MILKY WAY AND SOLAR SYSTEM FORMATION

[Native]

from nick_c:
Native,
You are choosing to derail the thread. I am not going to let charges against me go unanswered regardless of the thread topic.
You make accusations then deny making them, for example:

Native wrote:So, members are not allowed to express their personal troubles of getting through here with some very new ideas?

You are complaining that your are not allowed to do something that you want to do. That seems to me to be an accusation of repression.

nick_c,
What does a ? mark suggest in the end of this sentense: "So, members are not allowed to express their personal troubles of getting through here with some very new ideas?"

Does it mean that I´m charging you of anything? Or does it factually mean that I´m asking (?) into something which can be elaborated by you and me and by members in between - if you not have choosen to take it personally?

OK, since this topic already is completely derailed, I just as well also can describe how you in the following description misinterpret things and what this does to a topic.
---------------------

I am utterly stunned over this discussion course

I fully acknowledge a moderators rights to intervene anywhere. But I refuse this present intervention because the moderator choose NOT to follow my written advice to the moderator of contacting a member before taking any actions at all.

I have explained this to nick_c:

Do you really think I would have opened another topic here if I wasn´t satisfied with the overall conditions?

I just described how "difficult it is when someone has quite new ideas - even in an openminded forum". That´s all and that´s just a common experience, which all members here also meet when trying to post EU & PC knowledge and ideas in other outside fora.

nick_c intervened earlier:

nick c » Fri Jul 11, 2014 4:59 pm
Native wrote:I´ve tried to come forward with this issue for a few decades - and even on this forum, my postings have been administratively moved from for instants the Electric Universe to the NIAMI department. When even an open minded Forum isn´t openminded enough, it gets very tough indeed.

So let me get this straight, you are complaining about repression of your ideas on this forum, yet the vehicle for your complaint is the very forum that you are complaining about!!!!

What is wrong with this thought process?

How on Earth can you misjudge and misinterpret a sentence as being excludingly critical and accusing, when it ends up with a big smile?

nick_c´s: question and conclusion in the same sentence:

So let me get this straight, you are complaining about repression of your ideas on this forum, yet the vehicle for your complaint is the very forum that you are complaining about!!!!

- says it all what is wrong "with this thought process".

First nick_c is asking (and forgetting the ? mark in his sentence) into something and then he concludes (lots of !!!!) out from his misinterpretation of the -sentence

nick_c is jumping into a conclusion without having the slightest certainty or investigated analysis for his conclusion. Thats what´s wrong with such "this thought process".

I earlier wrote in the now locked and moved forum topic: Re: THE NATURAL STANDARD MODEL - NSM
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =15#p97307

When a moderator consider to move (My edit now: or thinking of intervene) a topic or a post, he/she certainly FIRST shall ask into what the author really mean - and give the authors a fair chance to explain him/herself BEFORE deciding to move (Edit now: or to intervene) anything.

So why on Earth don´t a moderator follow a perfect given advice by a member in order to get a fine communication going and keeping misinterpretations out of the equations?

The completely unnecessary discussions in this topic (in fact by misinterpreting a in a sentence without asking into the meaning (the "So let me get this straight" -sentence, which never was straightened out, but just concluded) could been avoided if asking me what I meant in a personal mail.

Then nick_c wrote:

Native,
You are choosing to derail the thread. I am not going to let charges against me go unanswered regardless of the thread topic.

Do you really think I choose to derail my own topic? Do you think I`m a masochist?

And then nick_c concludes this:

Any complaints about my repression of you by not allowing you to voice your pet theory on the Electric Universe board should be sent by PM to Dave Smith the forum administrator. Making your case on forum threads serves no constructive purpose other than to derail that thread.

The issue here is not (once again) a question of complaining the movement of a former by nick_c named “pet theory on the Electric Universe”- topic, which I fully acknowledged when it took place!
My complaints then - as it is now again - is the lack of moderators communication with a member before taking any action at all.

nick_c himself choose to overlook my advice of contacting me before he´s taking action on my topic, thus derailing the topic by jumping into conclusions which isn´t thoroughly examined. He choose to make the case in my topic where there wouldn´t be any case at all if he had contacted me in a personal mail asking the relevant investigative questions.

