The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby robheus » Fri Jul 04, 2014 8:57 pm

Rossim wrote:
I'm beginning to think that no matter what knowledge is brought to your attention, you're going to stick with your views out of pure arrogance. This imaginary "the universe is neutral" principle you keep inviting has been discussed on several occasions in this thread alone. If "neutral" plasma is heated any amount, the electrons will move faster than protons, separating charge and creating electric fields. Period. Your statement has zero value in the real world.


The fact that on average the universe is electrical neutral, does not mean there are no currents or electric effects locally. Of course not!

Only thing that this says is that the electrical forces play no role on the cosmos at large, because they balance out (but still have effects locally!).

Cosmological models are based on the forces that dominate even on very large scales, and for that reason, gravity is the only forces that dominates at ultra large scales. (since we assume that no "negative mass matter" exists).

So to determine the overall evolution and fate of the universe, cosmologists only take gravity into account.
robheus
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:21 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Native » Fri Jul 04, 2014 11:02 pm

@robheus, you wrote:
1. Only thing I know is that the BB theory postulates that around 95% of matter is in some unknown form (Dark Energy + Dark Matter). This is not a contradiction, but something not observed.

2. Only thing that this says is that the electrical forces play no role on the cosmos at large, because they balance out (but still have effects locally!).

3. Cosmological models are based on the forces that dominate even on very large scales, and for that reason, gravity is the only forces that dominates at ultra large scales. (since we assume that no "negative mass matter" exists).

# 1: How can you/conventional cosmologists KNOW anything of something which isn´t observed?
# 2: Of course you THINK so when you only are THINKING of “gravity”.
# 3: The electromagnetic force has the same qualities and proporties as gravity – just remember that.

All your arguments are based on WEAKEST ¼ part of the 4 fundamental forces = You miss the cosmological explanations of the other ¾ part of the forces and their qualities and energies in the Universe.

That is: You miss lots of forces and in the gravity perception mass = energy = force. By NOT counting on the ¾ other part of the fundamental forces, you OF COURSE need ¾ "mass" in the gravitational sense.

And there you have it: The gravitational Standard Model assumes that:
Dark matter is a type of matter in astronomy and cosmology hypothesized to account for effects that appear to be the result of mass where such mass cannot be seen. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level. It is otherwise hypothesized to simply be matter that is not reactant to light. Instead, the existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe. According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy. Thus, dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.5% of the total matter in the universe, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of the total content of the universe. Link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

All these numbers and mentioned energies MIRRORS the forces and energetic qualities of the 3/4 other fundamental forces. When NOT taking all forces into account, you GRAVITATIONALLY are forced (sic!) to “explain” the observations of objects and motions with all kind of assumptions of “dark this and dark that” and “lack of this and lack of that”.

The Standard Model should really be re-named. “The Double Standard Model” because the whole model creates equal amount of dictions and contradictions.
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher
Native
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby robheus » Fri Jul 04, 2014 11:21 pm

Native wrote:# 1: How can you/conventional cosmologists KNOW anything of something which isn´t observed?


Why are you asking me all the time? YOU should be the expert on the theory you DISMISS, isn't it?

Or is it simply because you don't UNDERSTAND the theory in the first place?

Go to some website where the theory is explained then!

Here is a link:
Ned Wright cosmology page

# 2: Of course you THINK so when you only are THINKING of “gravity”.


Yes I am thinking about gravity ALL THE TIME! I think i am ATTRACTED to it!
It keeps my feet on this planet!

# 3: The electromagnetic force has the same qualities and proporties as gravity – just remember that.


No, it doesn't.

Gravity does not work at the atomic scales - electric forces do.

I can not run my computer on gravity - electricity can.

Electric forces can both be repulsive and attractive - gravity can only be attractive (exception: inflation)

All your arguments are based on WEAKEST ¼ part of the 4 fundamental forces = You miss the cosmological explanations of the other ¾ part of the forces and their qualities and energies in the Universe.


Yes, I must confess I fell for the WEAKEST force, but then that force iS attractive!!

That is: You miss lots of forces and in the gravity perception mass = energy = force. By NOT counting on the ¾ other part of the fundamental forces, you OF COURSE need ¾ "mass" in the gravitational sense.


