The Scientific Math of the Milky Way

[Native]

That is what you do. Please do not accuse others of your faults. You go by myths and dogma. That is not what scientists do.
No more detours started by false claims about others please.

You can adress this to yourself ;-)

 

[Native]

That is not the way it works. In the world of the sciences ideas are effectively false until supported by evidence. You have no evidence, you admitted so yourself. Therefore your ideas are effectively false.

Oh, you mean just like the discovery of the galactic rotation anomaly? Where the VERY SCIENTIFIC SCIENTISTS just invented "dark matter" in order to save the debunked celestial laws?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can adress this to yourself ;-)

Please, the evidence for dark matter has been explained to you more than once. You have no scientific evidence for your non-science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, you mean just like the discovery of the galactic rotation anomaly? Where the VERY SCIENTIFIC SCIENTISTS just invented "dark matter" in order to save the debunked celestial laws?

Wrong again. "Just inventing" is your sin. That is not what they did. Their celestial laws were not debunked. They merely needed a tweak that has been supported by other observations.

Until you learn what the scientific method and evidence is all you will be able to post is nonsense. If you learned the basics you would see your errors.

 

[Native]

They merely needed a tweak that has been supported by other observations.

They assumed the laws to be correct and then "they added a tweak" of "dark matter" - This is excactly how the unscientific ad hoc assumption method works.

 

[Native]

Please, the evidence for dark matter has been explained to you more than once.

No matter how often you and other "explain" something which isn´t found, you can keep on explaining all you want, Scientifically it is not there before it is found.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They assumed the laws to be correct and then "they added a tweak" of "dark matter" - This is excactly how the unscientific ad hoc assumption method works.

No, they did not. They realized that the laws are highly accurate, but that something else was going on. They, unlike you, followed the scientific method. Which is why they do have evidence for what they propose and you have none.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No matter how often you and other "explain" something which isn´t found, you can keep on explaining all you want, Scientifically it is not there before it is found.

I can see that you do not understand what is and what is not evidence. Why not take some time to discuss it? If you actually do understand it will not take long and I will even apologize.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
They assumed the laws to be correct and then "they added a tweak" of "dark matter" - This is excactly how the unscientific ad hoc assumption method works.

No, they did not. They realized that the laws are highly accurate, but that something else was going on.

Good grief! Did you read what you wrote after writing it?

"They realized that the laws are highly accurate, but that something else was going on".

And then they ad hoc added the small detail of "dark matter" and "dark energy" which, in the distorted minds of the scientists, fills 96 % of their skewed Universe.

This is how it looks when "scientists" just use the weakest 1/4 part of the fundamental forces and 1/4 part of their brains.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
No matter how often you and other "explain" something which isn´t found, you can keep on explaining all you want, Scientifically it is not there before it is found.

I can see that you do not understand what is and what is not evidence. Why not take some time to discuss it? If you actually do understand it will not take long and I will even apologize.

I´m NOT here just to entertain you or others! "Dark matter" is JUST an assumption on the level of assuming a personified God who should have created everything.

I´m tired to discuss the nothingness of a substance which de facto isn´t found! This is too stupid to me!

Now: Focus on my thread, please if you want to contribute to the topic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Native said: ↑
They assumed the laws to be correct and then "they added a tweak" of "dark matter" - This is excactly how the unscientific ad hoc assumption method works.

Good grief! Did you read what you wrote after writing it?

"They realized that the laws are highly accurate, but that something else was going on".

And then they ad hoc added the small detail of "dark matter" and "dark energy" which, in the distorted minds of the scientists, fills 96 % of their skewed Universe.

This is how it looks when "scientists" just use the weakest 1/4 part of the fundamental forces and 1/4 part of their brains.

You keep repeating your errors and making false statements. You will never learn that way.

Let's discuss the nature of evidence so you do not keep repeating these mistakes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Native said: ↑
No matter how often you and other "explain" something which isn´t found, you can keep on explaining all you want, Scientifically it is not there before it is found.