It is nick_c himself who choose to communicate in a topic in stead of via a personal mail and thus derailing a topic. An then he order me not to do the very same in my own topic because: "Making your case on forum threads serves no constructive purpose other than to derail that thread".

The very same can be said of the moderator making his clearly misinterpreted case here. This is utterly out of any logical and consistent proportion.

I´m NOT standing up to such a bad one-way communication based on misinterpretations, which is mudding op my topic, so I´ll now work with launching topic: MILKY WAY AND SOLAR SYSTEM FORMATION -V.2

Edited: Alternatively all the derailing issues here could be deleted if the moderator agrees - so just let me know the decision in a personal mail to me.

[nick c]

But I refuse this present intervention because the moderator choose NOT to follow my written advice to the moderator of contacting a member before taking any actions at all.

You made a complaining statement on this thread taking a jab at me. If you want to keep my response private then you should have made your complaint by PM. My response was made in the same medium as the complaint. You chose the venue, not me. If you are going to criticize my actions on the thread I am going to respond the same way.

As you no doubt know, I have had numerous PM's with you over this topic. Apparently it solves nothing, since you keep harping on the same complaint, even to the point where you actually derail the very topic that you feel should be on the Electric Universe board.

As far as notifying you before a move, why? This is simply a matter of sorting topics amongst the various boards and done a regular basis by moderators. It is housekeeping. Threads are moved to other boards or merged into other topics several times every week, there is no notification required. After the move there is usually left a "shadow topic" on the original board that links to the new location. If the move turns out to be wrong it is easily reversible.

If you want me to remove these off topic posts from this thread let me know. I will remove them, however I will also edit your response to Aardwolf in which you criticized me as that statement triggered this derailment.

Complaints about forum moderation should be done via PM to the Forum Administrator, that is your avenue of appeal. I have told you that a number of times.
You should quit your complaining and take advantage of the opportunity to put your theory up for discussion.

[Native]

How on Earth can you misjudge and misinterpret a sentence as being excludingly critical and accusing, when it ends up with a big smile?

Here it all started and you can only blame yourself. Because:

When a moderator consider to move (My edit now: or thinking of intervene) a topic or a post, he/she certainly FIRST shall ask into what the author really mean - and give the authors a fair chance to explain him/herself BEFORE deciding to move (Edit now: or to intervene) anything.

You missed the opportunity to have an internal conversation in the very first hand, instead of mudding up this topic.

You:

If you want me to remove these off topic posts from this thread let me know. I will remove them, however I will also edit your response to Aardwolf in which you criticized me as that statement triggered this derailment.

Absolutely not at all. It is not my fault that you misinterpret the -sentence in question and take things personally, so I rather let things talk for themselves in such a case.

[nick c]

Letting everything on this thread stand is fine with me, it is your thread and if you choose to derail it...okay.
There is an old saying: "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

Otherwise your reasoning makes little sense to me.
Putting a smiley at the end of a disparaging statement does not give you a free pass.

The issue is simple, you think that your pet theory should be accepted as Electric Universe theory and therefore posted on the "Electric Universe" board.
I think differently and you cannot accept my authority as a moderator to make a decision on where to place the thread.
Too bad.
You complain about having no course of appeal yet I have given you one. Either you made that appeal and did not get the results you wished or you chose not to make the appeal.
So as things stand, your thread will remain here.
Any further forum posts that are protests over moderation will cause the thread to be locked.

[Native]

@nick_c

I´ve really tried to be kind and argue my factual and honest case here:

I´ve tried to come forward with this issue for a few decades - and even on this forum, my postings have been administratively moved from for instants the Electric Universe to the NIAMI department. When even an open minded Forum isn´t openminded enough, it gets very tough indeed.

A couple of logical and analytical moderators questions for you:

Which answer is the most likely; plausible and logical?:

1) That you know better than me what I mean by this sentence?

