´re stuck in the dogmatic divisions of the natural unified E&M force.

 

[Native]

Sub-OP: "The human brain and the Universe".

In this video, its suggested at the start, that the human brain is similar in structure to the Cosmic Web in the Universe.

I goes on speculating on what "consciousness" is all about and then describing several theoretical models of the Universe - and it ends with a statement that it´s all difficult to take in and understand.

It´s really funny to me! First making the logical connection between the human brain and the Universe and a possible common consciousness - But this logical connection goes completely waisted in the further video speculations.

This logical connection was/is what our ancestors have known for thousands of years and described in their cultural Stories of Creation. The human brain is able to communicate with the Universe and get all the relevant needed knowledge and even more.

Instead, the modern human scientific brains are making all kinds of artificial speculations and using substituting machines to try to get cosmological knowledge, which NEWER will succeeds as these machines can´t communicate DIRECTLY with the Universe, and it require precisely an universel conscious mind to logically interpret the incoming observations from the Universe

Compared to our ancestors intuitive knowledge, modern humans have studied themselves more and more stupid compared to the naturally embedded consciousness in everything, including humans - if its awaken.

 

[Native]

Sub-OP: How NOT to look at the existing star data.

Betelgeuse in Orion, was originally stated and thought to become a supernova, but suddenly in 2019 it lost some of its luminosity..

And ONCE AGAIN the scientist makes all kinds of speculations why - COMPLETELY ignoring the natural fact from our own star, that they all have an electromagnetically rhythm of charging and discharging and in this process reversing their magnetic field polarity.

They have completely lost their natural logical senses and pattern recognition skills which is required to see and find the universal solutions.

 

[gnostic]

Yes I´m blending "related E&M things" together logically - and you don´t get the overall picture.

You too is a victim of a science which excludingly has divided the basic E&M up in three departmental branches, and you simply deny to look at the commonalities in these scientifically stupid E&M divisions.

I am not ignoring any electromagnetic theory at all, but it would seem that you have never understood even basic electromagnetic principles.

Are you forgetting that you wrote:

And you make this conclusion without even THINKING of the electromagnetically attractive force which binds all electromagnetically atoms and molecules together, The E&M STRONG FORCE.

You have forgotten a very important FACT about electromagnetic force, that
opposite-charged particles attract, eg positive-charged proton will attract negative-charged electron, like-charged particles repulse, eg 2 or more positive-charged protons should repulse each other inside the nucleus.

That’s how electromagnetic forces work, Native.

Inside the a nucleus of atom - eg helium has 2 protons & 2 neutrons inside the nucleus - 2 or more positive-charged protons should repel each other, based on the current theory of electromagnetism.

Have you completely forgotten that EM has forces that repel like-charged particles?

I have forgotten that EM forces work as both attractive and repelling forces, based on if there are respectively like-charged field and opposite-charged field.

You should also playing around with magnets, that they only attract each when their poles are polar opposite, but the magnets should repel each other when the same poles face each other. Basic principle in magnetic field.

So there must be a very different force acting inside the nucleus that are keeping all protons together, forces strong enough to counter EM repelling or repulsive force. This force is called strong nuclear force.

The strong nuclear force is what stopping the like-charged particles from EM force repelling each other.

You must have failed badly in physics, if you don’t understand the such basic principles of how two or more same charged particles interact with each other. In EM, 2 protons should repel other, not attract each other; only strong nuclear force can counter EM’s repulsive force.

And as to EM being one force with strong nuclear force.

This is not possible since the earliest day of universe, when the universe was still extremely hot and extremely dense, that strong, weak and EM was one force during the 2nd phase of the Big Bang theory, the highly theoretical Grand Unification Epoch.

In the Planck Epoch (1st phase of BB), there was only one fundamental and “unified” force, that included gravitation, strong nuclear, weak nuclear and EM.

In the Grand Unification Epoch (GUE), the universe was cool enough for gravitation force was the first to separate from the unified force. The unified force of strong, weak and EM was collective known as electronuclear force. GUE started around 10^-43 second after the Big Bang.

Strong nuclear force was the next force to separate from unified force weak & EM, or more aptly known as electroweak force. Strong nuclear broke away during the Electroweak Epoch when the universe was 10^-36 second after the Big Bang.