So, and you with your unbeatable trust in EU/PC have a solution for all that and made a theory that explains all those dark things away, and not only that, you already posted a scientific paper to all the important cosmology and physics journals in the world, and you are about sure you gonna win the Noble prize for that, isn't it?

And there you have it: The gravitational Standard Model assumes that:
Dark matter is a type of matter in astronomy and cosmology hypothesized to account for effects that appear to be the result of mass where such mass cannot be seen. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level. It is otherwise hypothesized to simply be matter that is not reactant to light. Instead, the existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe. According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy. Thus, dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.5% of the total matter in the universe, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of the total content of the universe. Link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

All these numbers and mentioned energies MIRRORS the forces and energetic qualities of the 3/4 other fundamental forces. When NOT taking all forces into account, you GRAVITATIONALLY are forced (sic!) to “explain” the observations of objects and motions with all kind of assumptions of “dark this and dark that” and “lack of this and lack of that”.

The Standard Model should really be re-named. “The Double Standard Model” because the whole model creates equal amount of dictions and contradictions.


No it is not. But you never actually read any scientific paper on how cosmologists KNOW that this kind of stuff has to exist.

I suggest you first go doing that.

And as an addition I should add:

Those scientists or peopla that DISMISS the big bang theory "because it makes no sense to them" (what kind of scientific standard is that? Are only those theories true which one likes? So a christian can say: I don't like evolution, therefore it is not true... etc. ) have on the other hand no problem in believing that:

- Mass is not constant in time but evolves with time - which would supposedly explain that younger galaxies have higher redshifts.... So in some distant past, all masses were equal to zero, and since F=ma, or, F/m=a, that means evererything accelerated with high magnitude before that time (looks a lot like inflation to me...)
- Gravity comes from unkown particles that actually "push" from all directions in space, and the "shadowing effect" of masses in each other's neigbourhood causes then masses to accelerate towards each other (Le Sage gravity)
- The placement of continents on the earth is not caused by plate-tectonics, but is caused by an "expanding earth" because in a video you can show that the continents fit nicely together on a smaller radius earth!!
robheus
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:21 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Native » Fri Jul 04, 2014 11:52 pm

@robheus,
You wrote,
So, and you with your unbeatable trust in EU/PC have a solution for all that and made a theory that explains all those dark things away, and not only that, you already posted a scientific paper to all the important cosmology and physics journals in the world, and you are about sure you gonna win the Noble prize for that, isn't it?

This could count for you too - if you weren´t such a cosmological ignorant to count on just a 1/4 part of the reality in the universe.

(Nobel Prizes for modern Cosmology and Astrophysics doesn´t say much else but how easy the Nobel Prize Committé can be fooled by scientists)

Obviously, you have NO trust whatsoever in EU and PC, and it seems that you even don´t care to get familiar with anything else but what have been poured into your mind in school and university after the brainwash educational metod:

Listen; learn; remember and repeat it all over and over again - But don´t you ever think for yourself and ask or criticise the logics of the dogmatic inputs.
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher
Native
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sat Jul 05, 2014 4:06 pm

robheus wrote:
Anyway, any such disputes can be resolved when we have better instruments (for instance: on the backside of the moon: no disturbance from earth's oceans!.

Indeed.. When we get away from the oceans, we see no cosmic background!
We only see small point sources of radiation, that are clearly not a big-bang thing. ;-)

robheus wrote:2) Redshift is related to expansion of space (cosmological redshift), which fit the models of solutions to Einstein's equations.

Like I said already.. these equations are invalidated by observations! :P

3) During any solar-eclipse we can see stars that are close to the sun, and we KNOW their normal position very precisely, and can MEASURE the discrepancy in their position due to the GR effect of bending of light by the sun. The results EXACTLY match GR!

No they do not. The bending should be linear with the distance from the sun. And it is not. The bending is only present within the corona and plasma of the sun.
Sadly that means that the bending is ONLY due to the wellknown bending of light within a plasma or gas.

