Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[ecco]

Regarding Big Bang problems, read here.

I did "read here".

I found that the author, Tom Van Flandern, has built quite a following of woosters. It's not surprising that you would use him as a reference.

Tom Van Flandern - Wikipedia
Van Flandern was a prominent advocate of the belief that certain geological features seen on Mars, especially the "face at Cydonia", are not of natural origin, but were produced by intelligent extra-terrestrial life, probably the inhabitants of a major planet once located where the asteroid belt presently exists, and which Van Flandern believed had exploded 3.2 million years ago

Seriously? They got off their planet before it exploded. They had the technology to get from there to Mars. Then, as a lasting legacy, they leave "a face".

Even the relatively primitive Easter Islander's did a lot better.

But the woosters love to believe their woo.​

 

[ecco]

Obviously you aren´t up to date in this matter. I just chosed the first link shown up when searching "galactic electromagnetism" - read more here.

Other selected links:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1302/1302.5663.pdf
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/14/meta
https://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/966215/Session-I.pdf
IMAGINE: Modeling the Galactic Magnetic Field

In any of those articles, is there a link to a solar system simulator that does not use the formulas for gravity? No? Still no simulator? Sad.

 

[Polymath257]

@Polymath257,


Obviously you aren´t up to date in this matter. I just chosed the first link shown up when searching "galactic electromagnetism" - read more here.

Other selected links:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1302/1302.5663.pdf
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/14/meta
https://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/966215/Session-I.pdf
IMAGINE: Modeling the Galactic Magnetic Field

Most Standard cosmologist simply and willfully ignores these facts which of course will continue to show up in their faces as cosmological facts.

How can you say they ignore these fact when they were *done* by standard cosmologist? These articles *are* the standard cosmology taking EM into account.

For example, given these articles, what is the average strength of the galactic magnetic field? how does that compare to a refrigerator magnet? to the magnetic field of the Earth? to the magnetic field of the sun?

You cannot simultaneously claim that EM is being ignored *and* point to mainstream publications that treat the magnetic force of this and other galaxies in detail. You cannot claim that plasmas are being ignored when there are as many papers as there are treating the dynamics of astronomical plasmas and measuring their properties.

The problem *isn't* that EM is being ignored. The problem is that the results of investigating the EM aspects of the galaxy don't match what you expected. And, without a detailed hypothesis, that is all that needs to be said. At least dark matter is a specific hypothesis. Can you do something comparable?

 

[joelr]

@Polymath257,


Obviously you aren´t up to date in this matter. I just chosed the first link shown up when searching "galactic electromagnetism" - read more here.

Other selected links:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1302/1302.5663.pdf

Most Standard cosmologist simply and willfully ignores these facts which of course will continue to show up in their faces as cosmological facts.


When scientist have FULLY understand what is going on inside a black hole, we can discuss whether I understand what is scientifically done with a black hole.

You have no idea what you are talking about? You don't even know what you are arguing?
He was talking about using EM to account for all of the forces/gravity.
Your first link was to a paper on magnetic fields in space?

There is nothing there related to EU?
Nothing using EM to account for any other forces?
Nothing suggesting magnetic fields or EM is dark matter?
It's just a paper on information we have about magnetic fields in space?

In fact the actual paper you posted said this
"and even larger volumes of the Universe may be permeated by “dark” magnetic fields."

The exact think you're been rallying against scientists doing with "dark"!?!?!?!?!
In your link the scientist proposes a "dark" magnetic field?!?!?!?

HA HA

 

[joelr]

@Polymath257,


Obviously you aren´t up to date in this matter. I just chosed the first link shown up when searching "galactic electromagnetism" - read more here.

Other selected links:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/14/meta

Nope. This paper is a study on the large-scale Galactic magnetic field. Something scientists do not yet know much about.
We already know there ARE magnetic fields in space. They are also around black holes.

There is nothing here related to EU, nothing that uses electromagnetism as a replacement for other forces, nothing relevant to your rebuttal.
What it does is show how real scientists study things, including magnetic fields. Which scientists know are real. Using this as a rebuttal and answer to PM's request to show a model where EM is replacing other forces is hilarious.

 

[joelr]

@joelr,

Read my reply and answer here #706 and how scholars all over in encyclopedias and books confuses the central Milky Way light as representing the Sun.

