• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Scientific Math of the Milky Way

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
By the way, when one uses the scientific method one creates hypotheses or models of how some aspect of the universe works. Those models are often tested by the predictions that are made with them. That the neutrinos we observe are most likely from the Sun is shown by the close match of observed to predicted values:

Solar neutrino - Wikipedia
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
The spiral arms appear to be a result of a standing density wave. The arms themselves do not rotate:

Density wave theory - Wikipedia

Right, I didn't say the arms are moving I said (gravitational) behavior of objects near the edge of galaxies.

"The primary evidence for dark matter is that calculations show that many galaxies would fly apart instead of rotating, or would not have formed or move as they do, if they did not contain a large amount of unseen matter."
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
To conclude that "the objects in the Milky Way moves too fast" is nonsense. The objects moves according to the formational processes in the Milky Way, period.

If the scientists have said: "The objects in the Milky Way moves differently from what we´ve learned in the gravity model of celestial motions", this would be the correct scientific way of taking on this problem.

But they didn´t and instead they invented a dark metaphysical force instead of revising their theories.

They did say that. But then other evidence accumulated and models were put forth.

Dark matter - Wikipedia

If you go to the Wiki page there is a section called"

Observational evidence

with an explanation of many types of observations that suggest dark matter.


Then there are all sorts of candidates and alternatives given for dark matter.
None of which are "a dark metaphysical force".
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Neutrinos are produced in the fusion reactions in the core.
Yes, via the gravitational pressure, right? At least these ideas are very entertaining :)

You didn´t answer how your nuclear mashine can make the cyclical magnetic shift in the Sun.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Oh, so you have now studied my CV in details, have you?

I do not need to. Nuclear reactors create steam or pressure to generate energy. The Sun contains fusion reactions. Remember you said reactor not reactions. You made a mistake by comparing it to something you know nothing about.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Yes, via the gravitational pressure, right? At least these ideas are very entertaining :)

You didn´t answer how your nuclear mashine can make the cyclical magnetic shift in the Sun.
How does the EU explain the flip? The EU cannot do that any better than the standard model can explain the poor shifts. Luckily for you an inability to answer a specific example does not refute an idea. Unfortunately for you not being able to.answer any questions does refute a theory.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
They did say that. But then other evidence accumulated and models were put forth.

Dark matter - Wikipedia

If you go to the Wiki page there is a section called"

Observational evidence with an explanation of many types of observations that suggest dark matter.
Then there are all sorts of candidates and alternatives given for dark matter.
None of which are "a dark metaphysical force".
I´m well aware of these "arguments" which mostly are based on "circumstantial observations" and the rest are just misconceptions of an observation.

Again, take the galactic rotation:
When scientists insert "dark matter" into an factual observation, this is because they don´t understand the motion according to the standing theories. In this sence the scientists are in the middle of a direct contradiction.

When a contradiction shows up, the strict scientific method claims the contradicted theory to be revised or even binned. This scientific process did never happend in the case of the galactic rotation.

Instead the scientists just inserted "dark matter" and then they were free of doing the further thinking about this contradicted problem.

And ever since (for about 80 years now) the cosmologists have inserted all kinds of "dark matter and energies" everytime they were confused or directly contradicted.

So there you have it: Most of he modern cosmology are constituted by dark ghosts everywhere because the scientists didn´t look at the initial galactic rotation problem in the light of the real fundamental force of Electromagnetism.

Take a look on these videos:
What are Black Holes? Science or Science Fiction?


How are Stars Formed? The Standard Model: Gravitational Collapse, Black Holes, and The Big Bang!

 
Last edited:

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Native said:
Astronomers discover a star that would not die – Astronomy Now
Which provides nothings about your claim of heavy element creation. You didn't read what you linked.
Yes it really does. The consensus cosmology claims the heavier elements to be formed by "exploding Super Novaes", but in the linked case this "explosion" seemingly happens several times, and THEN the very idea is contradicted. A star obviously and logically cannot explode several times in a row.

Formation of heavier elements does NOT happend via "explosions in Super Novaes". The sudden lightning up of a star is simply discharges of Light and nothing else, just like our Sun also shows up such periodical discarges.