To even have electroweak force exist today, the energy requirement has be greater than 246GeV (246 giga electro-volt) or temperature of 10^15 K (kelvin).

So can you imagine how hot it has to be, to unified 3 forces together as one?

For unified electronuclear force to exist, the energy has to be 10^15 GeV or temperature above 10^27 K.

Not even the most super massive star could achieve the temperature needed for either electronuclear or electroweak forces to exist.

Electroweak force didn’t separate into their respective EM force and weak nuclear force until 10^-12 second after the Big Bang, during the Quark Epoch, when temperature dropped to 159 GeV.

Each separation of the force from the unified force, is called “symmetry-breaking”.

To understand all of this, you should read up on particle physics, particularly on Higgs mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and of course, the latest model of the Big Bang theory.

 

[Native]

I am not ignoring any electromagnetic theory at all, but it would seem that you have never understood even basic electromagnetic principles.

Are you forgetting that you wrote:

You have forgotten a very important FACT about electromagnetic force, that
opposite-charged particles attract, eg positive-charged proton will attract negative-charged electron, like-charged particles repulse, eg 2 or more positive-charged protons should repulse each other inside the nucleus.

That’s how electromagnetic forces work, Native.

Inside the a nucleus of atom - eg helium has 2 protons & 2 neutrons inside the nucleus - 2 or more positive-charged protons should repel each other, based on the current theory of electromagnetism.

Have you completely forgotten that EM has forces that repel like-charged particles?

I have forgotten that EM forces work as both attractive and repelling forces, based on if there are respectively like-charged field and opposite-charged field.

You should also playing around with magnets, that they only attract each when their poles are polar opposite, but the magnets should repel each other when the same poles face each other. Basic principle in magnetic field.

So there must be a very different force acting inside the nucleus that are keeping all protons together, forces strong enough to counter EM repelling or repulsive force. This force is called strong nuclear force.

The strong nuclear force is what stopping the like-charged particles from EM force repelling each other.

You must have failed badly in physics, if you don’t understand the such basic principles of how two or more same charged particles interact with each other. In EM, 2 protons should repel other, not attract each other; only strong nuclear force can counter EM’s repulsive force.

And as to EM being one force with strong nuclear force.

This is not possible since the earliest day of universe, when the universe was still extremely hot and extremely dense, that strong, weak and EM was one force during the 2nd phase of the Big Bang theory, the highly theoretical Grand Unification Epoch.

In the Planck Epoch (1st phase of BB), there was only one fundamental and “unified” force, that included gravitation, strong nuclear, weak nuclear and EM.

In the Grand Unification Epoch (GUE), the universe was cool enough for gravitation force was the first to separate from the unified force. The unified force of strong, weak and EM was collective known as electronuclear force. GUE started around 10^-43 second after the Big Bang.

Strong nuclear force was the next force to separate from unified force weak & EM, or more aptly known as electroweak force. Strong nuclear broke away during the Electroweak Epoch when the universe was 10^-36 second after the Big Bang.

To even have electroweak force exist today, the energy requirement has be greater than 246GeV (246 giga electro-volt) or temperature of 10^15 K (kelvin).

So can you imagine how hot it has to be, to unified 3 forces together as one?

For unified electronuclear force to exist, the energy has to be 10^15 GeV or temperature above 10^27 K.

Not even the most super massive star could achieve the temperature needed for either electronuclear or electroweak forces to exist.

Electroweak force didn’t separate into their respective EM force and weak nuclear force until 10^-12 second after the Big Bang, during the Quark Epoch, when temperature dropped to 159 GeV.

Each separation of the force from the unified force, is called “symmetry-breaking”.

To understand all of this, you should read up on particle physics, particularly on Higgs mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and of course, the latest model of the Big Bang theory.

You´re all over referring to the (3 TIMES DIVIDED) E&M concept working on the microcosmic and technical scale. I perfectly understand these divisions and their connected theories.

So don´t bother me anymore with your continuous theoretical lectures about all this.

On the macro- and "media"-cosmic scale, is quite another soup when the EM current is working on plasmatic clouds of as and dust. Here, we have strong nuclear gamma- and x-rays on play in galactic centers, in where BOTH of the EM polarities are at work, sorting out gases and particles to form STARS and PLANETS.

Even in daily experiments we have observed the otherwise scientifically divided EM forces to fuse together, which CLEARLY underline my, several decades, perception of an unified double polarized E current force, and its magnetic field which works in all kind of charges, frequencies, and ranges.

I´ve pointed this explanation out for you 117 times, but as you don´t take me as an authority and keep on listening to those, who only knows of 4 % of the Universe, you´ll NEVER catch up neither in Cosmology nor in Mythology.

NOTE: Once again I wasn´t notified of your last post, so don´t expect me to sit and wait for more replies, as I have other things to do but entertaining you and your love for conventional cosmic dreams which never come through.

BTW: You should know by now what I think of the unscientific idea of a Big Bang, which even frequently is contradicted by the latest discoveries - which you also don´t care the least about since you keep on parroting the conventional ideas.

 

[gnostic]

You´re all over referring to the (3 TIMES DIVIDED) E&M concept working on the microcosmic and technical scale. I perfectly understand these divisions and their connected theories.

Seriously, Native.

The fundamental forces or interactions are not purely theoretical concepts.

They are factual, because they are evidence-based.

You should have learned some of the thing in high school.

Remember you wrote

And you make this conclusion without even THINKING of the electromagnetically attractive force which binds all electromagnetically atoms and molecules together, The E&M STRONG FORCE.

EM being attractive force” is only half true.

Have you seriously forgotten that electrical fields and magnetic fields operate also as “repulsive” forces?

Like charges don’t attract and like poles don’t attract. That’s basic scientific fact.

So there have to be stronger forces than EM repulsive forces that keep protons in the nucleus.

That you ignorantly ignore this repeatedly, only demonstrate that you are cherry picking the EM theory just to suit your silly pseudoscience concept.

Since, you refuse to recognize all of EM fundamental law, just accept only your personal preference, then I am wasting my time here, when you won’t even see errors you have made or recognize something you have overlooked.

Have a nice week.

 

[Native]

Since, you refuse to recognize all of EM fundamental law, just accept only your personal preference, then I am wasting my time here, when you won’t even see errors you have made or recognize something you have overlooked.

Here you have the very concept of making UNCONSCIUOS PROJECTIONS.

 

[Native]

Sub-OP: The Logical Panic Article Attacts.

By asserting the strange unnatural Big Bang idea, the logical and unavoidable observations are now coming as perls on a string.

But don´t panic: The new panic articles "isn´t yet peer reviewed", it is said in the video.

And WHO shall or can peer review something never discovered before?

But of course, these clever guys can do a work of explaining away the contradicting evidences as usual, and maybe they can invent a scottish tartan colored force which is to blame.

 

[Native]

Sub-OP: The needed critical philosophical thinkers.

Follow Alexander Unzicker and his excellent videos.
And here.

Enjoy
Native

 

[Native]

Sub-OP: Einstein, a bad mathematician . . .

Video:
What Einsteins character and convictions should tell us today

Apparently, Einsteins bad mathematical skills also destroyed his genuine intuitive skills on the scientific run for scientific popularity - otherwise he never would have made the speculative mental construct of his "bended-space-time" misconception, which was even worse than Newtons universally contradicted "law of celestial motion".

 

[metis]

Apparently, Einsteins bad mathematical skills also destroyed his genuine intuitive skills on the scientific run for scientific popularity - otherwise he never would have made the speculative mental construct of his "bended-space-time" misconception, which was even worse than Newtons universally contradicted "law of celestial motion".

Except Einstein was proven correct on this, [see: How Albert Einstein Developed the Theory of General Relativity | Britannica], but what he couldn't rap his head around was with quantum mechanics.

His math was genius, btw, and one of my teachers went to Princeton to see him speak, and when he was done the students took the blackboard and smashed it so that they could have a piece of it as a souvenir.

Newton was also a genius, especially since had less than what Einstein had to work with.

 

[gnostic]

Here you have the very concept of making UNCONSCIUOS PROJECTIONS.

Then you tell me. What forces are keeping positive-charged protons inside the atom’s nucleus, for example, “ionized” iron.

If iron atom have been completely “ionized”, with no electrons bonded to the iron’s nucleus, then if you understand the law of electromagnetism, then the 26 protons should be repelling each other, the positive electrical field of each proton would push themselves out of nucleus.

So what force is strong enough to counter and overcome the EM repulsive forces of a bunch of protons in its nucleus?

You know my answer already, but what is your answer?