The biggest problem of the BB is that people started to ignore observations, and try to bend the
observed reality to their own expectations.
That is because, like you, not many scientists are able to think from a zero-hypothesis anymore.
They have forgotten to be skeptic in the original sense: assume nothing!
I think that most scientists are trying too hard to get work or a career in science, try to learn all
these complicated formulas. That they can't think clearly anymore.
This is a common problem within a lot of branches of science:
if too many people are thinking the same theory, it starts a life on its own.
And upon it new theories are build, and upon those new ones again..
Because the system is governed by status and money, the system can't correct itself anymore.
And scientists try to excel by affirming the theory, instead of criticizing it.
If the basis fails, the whole branch of researches build from it fail too. So they try to keep each
branch alive as long as possible. To keep a dead branch alive, many new theories and assumptions are created.
Science has special committees and peering systems that should deal with this problems. But instead they are
used to push away criticism. These committees can be powerful and deal with a lot of money. So the people inside the committees, that have build their careers and income from established theories, now also have power. Which they of course will use to defend their status, income and powerful position.
And many scientists trained in a certain scientific branch and theoretical system, are often incapable of understanding new theories, or are incapable of looking the whole theoretical system from different perspective.
And for some it is simply too much effort, because the old one still seems to work most/some of the time, and
because so many other "science" depends on it.

4) The BB theory does not state that.

The big bang needs a beginning. According to most variations that means: In the beginning there was a lot of energy. And from this energy quasars came.
But quasars are also young. That means that in the beginning was not a lot of energy, and that means that these variations of the big bang are false.

5) That has also nothing to do with the Big Bang!

The big bang is a complete theory that involves the creation of matter in the universe.
According to all big bang variations, all structures are constructed by gravity alone in combination with expansion.
All matter is spread evenly.
This means that to form stars and galaxies, the gas must accumulate first. And that means that the center of
accumulation should be form stars first, before the lesser compressed areas.
But this is actually reversed, so that means that the big bang fails to construct the matter in the universe.
That means that the theory of the big bang is not valid.

6) Which contradictions exactly?

There are a bit too many to summarize here, and I agree that each of them could form an interesting discussion.
But the simplest version is: there is no big bang. And that solves all problems instantly :-)

Some contradictions are:
1) Einsteins formulas define several singularities,
2) The big bang starts with a singularity
3) New "laws" and math is invented, just to make it work,
while it does not relate with current physical observations.
4) The big bang formulas are a simple extrapolation of some other formulas, and this fails completely. Therefore they add all kinds of theories and features.
5) If a theory is correct it becomes simpler. Quantum physics is actually very simple. If a theory is incorrect it becomes more and more complex, because we need all kinds of additions and tricks to it to make it fit to the observations or assumptions that we make.

Some of the many things that were added to BB are:
1) Dark matter
2) Dark energy
3) There is nothing before the big bang.
4) Changing physical constants and variables "during" the big bang.
Each of these means that the BB is not completely correct!
QM works in a different way. We nowadays learn that even whole groups of atoms can be in a superposition.
And we learn to make Quantum computers!
From the BB we learn NOTHING!

7) What objects in the universe are older then 13.7 billion years?

That is simple: All objects.

It does not mean that the universe was there forever.
I currently believe that the universe came from quantum fluctuations or gluon fluctuations in space.
From there slowly(!) new matter appeared and formed structures.

But let me look at things that I think are old:
Just look at any galaxy:
The structure of almost each galaxy is so that it rotates very slowly around the center.
For these structures to form as they are, it seems clear from theory and simulations, that these
structures have rotated around the galaxies a long time. For these structures to have formed I would
assume that they rotate maybe a million times. But even a million times is small related to the number of
rotations we have had with earth.
How long does it take for a full rotation around the galaxy?
And don't forget: the stars on the outside are older, and some galaxy structures are very big and complicated.

Then when we look at galaxies that are far, far away we see that they seem almost similar to galaxies
that are near. So these structures that have existed so many billion light-years away are likely as old
as the ones around us.

And this is all from observations, simulations and existing physical laws!!!

I leave it to you to imagine how old these galaxies might actually be.

But if you want information from experts in the fields, I suggest you look at the websites above.
Some tell a lot of other interesting stuff.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Native » Sat Jul 05, 2014 4:46 pm

The short answers to many things are:

An eternal Universe.