The real formation of heavier elements are taking place in the galactic centers where the outbeaming gamma rays is evidence of a strong nuclear formation.

That is: The formation of elements generally takes place via electromagnetic forces and NOT via the very simplistic and speculative ideas of "gravity and explosions".
 
Last edited:

Shad

Veteran Member
Native said:
Astronomers discover a star that would not die – Astronomy Now

Yes it really does. The consensus cosmology claims the heavier elements to be formed by "exploding Super Novaes", but in the linked case this "explosion" seemingly happens several times, and THEN the very idea is contradicted. A star obviously and logically cannot explode several times in a row.

Your article demonstrates no such thing regarding heavy elements. You didn't respond to what I posted.

Empty claim that a star can not do X.

Formation of heavier elements does NOT happend via "explosions in Super Novaes". The sudden lightning up of a star is simply discharges of Light and nothing else, just like our Sun also shows up such periodical discarges.

The real formation of heavier elements are taking place in the galactic centers where the outbeaming gamma rays is evidence of a strong nuclear formation.

That is: The formation of elements generally takes place via electromagnetic forces and NOT via the very simplistic ideas of "gravity and explosions".

You are just repeating your claim again.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Native said:
Astronomers discover a star that would not die – Astronomy Now

Yes it really does. The consensus cosmology claims the heavier elements to be formed by "exploding Super Novaes", but in the linked case this "explosion" seemingly happens several times, and THEN the very idea is contradicted. A star obviously and logically cannot explode several times in a row.
Your article demonstrates no such thing regarding heavy elements. You didn't respond to what I posted.

Empty claim that a star can not do X.
It´s NOT my problem that you cannot grasp the logics and put two and two together in my explanation.

Once more then: When a assumed Super Nova explodes several timed in a row, these cannot be explosions. This dismiss the very idea of Super Novaes forming the heavier elements because the several uplightnings of this stars is just electomagnetic discharges from the star and NOT explosions at all.

Formation of heavier elements does NOT happend via "explosions in Super Novaes". The sudden lightning up of a star is simply discharges of Light and nothing else, just like our Sun also shows up such periodical discarges.

The real formation of heavier elements are taking place in the galactic centers where the outbeaming gamma rays is evidence of a strong nuclear formation.

That is: The formation of elements generally takes place via electromagnetic forces and NOT via the very simplistic ideas of "gravity and explosions".

Formation of heavier elements does NOT happend via "explosions in Super Novaes". The sudden lightning up of a star is simply discharges of Light and nothing else, just like our Sun also shows up such periodical discarges.

Native said:
The real formation of heavier elements are taking place in the galactic centers where the outbeaming gamma rays is evidence of a strong nuclear formation.

That is: The formation of elements generally takes place via electromagnetic forces and NOT via the very simplistic ideas of "gravity and explosions".
You are just repeating your claim again.
Of course I do. You obviously didn´t understand it the first time (and second time neither).
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Native said:
Astronomers discover a star that would not die – Astronomy Now

Yes it really does. The consensus cosmology claims the heavier elements to be formed by "exploding Super Novaes", but in the linked case this "explosion" seemingly happens several times, and THEN the very idea is contradicted. A star obviously and logically cannot explode several times in a row.

No as it does nothing to address heavy element creation.

It´s NOT my problem that you cannot grasp the logics and put two and two together in my explanation.

Wrong. You are linking an article that says nothing nor refutes heavy element creation in stars. You are till making the mistake about what Nova does I mentioned days ago. Try again (TM)

Once more then: When a assumed Super Nova explodes several timed in a row, these cannot be explosions. This dismiss the very idea of Super Novaes forming the heavier elements because the several uplightnings of this stars is just electomagnetic discharges from the star and NOT explosions at all.

Wrong. It only dismiss that stars nova once. It has nothing to do with heavy element creation at all as you are still making the same mistake from days ago. Try again (TM)

Formation of heavier elements does NOT happend via "explosions in Super Novaes". The sudden lightning up of a star is simply discharges of Light and nothing else, just like our Sun also shows up such periodical discarges.

The real formation of heavier elements are taking place in the galactic centers where the outbeaming gamma rays is evidence of a strong nuclear formation.