2) Or that I myself know best what I mean with my own sentence?

You replied:

Otherwise your reasoning makes little sense to me. Putting a smiley at the end of a disparaging statement does not give you a free pass.

Well, if you, after a thoroughly pondering and looking into your heart and mind over these logical questions, and still finding no sense at all, I just give up finding any moderators sence at all on TB, since yo apparently are the only active one, solely governing the wole members Forum

You:
There is an old saying: "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

My fellow Danish Poet and Natural Philosopher, Piet Hein has a more appropriate saying here which also connects to face:

The noble art of Losing Face
may one day save the Human Race
and turn into eternal merit
what weaker minds would call disgrace.

Where do you fit in here?

Lastly you use your almighty and ultimate moderator powers:

Any further forum posts that are protests over moderation will cause the thread to be locked

What a demonstration of power you show up here - and all on the basics of your own distorted "you know better than me what I mean in my own sentences".

So. now I have given you your convenient excuse for locking this topic - I hope you are very pleased and satisfied over your moderators actions in this matter.

In the future I still hope to find this polite and written adds in the TB-moderators adwise:

In order to avoid any misinterpretations; disturbings and derailings of topics on TB, a moderator shall act according to this:

When a moderator is thinking of intervening in a topic or a reply, he/she first shall ask the member in question via a perosnal TB-mail what the author really mean - and thus give the author a fair chance to explain him/herself before the moderator decides to intervene.

Ok then: My next topic - MILKY WAY AND SOLAR SYSTEM FORMATION - V 2.0 - is on its way.

[Sparky]

Native, you asked:

So, you are just now finding out the world will not play by your rules?

Sounds like a whinny kid, such as one would find on utube.

Maybe that is where you belong. Get a lot of subscribers and become famous!

Notice the smiley faces.

Oh, your centre galaxy star production is highly speculative, and otherwise a waste of time contemplating.

[Native]

@Sparky

Native, you asked:

So, you are just now finding out the world will not play by your rules?

Sounds like a whinny kid, such as one would find on utube.

Maybe that is where you belong. Get a lot of subscribers and become famous!

Notice the smiley faces.

Oh, your centre galaxy star production is highly speculative, and otherwise a waste of time contemplating.

Thanks for your highly factual and non-emotional reply. This really shows your genuine format.

Edit: BTW: If you find my "centre galaxy star production is highly speculative" - how can you judge this since you apparently and obviously can´t understand it?

[Sparky]

[Native]

@Sparky,
Did you get my edit?

Edit: BTW: If you find my "centre galaxy star production is highly speculative" - how can you judge this since you apparently and obviously can´t understand it?

[Aardwolf]

Aardwolf, we must stick together in this matter! What about your own "merits" regarding own posts or references of this issue? Have you some links to study?

Unfortunately I have never found any references or papers regarding this. It appears to me that because we observe planets rotating and we observe our solar systems rotating, it has been assumed (quite naturally to be fair) that galaxies also rotate. There is no evidence that this is the case but theorists are trying to invoke complex systems to create models that rotate galaxies because it's assumed everything in the universe rotates. Which is a shame because if you remove that assumption theories become far simpler.

[starbiter]

Aardwolf, we must stick together in this matter! What about your own "merits" regarding own posts or references of this issue? Have you some links to study?

Unfortunately I have never found any references or papers regarding this. It appears to me that because we observe planets rotating and we observe our solar systems rotating, it has been assumed (quite naturally to be fair) that galaxies also rotate. There is no evidence that this is the case but theorists are trying to invoke complex systems to create models that rotate galaxies because it's assumed everything in the universe rotates. Which is a shame because if you remove that assumption theories become far simpler.

I asked a friend if galaxies were red shifted differently on different sides. His response is below.