Formation and dissolution and re-formation takes eternally place in the Universe, thus folloving the laws of conservation. (Thus also stating the CMB-soup to be eternally)

Our Solar System is produced in the galactic center and has moved out from the center into its actual position.

All kinds of "dark this and that matter and dark hole/objects or energies" and singularities which cannot excist, can be explained by electromagnetics and thermodynamics.
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher
Native
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby robheus » Sat Jul 05, 2014 5:17 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:Indeed.. When we get away from the oceans, we see no cosmic background!
We only see small point sources of radiation, that are clearly not a big-bang thing. ;-)


I wouldn't bet on that!

Like I said already.. these equations are invalidated by observations! :P


They are not.

No they do not. The bending should be linear with the distance from the sun. And it is not. The bending is only present within the corona and plasma of the sun.
Sadly that means that the bending is ONLY due to the wellknown bending of light within a plasma or gas.


The bending is gravitational, and DO match the einstein's equations!

The big bang needs a beginning. According to most variations that means: In the beginning there was a lot of energy. And from this energy quasars came.
But quasars are also young. That means that in the beginning was not a lot of energy, and that means that these variations of the big bang are false.


We don't see a "begin" and the "singularity" isn't there (just an artefact of a theoretical model based on GR, which ISN'T complete).

The BB theory isn't a theory about "origin" of the universe, only of it's development.

The big bang is a complete theory that involves the creation of matter in the universe.


Wrong again. Nothing in the Big Bang theory states that.
The BB theory only states that the universe was hotter, denser and smaller in the past, and has since then been expanding, and says nothing about the origin.

There are a bit too many to summarize here, and I agree that each of them could form an interesting discussion.
But the simplest version is: there is no big bang. And that solves all problems instantly :-)


If you mean: there was no "singularity" then I agree.

But BB theory is generally thought to be correct. Unless someone comes up with a better model that explains all observations, we are stuck with the BB theory.

Some contradictions are:
1) Einsteins formulas define several singularities,


That is because GR is not a complete theory, because QM is left out.

2) The big bang starts with a singularity


Nope. Where does it say that?

3) New "laws" and math is invented, just to make it work,
while it does not relate with current physical observations.


Yep. But also Neptune and Pluto were "invented" before they were found.

4) The big bang formulas are a simple extrapolation of some other formulas, and this fails completely. Therefore they add all kinds of theories and features.


Since GR is incomplete, there has to be something that completes it. Therefore new theories have to be developed.
That is how science evolves.

5) If a theory is correct it becomes simpler. Quantum physics is actually very simple. If a theory is incorrect it becomes more and more complex, because we need all kinds of additions and tricks to it to make it fit to the observations or assumptions that we make.


Perhaps that is the outcome, but we don't know yet.

Some of the many things that were added to BB are:
1) Dark matter
2) Dark energy
3) There is nothing before the big bang.
4) Changing physical constants and variables "during" the big bang.
Each of these means that the BB is not completely correct!
QM works in a different way. We nowadays learn that even whole groups of atoms can be in a superposition.
And we learn to make Quantum computers!
From the BB we learn NOTHING!


1 and 2) Correct. DM matches observations of gravity anomalies. DE completes the mass sum so that Omega = 1 (which we observe because of the flatness of the universe).

3) Nope. Big Bang does not state that. Inflation is the standard edition to the Big Bang. Inflation could have started arbitrarily long ago or did not start at all. But a classical theory in which the universe on average expands, is ruled out by a theorem and can't be past eternal. Does not forbid that a non-classical theory or a not always expanding model can't be past eternal.

That is simple: All objects.


They are sure not. When were you born? You - and all other things that exist - did not exist prior to some point in time (even when the matter/energy DID exist).

It does not mean that the universe was there forever.
I currently believe that the universe came from quantum fluctuations or gluon fluctuations in space.
From there slowly(!) new matter appeared and formed structures.


When was the last time the conservation of matter/energy was broken?

But let me look at things that I think are old:
Just look at any galaxy:
The structure of almost each galaxy is so that it rotates very slowly around the center.
For these structures to form as they are, it seems clear from theory and simulations, that these
structures have rotated around the galaxies a long time. For these structures to have formed I would
assume that they rotate maybe a million times. But even a million times is small related to the number of
rotations we have had with earth.
How long does it take for a full rotation around the galaxy?
And don't forget: the stars on the outside are older, and some galaxy structures are very big and complicated.