That is: The formation of elements generally takes place via electromagnetic forces and NOT via the very simplistic ideas of "gravity and explosions".

Formation of heavier elements does NOT happend via "explosions in Super Novaes". The sudden lightning up of a star is simply discharges of Light and nothing else, just like our Sun also shows up such periodical discarges.

Native said:
The real formation of heavier elements are taking place in the galactic centers where the outbeaming gamma rays is evidence of a strong nuclear formation.

That is: The formation of elements generally takes place via electromagnetic forces and NOT via the very simplistic ideas of "gravity and explosions".

Of course I do. You obviously didn´t understand it the first time (and second time neither).

Repeating your claim again with no relation to the article you linked. Try again (TM)
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Repeating your claim again with no relation to the article you linked. Try again (TM)
I don´t care at all. I´ts NOT my problem that you´re having troubles understanding the logics.
Wrong. It only dismiss that stars nova once. It has nothing to do with heavy element creation at all as you are still making the same mistake from days ago. Try again (TM)
It´s neither my problem that you choose to stay in the stage of denial when a clear contradiction of a conventional claim is observed and mentioned here.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
I don´t care at all. I´ts NOT my problem that you´re having troubles understanding the logics.

You made a leap in logic not demonstrated by your article. Nothing more. You presented zero data that this nova produces no heavy elements nor that stars which only have a single nova do not.

It´s neither my problem that you choose to stay in the stage of denial when a clear contradiction of a conventional claim is observed and mentioned here.

Stop whining. You made two mistakes and still do not realize it. Hilarious. Perhaps read your article.
 
Last edited:

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
You made a leap in logic not demonstrated by your article. Nothing more. You presented zero data that this nova produces no heavy elements nor that stars which only have a single nova do not.
And in your state of denial, you failed to follow the loop. Period!
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Read your own article and try again (TM)
If you can´t make the logical connection between a (linked) super nova which isn´t a super nova and the standard claim of that it is the super novaes which supposedly produces the heavier elements, there is nothing more I can do for you.
 
Last edited:

Shad

Veteran Member
If you can´t make the logical connection between a (linked) super nova which isn´t a super nova and the standard claim of that it is the super novaes which produces the heavier elements, there is nothing more I can do for you.

Read you article. The problem you think exists was resolved and stated in the article. Try again. (TM)

It is still called a Super-nova, an impost. Even your own link states it. Here I will spoon feed your knowledge like I teach a child.

"Supernova iPTF14hls may be the first example of a “pulsational pair instability supernova.”"

Fool that cant bother reading what they link so doesn't realize their source refuted the argument it was claimed it supported.. Hilarious. Try again son (TM)

Pulsational pair-instability supernova - Wikipedia

You are horrible at logic. Nothing you said supports your conclusion in any way. Nothing about heavy elements not being forms. Try again (TM) Yawn.
 
Last edited:

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
I agree in this :)

This is inconsistent and contrary with your former sentense which speaks for an eternal Universe without any beginning or end.

Agreed :)

Did you observe this for yourself?

"Dust to Dust and Light to Light", right :)

Native wrote...…… This is inconsistent and contrary with your former sentense which speaks for an eternal Universe without any beginning or end.

The Anointed...…… I spoke of the Eternal Energy which has neither beginning or end, never did I say anything about an eternal universe.

Obviously you have trouble comprehending that which you read. This universe, which is but one of many, has a beginning and an end, as was believed by our ancient ancestors.


“Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non-being, and again from non-being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all, the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence.” ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122.

The days and nights of Brahma are called Manvantara, or the cycle of manifestation, ‘The Great Day,’ which is a period of universal activity, that is preceded, and also followed by ‘Pralaya,’ a dark period, which to our finite minds would seem as an eternity, or but a moment in time.

‘Manvantara,’ is a creative day as seen in the six days of creation in Genesis, ‘Pralaya,’ is the evening that proceeds the next creative day. The six periods of Creation and the seventh day of rest in which we now exist are referred to in the book of Genesis as the “GENERATIONS OF THE UNIVERSE.”