You mean Amen-Ra who took over Ra the solar god?
https://www.ancient.eu/amun/

Even if it was the light of the milky way, who cares? I can't even imagine what your proof would consist of either? Is this more "logic"?https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/newton-the-last-of-the-magicians.217791/page-36#post-6063608

There is NO logical or natural ways of imaging the sun as shown here - Solar deity - Wikipedia

Who knows what you mean by "logic"?
You haven't shown any logic? Science has been proving human logic to be faulty and generally wrong for centuries.
Flat Earth, sun revolves around the Earth, size of the universe, germs, superstition, quantum mechanics, the universe doesn't care what seems logical to us.

But you have not demonstrated any type of reasonable lines of thinking, your beliefs are faith based and you have been posting science that supports the standard model as references that the standard model is wrong?
You did this with Maxwell's equations and now a list of papers that demonstrate standard science in action? This is not logical at all.

 

[joelr]

You can of course cherry pick anything which underlines your bias - What then about this cherry picking of mine - 4.6 billion-year-old galaxy shines light on our universe

HA! You did it again!?

This paper confirms that magnetic fields grow inside galaxies? First, it's just scientists studying magnetic fields which we know exist. But it goes against the idea that they form galaxies but rather are demonstrated to grow inside galaxies?!?!?!
And you keep saying scientists ignore magnetism and now your posting papers on magnetic fields?

"The detection of a strong coherent magnetic field in a galaxy when the universe was about two-thirds of its current age allows the team to measure how fast these fields grow in galaxies. “Although this distant galaxy had less time to build up its magnetic field compared to local galaxies, it still managed to do so”, says Sui Ann Mao, leader of a Minerva research group at the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Bonn, the lead author of the study. “The results of our study support the idea that galaxy magnetic fields are generated by a dynamo process.” she adds.

See, they grow inside galaxies.
But again, this has ZERO bearing on EU? Yes, magnetic fields are real, so is light? This is just like when you posted Maxwell's work? Everyone believes in light. And magnetic fields.
This does not support EU fiction at all??!?!

 

[joelr]

And when you can tell me why they said "1212c. whose two points are the rays of the sun" instead of "1212c. whose two points are the rays of Re" then you'll understand what they meant. If you don't understand why someone uses the words he does then you don't understand his premises and you just have another unique interpretation of his meaning just like everyone. Egyptologists can't tell you why this is because the language can't be translated into English. They never even noticed there are no words for "belief" or "thought".

Newton didn't discover the means to understand "God", he discovered a means to study nature but this means, this tool, this science hit the reefs in the 1920's and might never be refloated. Perhaps
euclidean geometry and experiment can't get us beyond this point. Indeed, many things disappear when seen from the wrong perspective and one must suspect that points in space with no dimensions at all through which universes appear just might be part of the problem. How ironic that with all the points in space with infinite distances between each and all filled with more points with infinite distances we could never tell if we were looking for a point or the space between points to locate a big bang. Mebbe all points exist because universes have emerged from them.

Wiki is one of the most powerful tools ever devised by man but it's always wrong. Until people realize that we think in a language that defines words in terms of other words and that there can be language where words have fixed concrete meanings we'll never understand Whale, Beaver, or our ancestors. "Re" and "sun" each had fixed meanings that were identical, were not defined, and the choice of word determined the meaning of a sentence by identifying the subject and perspective.

Perhaps if we worked harder at creating a scientific language that can't be parsed we could understand experiment sufficiently to get past this point. Maybe if we could use ancient science and modern science simultaneously we could get by. Maybe we've merely gotten to a point that the scale of experiment has gotten too extreme. Until basic answers to basic questions arise I would posit that "technology" is merely a manifestation of 19th century theory and we are really stuck in the 1880's in most of what we call "science" now days.

Uh, yeah so solar worship goes back to Africa.

Dimensionless points are just a mathematical abstraction.

That's funny, an anti- 1900's science rant written on a machine made possible by quantum mechanics.

There are also no ancient Egyptian words for "science".

 

[Native]

@Polymath257,

And nobody has denied that. But gravity is still dominant. You can't ignore the effects of either gravity or EM, but the EM is far, far less important for overall dynamics than gravity.

No matter how often you repeat this dogmatic and hypnotized gravity mantra, the natural logics of the EM as the dominant formation force of EM does not go away.

You know vere well that the Newtonian gravity model is useless on the large cosmic scales wich was why Einstein speculated his own (strange) model.