Then when we look at galaxies that are far, far away we see that they seem almost similar to galaxies
that are near. So these structures that have existed so many billion light-years away are likely as old
as the ones around us.

And this is all from observations, simulations and existing physical laws!!!

I leave it to you to imagine how old these galaxies might actually be.

But if you want information from experts in the fields, I suggest you look at the websites above.
Some tell a lot of other interesting stuff.


Sure galaxies are old.
Many have been formed and shaped due to colissions.
robheus
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:21 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby quantauniverse » Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:00 pm

Excuse the interruption please for an important question on the post topic, and then they can go back to arguing about whether gravity exists or not. I remind a famous page says to be liberated from gravity is the new science or something..

Paper Question: is a galaxy like a quantum circuit? Perfect shaped geometry would be required by a Birkeland current. The paper is outstanding logic by philosopy, but not much scientific thought was put into explaining why a galaxy is like a circuit.
interacting galaxies would squash the galaxy circuit, but form larger circuits like galaxy clusters that scale by cosmic electricity filaments. A quantum circuit can become macroscopic, and this by super conduction at cold Temps like galaxy centers, where the electricity jets shoot thru the center and out. The second known way for quantum macroscopic phenomena in quantum mechanics is superfluids like helium that matches galaxy center temps. I suggest putting the science in the next paper, let me co-author it, to prove the paper's logic, because people want to learn the new cosmology when they disbelieve in the big bang and dark matter.
quantauniverse
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 7:08 pm
Location: USA

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Native » Sat Jul 05, 2014 11:47 pm

@robheus wrote
Wrong again. Nothing in the Big Bang theory states that.
The BB theory only states that the universe was hotter, denser and smaller in the past, and has since then been expanding, and says nothing about the origin.

BB is not in a position to state anything. The concept can hypothesize lots of things, but this demands a logical and full sientifical description of the causes on which it is based.
Regardless of being "counted backward" via interpreted "still-image"-observations, the hypothesis method also should be able to explain a full circle of causes and effects.
Having a hypothesis which theoretically only works one way - like gravity - doesn´t explain anything when it comes to logical and scientifical evidences.
The BB theory is hidden and for ever burried in a singularity and it should be abandoned and left there.
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher
Native
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby robheus » Sun Jul 06, 2014 6:25 am

Native wrote:BB is not in a position to state anything. The concept can hypothesize lots of things, but this demands a logical and full sientifical description of the causes on which it is based.
Regardless of being "counted backward" via interpreted "still-image"-observations, the hypothesis method also should be able to explain a full circle of causes and effects.
Having a hypothesis which theoretically only works one way - like gravity - doesn´t explain anything when it comes to logical and scientifical evidences.
The BB theory is hidden and for ever burried in a singularity and it should be abandoned and left there.


This is absolute non-sense.

Your argument - applied to evolution theory - would yield that the evolution theory is invalid, because it would not explain where the first living cells or organisms came from.

The BB theory is just a scientific model that explains that the universe expands. It does not state anything about any beginning of the universe.
robheus
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:21 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Native » Sun Jul 06, 2014 6:51 am

@robheus;
Native wrote:BB is not in a position to state anything. The concept can hypothesize lots of things, but this demands a logical and full sientifical description of the causes on which it is based.
Regardless of being "counted backward" via interpreted "still-image"-observations, the hypothesis method also should be able to explain a full circle of causes and effects.
Having a hypothesis which theoretically only works one way - like gravity - doesn´t explain anything when it comes to logical and scientifical evidences.
The BB theory is hidden and for ever burried in a singularity and it should be abandoned and left there.

This is absolute non-sense.

Your argument - applied to evolution theory - would yield that the evolution theory is invalid, because it would not explain where the first living cells or organisms came from.

The BB theory is just a scientific model that explains that the universe expands. It does not state anything about any beginning of the universe.

You can digg as far as you like back in the evolution - your answer will and can only be that everything is electromagnetically governed from the smallest of molecules and cells to large animals and human beings.