I´m NOT here just to entertain you or others! "Dark matter" is JUST an assumption on the level of assuming a personified God who should have created everything.

I´m tired to discuss the nothingness of a substance which de facto isn´t found! This is too stupid to me!

Now: Focus on my thread, please if you want to contribute to the topic.

Wrong again. This post tells us that you either do not understand evidence and the scientific method or you are lying. I prefer not to think that you are a liar. Once more let's go over the basics so that you do not repeat these errors.

 

[Native]

Wrong again. This post tells us that you either do not understand evidence and the scientific method or you are lying. I prefer not to think that you are a liar. Once more let's go over the basics so that you do not repeat these errors.

What in these sentenses don´t you understand?

I´m tired to discuss the nothingness of a substance which de facto isn´t found! This is too stupid to me!

Now: Focus on my thread, please if you want to contribute to the topic.

Now, follow the rules of an authors thread and topic and take your approach from my 2 initial posts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What in these sentenses don´t you understand?


Now, follow the rules of an authors thread and topic and take your approach from my 2 initial posts.

I understand your sentences just fine. The problem is that right now it is clear that you do not understand either evidence nor the scientific method. That makes your hope for a reasonable discussion on "The Scientific Math of the Milky Way" hopeless.

You keep making false claims about scientists. Whenever you do that people that understand how your claims are wrong are going to object.

Why are you so reluctant to discuss the scientific method and what is and what is not evidence? It appears that you know your ideas will fail when looked at using those more than reasonable standards.

 

[Native]

The problem is that right now it is clear that you do not understand either evidence nor the scientific method.

Do you reject to follow my suggestion in #53?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you reject to follow my suggestion in #53?

You do not seem to understand that I am more than willing to discuss the topic. But when you start a detour by making false claims about others it is unreasonable to not expect people to correct you.

 

[Native]

You do not seem to understand that I am more than willing to discuss the topic. But when you start a detour by making false claims about others it is unreasonable to not expect people to correct you.

And what then about your own approach in this discussion? Is it just me who have to bend towards yours castrated 1/4 fundamental force perceptions?

Are you really that stupid to think I´m stupid enough to discuss cosmology without understanding the simple scientific method?

Why do you think I´m criticising the method of adding one assumption upon another in a theory?

Either you stop your patronazing besserwissen Emperors Clothe attitude at once and humbly follow my suggestion in #53 - or I´ll just put you on the ignore butten.

 

[The Anointed]

How long does it take for our Solar System to complete one rotation of the central core of our Milky Way Galaxy, and does our solar system go through Galactic seasons in its orbit around the central Black hole which anchors our galaxy in space?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And what then about your own approach in this discussion? Is it just me who have to bend towards yours castrated 1/4 fundamental force perceptions?

Are you really that stupid to think I´m stupid enough to discuss cosmology without understanding the simple scientific method?

Why do you think I´m criticising the method of adding one assumption upon another in a theory?

Either you stop your patronazing besserwissen Emperors Clothe attitude at once and humbly follow my suggestion in #53 - or I´ll just put you on the ignore butten.

Try again without the invective.

And your posts indicate that you do not understand the scientific method. You certainly do not understand what is and what is not evidence. Try not to break the rules of the forum. You gave me plenty of legitimate reasons to name call but I have merely pointed out your errors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How long does it take for our Solar System to complete one rotation of the central core of our Milky Way Galaxy, and does our solar system go through Galactic seasons in its orbit around the central Black hole which anchors our galaxy in space?

I am unaware that there are "Galactic seasons". And though there is a black hole in the center of the galaxy, I would not say that it "anchors" the galaxy in place. But in answer to one of your questions:

A galactic year is from 225 to 250 million years. It appears to be rather difficult to calculate the period of the Solar System to any greater degree right now:

Galactic year - Wikipedia