The English word “Generation,” is translated from the Hebrew “toledoth” which is used in the Old Testament in every instance as ‘births,’ or ‘descendants,’ such as “These are the generations of Adam,” or “these are the generations of Abraham, and Genesis 2: 4; These are the generations of the Universe or the heavens and earth, etc. And the ‘Great Day’ in which the seven generations of the universe are eternally repeated, is the eternal cosmic period, or the eighth eternal day in which those who attain to perfection are allowed to enter, where they shall be surrounded by great light and they shall experience eternal peace, while those who do not attain to perfection are cast back into the refining fires of the seven physical cycles of endless rebirths that perpetually revolve within the eighth eternal cosmic cycle.

Enoch the righteous, wrote that God created an eighth day also, so that it should be the first after his works, and it is a day eternal with neither hours, days, weeks, months or years, for all time is stuck together in one eon, etc, etc, and all who enter into the generation of the Light beings, are able to visit all those worlds that still exist in Space-Time, but not in our time.

A series of worlds following one upon the other-- each world rising a step higher than the previous world, so that every later world brings to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in the former, and itself then prepares the seed for the universe that will follow it. This is the true resurrection in which all from the previous cycle of universal activity, who still have the judgmental war raging within them, are born again into the endless cycles of physical manifestation, or rebirths.

Only when we come to the realisation that this generation of the universe, has evolved from a series of parental universal bodies that have preceded this one, will science begin to realise the time scale involved in the evolution of man from mindless matter, which was created from the eternal energy, that has neither beginning or end.

Just as you, are not your ancient ancestor from who you have evolved, so too, this universe is a separate entity from the more primitive universal bodies from which it has evolved, and Just as you can receive a visitation from the SON OF MAN, who exists in our distant future, those universal bodies which each occupy their own positions in space-time can also be visited.

Carl Sagan in his old TV program, which I believe was called “The Cosmos”, speculated that a two dimensional being having length and breadth would experience his world as a one dimensional world.

Having only length and breadth and no height, it would not be able to look down on any two dimensional object in its world and would only see a line which would appear to be the length of the object, irrelevant as to which direction it was seeing that object from. Unless the two dimensional being was lifted up by some unseen force, it would never know that the objects in its world had breadth as well as length.

When referring to the fourth dimension I am speaking of the Minkowskian notion of time as being the fourth dimension. As in the fact that we can move forward and backward,[0ne dimension] sideways, [Two dimensions] up and down [Three dimensions] and through time; [Four dimensions] and not that which is called 4- dimension Euclidean space.

We are fourth dimensional beings, who are able to mentally traverse time and yet we experience our world as a three dimensional world. We are fourth dimensional beings, who, in a state of deep meditation or hypnosis, are able to descend into our inner most being where space and time are as one, and relive memories back to and beyond our own birth, and there, we are able to merge with a living mind of our past [Who we once were] and experience the life and times of our living ancestor.

And while merged with a mind of our living ancestor, [Who we once were] our comatose body in the present will sometimes speak in the tongue of that ancient ancestor, which language is totally foreign to the comatose person in question, while the ancient ancestor in his own time, babbles incomprehensively, sometimes speaking in a strange tongue, in the as yet unknown language of his future descendant in his attempt to give form and terminology to the visions that he is receiving from the mind of his as yet unborn descendant of the future, which terminology to express such visions have not even developed in his point in time.

That person is seen as a prophet when speaking of a giant grasshopper that spits fire from its tail, with wings above its head that sound like the roaring of a mighty waterfall, in his attempt to describe a Black Hawk helicopter as seen in a vision while merged with the future mind.

Come travel with me on a journey through time Not in some capsule but in our own minds To the innermost sanctuary will we descend To that single cell from which we began In the Holy of Hollies where all are one Where all of space and time is joined We’ll mingle there with other minds From other lands in other times Minds of the past who seem dead and gone And minds of the future who are yet unborn For they in their times whether here on this world Or some distant planet to which they’ve been lured Will enter their innermost sanctuary too And there perhaps, they might merge with you Ah! To travel through space in the wink of an eye Merged with a child from some world way up high Now, if this be but madness then madness it be But come my mad brothers, come---- follow me!...…….The Anointed.
 
Top