That is: Unless you also here have the perception that "gravity" governs everything. Which of course also would be impossible for you and any other to explain since noone logically enough can explain "the one way dynamics of gravity". :D
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher
Native
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Rossim » Sun Jul 06, 2014 12:45 pm

Big Bang does imply a beginning to the universe, based solely on the assumption that redshift is due to a Doppler effect of light waves. All matter was created instantaneously from a singularity, though no possible reason is given. It was then assumed that with gravity being an attractive force, matter must eventually slow their acceleration from the initial explosion and begin to recondense. Unfortunately, due to the Doppler-redshift assumption, it was calculated that the expansion of the universe was actually increasing. This anomaly was fixed with ad hoc dark energy.

And dark matter (discovered when humanity still thought the Milky Way was the universe) is the biggest failure of current astrophysics. Not only are galaxies rotating with velocities that should rip themselves apart, but the inner most stars are rotating nearly the same as the outermost stars, producing a flat rotation curve. There's been observations of many huge galaxies without even a central black hole, which directly defies common theory with the need for more ad hoc explanation. It just so happens that Michael Faraday discovered what he called "electromagnetic rotation" in 1821 with his homopolar motor. Rotating a conductor (plasma) around a point parallel to the magnetic field spins with a velocity proportional to its input current. I guess it's just a coincidence that the Milky Way galaxy rotates at nearly the same rotational velocity as our nearest neighbor, Andromeda.
Rossim
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:46 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Native » Sun Jul 06, 2014 2:22 pm

@Rossim, you wrote,
There's been observations of many huge galaxies without even a central black hole, which directly defies common theory with the need for more ad hoc explanation.

In my opinion:
Basical galactic types.

Galaxies comes in my opinion as 2 primary types:

1 type shows up tight wrapped spiralling arms and a high luminous center where the overall motions goes towards the center. (A young galaxy)

1 type with a less luminous center with a barred structure and open wrapped arms and an overall outwards going motion like our own galaxy, (a mature galaxy)

They both have a magnetic circuit of formation and together they show a ful formational process of assembling gas and matter in the center (Type 1 process) where larger spheres leaves the center when reaching a critical size floating out (Type 2 proces) in the galactic bars and out in the galactic surroundings - thus showing up a full formative process of ingoing (attractive) and an outgoing (repulsive) ful circuital motion, following the electromagnetical laws.

Both types of galaxies have a smooth orbital motion where the objects shows flattish rotations curves - because the galactic flow is determed by the magnetic circuital field flow. i.e there is no stopping stages and no specific increased acceleration stages - unless the whole galaxy suddenly recieves an extra electric current which induces increased magnetic field circuits.

When discovering the "galactic rotation anomaly" and later hypothesizing "dark matter" this was what the scientists really should have considered.
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher
Native
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby robheus » Sun Jul 06, 2014 4:49 pm

Native wrote:You can digg as far as you like back in the evolution - your answer will and can only be that everything is electromagnetically governed from the smallest of molecules and cells to large animals and human beings.

That is: Unless you also here have the perception that "gravity" governs everything. Which of course also would be impossible for you and any other to explain since noone logically enough can explain "the one way dynamics of gravity". :D


I only used evolution as a metaphor, because you don't seem satisfied with the idea that the scientific theory of the Big Bang (and not the popular description of it) does not talk about an origin of the universe. So as far as the Big Bang goes, the 'origin' of the universe (if there is one, if that is even a proper idea i and of itself to speak of) is not explained by the Big bang theory - for the reason that the very theory that predicts that there would be a singularity, breaks down near that singularity, and can no longer predict anything - which is the same case for evolution, which neither explains how the first life came about.

Gravity has of course nothing to do with biology and chemistry and geology.

You don't seem to grasp my explenation that gravity dominates specifically on ULTRA large scales (when all the electric forces have been neutralized and become irrelevant), not local scales (at least not always).

You seem to attack that idea by making a caricature out of it, which is a straw man argument.
robheus
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:21 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby robheus » Sun Jul 06, 2014 4:53 pm

Rossim wrote:Big Bang does imply a beginning to the universe, ...


The Big bang theory does not imply that. It only implies that the proces that caused the hot dense big bang, resulted in a very homogeneous (with small perturbations) hot and dense plasma soup.

Inflation seems to be a good candidate for explaining that.
robheus
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests