In an Universe of Light

[Native]

This topic is posted in order to have an open minded and friendly out-of the-squared-box constructive discussion. For my own part I´m amazed that modern cosmology don´t include Electromagnetic formational processes and qualitative motions in their cosmic theories.

It is said in Standard Cosmology that the Universe contains 69 % dark energy; 27 % dark matter and just 4 % baryonic matter. It is also a Standard Cosmology statement that gravity rules the entire Universe.
-----------------------
Fundamental Forces




Image credit - Fundamental Forces - Note that there is NO specific dynamic or sientific explanation of the weakest "gravity".

But what are the cosmological implications if the significantly stronger EM force with is contractive and repulsive qualiteis constitutes the formational motions and energies in the Universe, and modern cosmology just count on the much weaker one way force/energy of gravity?

And why is it that the other forces but "gravity" is divided into 3 separate fundamental forces when it all deals with atomic matters and electromagnetic (EM) qualities? Is such a separation just a result of different scientific approaches where EM is included? Or can these 3 forces really be just 1 EM force working with different charges, frequensies and ranges?

As said initially: For my own part I´m amazed that modern cosmology don´t include Electromagnetic formation processes in their cosmic theories. And I´m not the only one who is amazed. Watch this video:

So what are your thoughts of all this?

Regards
Native

 

[exchemist]

QUOTE
Pierre-Marie Luc Robitaille a.k.a. Sky Scholar (born 1961) is an accomplished radiologist and a Nobel disease-type crank. As director of magnetic resonance imaging research for the Department of Medicine of Ohio State University from 1989-2000[1] he made major advances in the science of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), leading the project to build the 8 Tesla Ultra High Field human MRI scanner.

In 2000, he was asked to step down from his position as director (though he remains a professor) when he began to promote theories that were outside his actual realm of expertise, specifically related to non-mainstream beliefs in the areas of astronomy and physics: he maintains that satellite measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation, believed by most astronomers to be an afterglow of the Big Bang, are actually observations of a glow from Earth's oceans.[note 1]

He also maintains that the Sun is not a gaseous plasma, but is in fact made of liquid metallic hydrogen. None of his ideas have been accepted by any reputable physics publication.

Robitaille has been presented as a physicist, cosmologist and even an astrophysicist, though anyone who has gained actual credentials in these fields would beg to differ. Criticism of his crank ideas range from accusations of cherry picking evidence to a failure to understand even rudimentary thermodynamics.

In 2002, Robitaille and his wife paid for a full page ad in the Sunday New York Times,[2] detailing his microwave and Sun hypotheses. Mainstream astronomers reviewed and dismissed Robitaille's claims as "untenable" and "completely wrong".[3] The incident raised questions about the New York Times' policy for printing paid advertisements without checking them for reasonable factual validity. The ad cost nearly a year of Robitaille's salary. When asked why he didn't just put it on arXiv, he replied that he didn't know it existed. Although he eventually found his way to viXra[4] and pseudojournal alternative science journal Progress In Physics.

He has since continued to spam non-crank physicists with his ideas, particularly one email run in 2009 widespread enough for recipients to discuss it amongst themselves.[5][6] His work has also been latched onto for support from the nuttier global warming denialists.[7] He is also admired by electric universeadvocates: he spoke at the 2014 Electric Universe Conference on his microwave and Sun theories.[8]

Now there is a Youtube channel (Sky Scholar) where he discusses some ideas with graphics added.[9

UNQUOTE

From Rationalwiki.

In short, "electric universe" crank science. We've seen it all before.

 

[Skwim]

So what are your thoughts of all this?

.​

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This topic is posted in order to have an open minded and friendly out-of the-squared-box constructive discussion. For my own part I´m amazed that modern cosmology don´t include Electromagnetic formational processes and qualitative motions in their cosmic theories.

It is said in Standard Cosmology that the Universe contains 69 % dark energy; 27 % dark matter and just 4 % baryonic matter. It is also a Standard Cosmology statement that gravity rules the entire Universe.
-----------------------
Fundamental Forces




Image credit - Fundamental Forces - Note that there is NO specific dynamic or sientific explanation of the weakest "gravity".

But what are the cosmological implications if the significantly stronger EM force with is contractive and repulsive qualiteis constitutes the formational motions and energies in the Universe, and modern cosmology just count on the much weaker one way force/energy of gravity?

And why is it that the other forces but "gravity" is divided into 3 separate fundamental forces when it all deals with atomic matters and electromagnetic (EM) qualities? Is such a separation just a result of different scientific approaches where EM is included? Or can these 3 forces really be just 1 EM force working with different charges, frequensies and ranges?

As said initially: For my own part I´m amazed that modern cosmology don´t include Electromagnetic formation processes in their cosmic theories. And I´m not the only one who is amazed. Watch this video:

So what are your thoughts of all this?

Regards
Native

My thoughts are that people who actually work on this frontier of scientific knowledge, probably know better then you.

 

[Native]

Dear oh dear !
I didn´t ask what you mean about any persons and I furthermore asked participants in this topic/thread to be open minded and friendly.

 

[gnostic]

Dear oh dear !
I didn´t ask what you mean about any persons and I furthermore asked participants in this topic/thread to be open minded and friendly.

If you wanted this, then you shouldn’t put Robitaille’s YouTube video, who has no understanding of astronomy and astrophysics, let alone cosmology in your OP.

Robitaille is a known hack, who has absolutely no qualifications in areas he has no expertise in, and he has never worked at any astronomical observatory, hence no experiences.

Why do you insist on posting his bloody pseudoscience videos?

Can’t you find videos from some real astronomers and astrophysicists?

 

[gnostic]

QUOTE
Pierre-Marie Luc Robitaille a.k.a. Sky Scholar (born 1961) is an accomplished radiologist and a Nobel disease-type crank. As director of magnetic resonance imaging research for the Department of Medicine of Ohio State University from 1989-2000[1] he made major advances in the science of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), leading the project to build the 8 Tesla Ultra High Field human MRI scanner.

In 2000, he was asked to step down from his position as director (though he remains a professor) when he began to promote theories that were outside his actual realm of expertise, specifically related to non-mainstream beliefs in the areas of astronomy and physics: he maintains that satellite measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation, believed by most astronomers to be an afterglow of the Big Bang, are actually observations of a glow from Earth's oceans.[note 1]

He also maintains that the Sun is not a gaseous plasma, but is in fact made of liquid metallic hydrogen. None of his ideas have been accepted by any reputable physics publication.

Robitaille has been presented as a physicist, cosmologist and even an astrophysicist, though anyone who has gained actual credentials in these fields would beg to differ. Criticism of his crank ideas range from accusations of cherry picking evidence to a failure to understand even rudimentary thermodynamics.

In 2002, Robitaille and his wife paid for a full page ad in the Sunday New York Times,[2] detailing his microwave and Sun hypotheses. Mainstream astronomers reviewed and dismissed Robitaille's claims as "untenable" and "completely wrong".[3] The incident raised questions about the New York Times' policy for printing paid advertisements without checking them for reasonable factual validity. The ad cost nearly a year of Robitaille's salary. When asked why he didn't just put it on arXiv, he replied that he didn't know it existed. Although he eventually found his way to viXra[4] and pseudojournal alternative science journal Progress In Physics.

He has since continued to spam non-crank physicists with his ideas, particularly one email run in 2009 widespread enough for recipients to discuss it amongst themselves.[5][6] His work has also been latched onto for support from the nuttier global warming denialists.[7] He is also admired by electric universeadvocates: he spoke at the 2014 Electric Universe Conference on his microwave and Sun theories.[8]

Now there is a Youtube channel (Sky Scholar) where he discusses some ideas with graphics added.[9

UNQUOTE

From Rationalwiki.

In short, "electric universe" crank science. We've seen it all before.

Thanks, exchemist.

I have already told Native that Robitaille isn’t an astronomer, and yet he posted this same silly video in Aristotle on the Origin of Life thread.

Robitaille is a hack, a fake astronomer, who like the Rationalwiki say, misunderstood the subjects which he pretends to expert in.

 

[gnostic]

If you really wanted to be open-minded, Native, then probably should learn more what the current Big Bang model is actually saying, then you go on pro-EM/anti-gravity rants.

There is no pro-/anti- EM/gravity in the Big Bang theory.

This is simply you, not understanding the science, so you go on this this anti-gravity tirades of yours, spinning strawman argument of how modern cosmologists ignore EM forces.

They don’t. They really don’t. It is all simply your delusions.

Each fundamental forces have roles to play in modern physical cosmology. There are no favorite, Native. The only person playing favoritism, is you.

That you can only find crank like Robitaille to support your anti-gravity tirades only demonstrated that you are the one who closed minded.

 

[Native]

If you wanted this, then you shouldn’t put Robitaille’s YouTube video, who has no understanding of astronomy and astrophysics, let alone cosmology in your OP.

Robitaille is a known hack, who has absolutely no qualifications in areas he has no expertise in, and he has never worked at any astronomical observatory, hence no experiences.

Why do you insist on posting his bloody pseudoscience videos?

Can’t you find videos from some real astronomers and astrophysicists?

Apperantly you didn´t even understand anything of the OP premises at all. My questions were whether an EM force could play a more universal and significant role than "gravity" in the Standard Model.

So why on Earth should I refer to already known video´s of Standard Model contents which excludingly counts on gravitational matter and hypothesis?

Robitaille is a known hack, who has absolutely no qualifications in areas he has no expertise in, and he has never worked at any astronomical observatory, hence no experiences.

This is the usual comment on persons who dares to read and think critical for themselves instead of falling in the consensus pit of gravitational assumptions.

Such comments are just pathetical and emotional nonsense and it directly violates the OP, which demands an open minded approach in a friendly tone.

 

[Native]

Thanks, exchemist.

I have already told Native that Robitaille isn’t an astronomer, and yet he posted this same silly video in Aristotle on the Origin of Life thread.

Robitaille is a hack, a fake astronomer, who like the Rationalwiki say, misunderstood the subjects which he pretends to expert in.

You don´t have to spam the thread with this conventional biased content just because you need a personal confirmation of a fellowship. And speaking of someone in third person is just on the level of gossip.

 

[Native]

I fully understand why some debaters oppose me when I advocate for the possibility for EM to govern the Universe as even modern astrophysicists and cosmologists fails to “put their own EM dots together” which of course also affects the convictions of “laymen” who just uncritically accepts and follows the consensus ideas and theories.

From – Electromagnetism - Wikipedia

Electromagnetism is a branch of physics involving the study of the electromagnetic force, a type of physical interaction that occurs between electrically charged particles. The electromagnetic force is carried by electromagnetic fields composed of electric fields and magnetic fields, and it is responsible for electromagnetic radiation such as light. It is one of the four fundamental interactions (commonly called forces) in nature, together with the strong interaction, the weak interaction, and gravitation. At high energy the weak force and electromagnetic force are unified as a single electroweak force”.

--------------

Electromagnetism is defined as a “scientific branch of physics”, i.e. it is not thought of and defined as an universal force in spite of several physical situations where it merges with and splits up in other fundamental forces as described in the quotes above and below.

From - Electroweak interaction - Wikipedia

In particle physics, the electroweak interaction or electroweak force is the unified description of two of the four known fundamental interactions of nature: electromagnetism and the weak interaction. Although these two forces appear very different at everyday low energies, the theory models them as two different aspects of the same force. Above the unification energy, on the order of 246 GeV,[a] they would merge into a single force. Thus, if the universe is hot enough (approximately 1015 K, a temperature not exceeded since shortly after the Big Bang), then the electromagnetic force and weak force merge into a combined electroweak force. During the quark epoch, the electroweak force split into the electromagnetic and weak force”.
----------

So: The general EM force is depending on energy/charge and it works on different atomic or elementary stages and ranges. It can merge into a single force and split up in consensus defined different fundamental EM forces.

In my opinion the EM fundamental force is ONE and it even can explain a cosmic formation where “gravity” otherwise is thought to play the main role.

Electromagnetism is defined as an electric current and a magnetic field which moves perpendicularly of the current in a “spherical” circuit due to its 2 polarities of attraction and repulsion.

When speaking of cosmological formation, it´s the attractive EM polarity which draws gaseous and metallic atoms in a cosmic cloud whirling together into a center where nuclear formation takes place and thus forming stars. In galaxies, the nuclear radiation from this process radiates out along the current on both galactic planes and the perpendicular magnetic field (and the subsequent induced electric currents) creates the galactic disk of stars.

This EM explanation of course goes against the consensus ideas of “particle gravity” and it´s “self contraction of gas and dust in a random cosmic cloud” which really violates the laws of Thermodynamics as such a cosmic cloud cannot do work on itself. It obviously needs an external energy to be moved.

 

[Thief]

This topic is posted in order to have an open minded and friendly out-of the-squared-box constructive discussion. For my own part I´m amazed that modern cosmology don´t include Electromagnetic formational processes and qualitative motions in their cosmic theories.

It is said in Standard Cosmology that the Universe contains 69 % dark energy; 27 % dark matter and just 4 % baryonic matter. It is also a Standard Cosmology statement that gravity rules the entire Universe.
-----------------------
Fundamental Forces




Image credit - Fundamental Forces - Note that there is NO specific dynamic or sientific explanation of the weakest "gravity".

But what are the cosmological implications if the significantly stronger EM force with is contractive and repulsive qualiteis constitutes the formational motions and energies in the Universe, and modern cosmology just count on the much weaker one way force/energy of gravity?

And why is it that the other forces but "gravity" is divided into 3 separate fundamental forces when it all deals with atomic matters and electromagnetic (EM) qualities? Is such a separation just a result of different scientific approaches where EM is included? Or can these 3 forces really be just 1 EM force working with different charges, frequensies and ranges?

As said initially: For my own part I´m amazed that modern cosmology don´t include Electromagnetic formation processes in their cosmic theories. And I´m not the only one who is amazed. Watch this video:

So what are your thoughts of all this?

Regards
Native

last I heard.....the bulk of the universe is dark energy.....dark matter

and God was God of the dark before He created light

 

[Native]

last I heard.....the bulk of the universe is dark energy.....dark matter

and God was God of the dark before He created light

Well pondered - even that somebody take "God" as light itself. Light is constituted by EM, isn´t it It all fits nicely together with the OP here.

It´s only nowadays the scientific cosmological darkness rules the Universe

 

[Native]

last I heard.....the bulk of the universe is dark energy.....dark matter

Besides this, gravitational astrophysicists and cosmologists of course needs unblievable amounts of "dark matter" in the Universe in order to (seemingly) account for the cosmic force and motions of the much stronger EM force.