It´s fine by me that Newtons calculations can be used to send spacecrafts into space - which can be done without using the term of "gravity" as told several times by now.

And now that we have the distribution of dark matter described, the calculations *do* agree with observations *in detail*.

This is a pure fairy tale. Where do you observe "dark matter"? Just in your calculations and of course these fits nicely since the observations are imagined to fit the calculations and NOT vise versa.

I said:
"Because the so called "black hole" simply is a funnel of a circuital formation", simply illustrated by the disk-like form and motion of clouds around and inside the hole of a geographic hurricane".

The 'swirling' around a black hole is *outside* of the black hole.

What? I was talking of the factual hole/funnel and not of the outside conditions.

And, again, this *is* standard cosmology. And it is *based* on the gravity of the black holes and the interaction of that gravity with the EM forces.

Just forget Newton. He is useless on the large cosmological scale, you know. Or at least you should know.

 

[Polymath257]

@Polymath257,

No matter how often you repeat this dogmatic and hypnotized gravity mantra, the natural logics of the EM as the dominant formation force of EM does not go away.

It doesn't go away because it never existed.

You know vere well that the Newtonian gravity model is useless on the large cosmic scales wich was why Einstein speculated his own (strange) model.

Newtonian gravity is much more useful than EU simply because it can be adjusted (with the addition of dark matter) to give correct predictions. EU gives nothing.

It´s fine by me that Newtons calculations can be used to send spacecrafts into space - which can be done without using the term of "gravity" as told several times by now.

And told incorrectly. The Newtonian equations used to send probes are the equations of *gravity*. They deal with the force of *gravity* and direct the probes based on the *gravity* of the planets.

In contrast, we can *measure* the EM field using these probes and it is NOT the EM field that is directing these probes NOR is it directing the motion of the planets. It is simply not strong enough in the solar system to do so.

This is a pure fairy tale. Where do you observe "dark matter"? Just in your calculations and of course these fits nicely since the observations are imagined to fit the calculations and NOT vise versa.

Wrong. You don't seem to grasp the process. We use some observations (rotation curves, for example) to determine how much dark matter is required to explain *one* phenomenon. Then we look at *another* phenomenon, like lensing. And we find the *same* amount of dark matter is required to explain *that* phenomenon. And we then look at motion of galaxies within clusters and we find that this *same amount* of dark matter explains those motions also. Then we look at the cosmic background radiation and the deviations from a black body radiation and find the *same* amount of dark matter is required there to explain these deviations.

Then we use the microlensing data to determine *where* the dark matter is and *this* is a 'detection'. No, it is not a detection with *light* since dark matter doens't interact with light. But it is *still* a detection.

While what *you* suggesting is vague 'swirlings of EM forces'. We are talking about the difference between vague nonsense and detailed correspondence with observation.

I said:
"Because the so called "black hole" simply is a funnel of a circuital formation", simply illustrated by the disk-like form and motion of clouds around and inside the hole of a geographic hurricane".

What? I was talking of the factual hole/funnel and not of the outside conditions.

Nope. Not a 'funnel'. At least not in the sense you are envisioning it. That doesn't correspond with the observations. The gravitational models do.

Just forget Newton. He is useless on the large cosmological scale, you know. Or at least you should know.

Simply false. It is EU that is useless: it isn't even a hypothesis at this point, let alone a theory.

 

[Native]

@joelr,

See, they grow inside galaxies.
But again, this has ZERO bearing on EU? Yes, magnetic fields are real, so is light? This is just like when you posted Maxwell's work? Everyone believes in light. And magnetic fields.
This does not support EU fiction at all??!?!

Maybe if you removed the "gravitational blur filter" from your eyes, you´ll be able to make the logical dots between Electro-Magnetism as observed in the galaxy in matter and the connection to an Electric Universe.

 

[Polymath257]

HA! You did it again!?

This paper confirms that magnetic fields grow inside galaxies? First, it's just scientists studying magnetic fields which we know exist. But it goes against the idea that they form galaxies but rather are demonstrated to grow inside galaxies?!?!?!
And you keep saying scientists ignore magnetism and now your posting papers on magnetic fields?

"The detection of a strong coherent magnetic field in a galaxy when the universe was about two-thirds of its current age allows the team to measure how fast these fields grow in galaxies. “Although this distant galaxy had less time to build up its magnetic field compared to local galaxies, it still managed to do so”, says Sui Ann Mao, leader of a Minerva research group at the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Bonn, the lead author of the study. “The results of our study support the idea that galaxy magnetic fields are generated by a dynamo process.” she adds.

See, they grow inside galaxies.
But again, this has ZERO bearing on EU? Yes, magnetic fields are real, so is light? This is just like when you posted Maxwell's work? Everyone believes in light. And magnetic fields.
This does not support EU fiction at all??!?!

<sarcasm>
Well, if there is *any* magnetic field, it must be the only thing there, right? It automatically supports EU simply by existing, right?
</sarcasm>

 

[Polymath257]

@joelr,

Maybe if you removed the "gravitational blur filter" from your eyes, you´ll be able to make the logical dots between Electro-Magnetism as observed in the galayy in matter and the connection to an Electric Universe.

Removing the 'blur' simply means not using the equations of gravity and using those for EM instead.

And guess what? If you use *only* the equations of EM, then nobody has found a ay to match observations!

And, unless you or some other proponent of EU can give *details* based on the equations of EM that *do* match observations, the whole delusion will continue to be ignored.

Because at this point that is what it is, a delusion. There isn't even a respectable hypothesis here. There is no detailed theory. There are a lot of vague ramblings about swirls and currents and filaments. But no actual calculations based on EM that actually match observation.

And to then point to the results of *actual* scientists that study EM in the universe as supporting EU is simply an act of desperation. There is simply no basis for EU in any of the studies that have been conducted on EM in the universe.

In particular, using *only* EM simply doesn't fit the facts. You *need* to include gravity to give an accurate accounting.

 

[Native]

@Polymath257

Newtonian gravity is much more useful than EU simply because it can be adjusted (with the addition of dark matter) to give correct predictions. EU gives nothing.

Yes, the Newtonian perception of gravity is very conveniant indeed. All kinds of unseen matter and energies can eternally be added in order to fit the newtonian gravity ideas. It´s a never ending story going round and round in an imaginative circle

I said:
t´s fine by me that Newtons calculations can be used to send spacecrafts into space - which can be done without using the term of "gravity" as told several times by now.

And told incorrectly. The Newtonian equations used to send probes are the equations of *gravity*. They deal with the force of *gravity* and direct the probes based on the *gravity* of the planets.

Again for the 117. time: I don´t deny the calculations themselves! Try to get it into your mind, please! I just claim these can be done without using the gravity terminology!

In contrast, we can *measure* the EM field using these probes and it is NOT the EM field that is directing these probes NOR is it directing the motion of the planets. It is simply not strong enough in the solar system to do so.

From where did you get the skewed impression that I claim the EM to have a direct affect on probes and planets???

MY EM claims goes primary on the factual formation of everything in a plasmatic stage and secondary as an EM infuence from the Sun affecting the Earth´s magnetic field and the very vegetablic growth on the Earth.

Wrong. You don't seem to grasp the process. We use some observations (rotation curves, for example) to determine how much dark matter is required to explain *one* phenomenon. Then we look at *another* phenomenon, like lensing. And we find the *same* amount of dark matter is required to explain *that* phenomenon. And we then look at motion of galaxies within clusters and we find that this *same amount* of dark matter explains those motions also. Then we look at the cosmic background radiation and the deviations from a black body radiation and find the *same* amount of dark matter is required there to explain these deviations.

Then we use the microlensing data to determine *where* the dark matter is and *this* is a 'detection'. No, it is not a detection with *light* since dark matter doens't interact with light. But it is *still* a detection.

While what *you* suggesting is vague 'swirlings of EM forces'. We are talking about the difference between vague nonsense and detailed correspondence with observation.

There´s just a little problem with all these imaginative ideas:

You just need to find the damn dark thing before all these ideas can be taken seriously.

You even cannot falsify these ideas as demanded by the scientific method since the damn thing isn´t to be found anywhere - and then it all don´t count as real science.

Nope. Not a 'funnel'. At least not in the sense you are envisioning it. That doesn't correspond with the observations. The gravitational models do.

So you think it is a scientific explanation to describe a "black hole" as a flat 2 D singularity placed in a 3 D structure of a galaxy?

This is pure nonsense on all scientific scales!

As recommended before: Forget Newton on the cosmic scales as several cosmological scientists already have done.

 

[Polymath257]

@Polymath257

Yes, the Newtonian perception of gravity is very conveniant indeed. All kinds of unseen matter and energies can eternally be added in order to fit the newtonian gravity ideas. It´s a never ending story going round and round in an imaginative circle

I said:
t´s fine by me that Newtons calculations can be used to send spacecrafts into space - which can be done without using the term of "gravity" as told several times by now.

Again for the 117. time: I don´t deny the calculations themselves! Try to get it into your mind, please! I just claim these can be done without using the gravity terminology!

But the calculations are done from the equations for *gravity* in Newtonian mechanics. You can't get away from gravity simply by not using the word.

On what basis would you do these calculations if they are not based on gravity? G=GMm/r^2 *is* the equation for the force of gravity. And it is this equation that is used to guide the probes. To deny gravity *is* to deny this equation and the whole basis for the calculation.

That is, unless you can justify using these *exact* equations using some sort of EM system. Good luck!

From where did you get the skewed impression that I claim the EM to have a direct affect on probes and planets???

Well, if you deny gravity, there has to be *something* explaining the motion of these probes. Your favorite force seems to be EM.

So, if you deny gravity, what is it that makes the probes move in precisely the way predicted by the equations of gravity?

MY EM claims goes primary on the factual formation of everything in a plasmatic stage and secondary as an EM infuence from the Sun affecting the Eartrh´s magnetic field and the very vegetablic growth on the Earth.

Details? What sort of plasma. Where is it located? What is its composition, temperature, etc? What sort of 'influence'? Magnetic or Electric? What is the intensity of the fields in the secondary stage? Why do you bring in 'vegetable growth' when we are discussing the motion of planets?

There´s just a little problem with all these imaginative ideas:

You just need to find the danm dark thing before all these ideas can be taken seriously.

You even cannot falsify these ideas as demanded by the scientific method since the damn thing isn´t to be found anywhere - and then it all don´t count as real science.

Yes, they *are* falsifiable since we need consistency across several different types of observation.

Here's a question: what do you think it means to detect something?

So you think it is a scientific explanation to describe a "black hole" as a flat 2 D singularity placed in a 3 D structure of a galaxy?

Since nobody does that, why do you ask? Or are you confusing the accretion disk with the black hole?

This is pure nonsense on all scientific scales!

As recommended before: Forget Newton on the cosmic scales as several cosmological scientists already have done.

And replace it by what, exactly? Newtonian mechanics is a very good approximation on the galactic scale. It is less so on the cosmic scale where general relativity is required. But, no matter what, gravity is an essential piece to the description.

 

[cladking]

There are also no ancient Egyptian words for "science".

No, all the Egyptian words are for "science". It's just a different kind of science than we use. Egyptologists have parsed the language for 200 years now and it still makes no sense to them. They didn't even notice there are no taxonomic words and no words for "belief" or "thought" or that it breaks Zipf's Law. They didn't notice because of the way the modern human brain works. We build models and then see sensory input in terms of those models. Egyptologists believed the ancients were just as superstitious as we are so that's exactly what they saw. Where they have only a book of incantation which is internally inconsistent and contradictory to support their interpretation, I have an open book in a scientific language. It is mere ritual but it is consistent, coherent, and logical. Where Egyptologists can't tell you how the glyphs arose or the sceptres and icons, I can.


Ancient people didn't think because "thinking" is comparing input to models;

232b. the second moment after he saw N., the second moment after he perceived N.

"Thinking", on some level, took place between the first and second moment but it was not experienced by the individual. Input was processed through language just like animals rather than through models. Animals and ancient man don't see what they expect; they see only so much as they understand. This is a simple enough concept. Since they didn't think they HAD NO WORDS FOR "THINK" OR "IDEAS".

They couldn't see that their science was based on logic because they thought in terms of a metaphysical language which disappears when viewed from the inside (remember they didn't experience thought). So they said "human progress" (thot) had no mother (feminine progenitor).

1271a. If Thot comes in this his evil coming;
1271b. do not open to him thine arms; that which is said to him is his name of "thou hast no mother."

Modern science is a metaphysics we don't even bother to study (Feynman was virtually a mystic) based on observation > experiment and ancient science employed the logic and the metaphysics of language and was based on observation > logic. But "logic" was invisible to them.

122a. For he is one who is unbound, he is indeed set free; for he is one who is seen, he is one who is indeed observed.