"Well, Aardwolf uses the term "rotate", which is (can be) a bit more restricted in meaning than "spin": rotate usually means circular motion around an axis; spin could refer to a wider range of curvilinear motion. Re galaxies: spectra of spirals that show some degree of edge-on orientation show red-shifted lines on one side & blue-shifted ones on the other (relative to the cores). That's generally interpreted as Doppler shift due to one side receding & the other side approaching. If you assume the galaxy moves like a solid object, that would indicate rotation around an axis.

But of course a galaxy is not a solid object, it's a collection of mote-like stars (in the gravity-only paradigm) responding to each other's gravity in mind-boggling expanses of empty space. [At a scale of 1"=1 AU, the Sun would be a dust mote 1/100" in diameter & the nearest star would be another dust mote 4 miles away.] So the stars would (theoretically) be "revolving" around their center of mass--a point, not an axis. Therefore, the closer they were to the core, the more their orbits would cross. That wouldn't necessarily cause collisions because the empty space around them is still vast & collision cross-sections are (relatively) tiny. (Vera Rubin discovered a subset of stars in some galaxies that move in the opposite direction from the majority.)

Years ago, Michael Armstrong posed this question of whether stars in galaxies move around a point or around an axis. AFAIK, instruments aren't precise enough to resolve that matter.

But a further complication to the Doppler interpretation of the spectral frequency shift is that the shift levels off a third or half way out from the core, indicating that the stars in the outer part move everywhere at the same speed--which is contrary to gravity theory. (Like planets around a star, they should move slower the farther away they are.) Now that's modified somewhat by the fact that the stars are distributed: Their aggregate mass can't be considered to be concentrated in a point at the center of mass. But the overwhelming amount of mass is near the core, so the difference is small. (One guy--Nichols is his name, I think--claims that the standard textbook on galactic rotation has misconceived the distribution of mass & has used the wrong formula. He used to have a website [maybe still does--I haven't looked] showing that the correct formula actually does result in observed "flat" rotation curves. He's been ignored, of course: standard theory has "fixed" the anomaly by inventing dark matter.)

In Peratt's model of galaxies (as interactions between pairs [or more] of B-currents _twisting_ around each other--there's a third "curvilinear" term to add to the others!), the velocities of stars in the arms result from the speed at which the current filaments twist. (I suppose the filaments are revealed in the more-or-less ring-shaped HII regions around the outer part of active galaxies, especially in ring galaxies. [Which would seem to indicate _one_ "tube" of a B-current, with its multiple filaments, not interacting pairs. I once asked Tony, but getting a straight answer out of him was worse than trying an FOIA with NSA.]) The currents compress plasma into stars, which then drift away (at the constant approximately-tangential velocity): the ones that drift outward fall behind, the ones that drift inward move ahead, thus forming spiral arms. [The core is a "sump", where the in-drifting matter collects & eventually "swallows" the arms, producing an elliptical galaxy. BTW, there are some observations indicating that there are spiral arms "buried" in some ellipticals.] That's pretty far from a standard idea of "rotation" (or even revolution).

Sorry for rambling on: the short answer to your question is--yes."

[Aardwolf]

That's generally interpreted as Doppler shift due to one side receding & the other side approaching. If you assume the galaxy moves like a solid object, that would indicate rotation around an axis.

And there's the crux of the matter. Let's assume for a moment that the red shift is a Doppler effect (although over here at the EU that by no means certain), an expanding two arm galaxy viewed from the side can also show one side receding and one side approaching so the only "proof" of a rotating galaxy also supports an expanding one.

The rest of the reply is just fantasists desperate to find an explanation as to why gravity doesn't work as it's supposed to, by adding increasingly complex mechanisms, all of them nonsense. They're stuck because they are surrounded by the dogma that galaxies rotate/revolve/spin/whirl/whatever.

The structure explained by expanding galaxy theory ends once the stars are ejected from the centre. No further complexities required. Given the 2 options I know which explanation Occam would prefer.

[allynh]

Aardwolf,

I just spotted the phrase "expanding galaxy theory". Do you have any links I can go read about this. I searched the Forum and there doesn't seem to be a discussion.

The concept that galaxies are opening up without rotating is burning my brain. How did I miss this! HA!