 

[cladking]

Dimensionless points are just a mathematical abstraction.

And lines aren't?

Every single thing we see and believe carries with it a perspective and our perspective is based on things like mathematical and linguistic abstractions. If this metaphysics is correct than why does nobody study the pyramids, men grow rich by destroying and waste, and cosmology is stuck in the 1920's?

Our metaphysics is based in euclidean geometry and newtonian physic as well as the calculus in turn based on euclidean math. Until we take another perspective we may be stuck in this rut while Egyptology is stuck in a deeper and older rut.

 

[Native]

But the calculations are done from the equations for *gravity* in Newtonian mechanics. You can't get away from gravity simply by not using the word.

And "gravitation" is founded on the pressure of the weight of the gaseous atmosphere, so just change the skewed term of "gravity" to the logical one
This answer also counts for some other of your questions.

I said:
"MY EM claims goes primary on the factual formation of everything in a plasmatic stage and secondary as an EM infuence from the Sun affecting the Eartrh´s magnetic field and the very vegetablic growth on the Earth".

Details? What sort of plasma. Where is it located? What is its composition, temperature, etc?

Dear oh dear!
It´s surely going to be a long day if you dont know anything of cosmic plasma! It´s basically ionized gases and particles and it can be found everywhere in cosmos and it is in this prime stages where EM is working most effectively, forming stars and everything else.

Yes, they *are* falsifiable since we need consistency across several different types of observation.

Here's a question: what do you think it means to detect something?

Nothing is fasifiable as long as the assumed affective object isn´t found. And it doesn´t matter how many fantasies you have in your theory as long as the concrete evidence is totally missing.

To detect something? In my world it means to find the concreate evidence before you scientifically can determine anything att all. Circumstantial indications doesn´t count as evidence anywhere.

I said:
"So you think it is a scientific explanation to describe a "black hole" as a flat 2 D singularity placed in a 3 D structure of a galaxy?".

Since nobody does that, why do you ask? Or are you confusing the accretion disk with the black hole?

WHAT? Give me an evidence of a black hole in galaxies wich states otherwise and differently.

"Confusing the accreation disk with the black hole"? Give me a brake will you?

 

[Polymath257]

And "gravitation" is founded on the pressure of the weight of the gaseous atmosphere, so just change the skewed term of "gravity" to the logical one

What??? I have *no* idea where you get that from.

This answer also counts for some other of your questions.

Um, OK. But it is nonsense.

I said:
"MY EM claims goes primary on the factual formation of everything in a plasmatic stage and secondary as an EM infuence from the Sun affecting the Eartrh´s magnetic field and the very vegetablic growth on the Earth".

Dear oh dear!
It´s surely going to be a long day if you dont know anything of cosmic plasma! It´s basically ionized gases and particles and it can be found everywhere in cosmos and it is in this prime stages where EM is working most effectively, forming stars and everything else.

I'm asking for more detail on this in this specific case. yes, I know what a plasma is. Bu tthe composition is still relevant. Does it have oxygen ions, for example? Or only hydrogen? Nitrogen? How ionized are the atoms? What is the temperature?

Nothing is fasifiable as long as the assumed affective object isn´t found. And it doesn´t matter how many fantasies you have in your theory as long as the concrete evidence is totally missing.

But the effect *is* found. We don't know what dark matter is *made* from, but we do know it is there because it has been detected.

To detect something? In my world it means to find the concreate evidence before you scientifically can determine anything att all. Circumstantial indications doesn´t count as evidence anywhere.

And what constitutes 'concrete' evidence? Light from a galaxy, for example? Why is that?

I said:
"So you think it is a scientific explanation to describe a "black hole" as a flat 2 D singularity placed in a 3 D structure of a galaxy?".

WHAT? Give me an evidence of a black hole in galaxies wich states otherwise and differently.

Black holes are nor flat. If anything, they are spherical. That means they are NOT 2D. The *event horizon* is, of course. But that is not the whole of the black hole.

"Confusing the accreation disk with the black hole"? Give me a brake will you?

Well, you will have to be a bit more clear. NOBODY claims a black hole is 2D.

 

[ecco]

And "gravitation" is founded on the pressure of the weight of the gaseous atmosphere,

Why does the hopping astronaut not just keep drifting further away from the surface of the moon? There is no "pressure of the weight of the gaseous atmosphere" to push him back "down".