Cosmology

[SelfSim]

If you think our resident self professed polymath is going to answer your questions forget it; similar questions have been posed elsewhere only to be greeted with the deafening sound of crickets.
I'm still waiting on his explanation for the magical properties of plasma; how by his own admission it plays no role in the celestial mechanics of the solar system yet at intergalactic and cosmological scales where the plasma density is up to a million times less becomes the dominating factor that explains everything from galaxy rotation curves to dark matter.

I waited for the inevitable drivelous response (now post #100) before casting my views .. but I don't know why ... you were right on the mark!
I guess in this instance the characteristic of posting references which actually refute the extolled EU delusions is on display for all to see ..
Nuffin' has changed!

 

[sjastro]

I waited for the inevitable drivelous response (now post #100) before casting my views .. but I don't know why ... you were right on the mark!
I guess in this instance the characteristic of posting references which actually refute the extolled EU delusions is on display for all to see ..
Nuffin' has changed!

This is only scratching the surface.
Amongst other things the self professed polymath can't seem to grasp that a Universe dominated by electromagnetic forces cannot be stable as a three body problem is unstable as at least two of the bodies will carry the same charge resulting in a repulsive force.
The polymath's solution is to ignore the problem and carry on regardless.
What I find quite amusing is the polymath's attack on those with tertiary qualifications as being unable to think for themselves which is usually the behaviour expressed by academic failures who show a deep seated resentment against those that have succeeded.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is only scratching the surface.
Amongst other things the self professed polymath can't seem to grasp that a Universe dominated by electromagnetic forces cannot be stable as a three body problem is unstable as at least two of the bodies will carry the same charge resulting in a repulsive force.
The polymath's solution is to ignore the problem and carry on regardless.
What I find quite amusing is the polymath's attack on those with tertiary qualifications as being unable to think for themselves which is usually the behaviour expressed by academic failures who show a deep seated resentment against those that have succeeded.

Lol, what a bunch of drizzle. You mean the same three body problem gravity cant solve either?????

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem

"Gravitational systems
A prominent example of the classical three-body problem is the movement of a planet with a satellite around a star. The general case of the three-body problem does not have a known solution and is addressed by numerical analysis approximations."

http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/10/q-what-is-the-three-body-problem/

"The three body problem is to exactly solve for the motions of three (or more) bodies interacting through an inverse square force (which includes gravitational and electrical attraction).

The problem with the 3-body problem is that it can’t be done, except in a very small set of frankly goofy scenarios (like identical planets following identical orbits)."

What I find funny is you bring up a problem you have no solution for either, but didn't bother to mention that to the readers, now did you.... instead letting it be implied that only electrodynamics had no solution.....


Hacks, one and all..... ones that can't even be honest when they report something.....



And electromagnetism HAS solved the three body problem, even if man hasn't...

http://www2.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/02/3.html

"How do we distinguish between them? They each have one single proton (Z = 1), but differ in the number of their neutrons. Hydrogen has no neutron, deuterium has one, and tritium has two neutrons...."

"....The atoms of these isotopes have one electron to balance the charge of the one proton."

One proton, one neutron and one electron... the only known solution to the three body problem.... And gravity has nothing to do with the solution at all..... but electrodynamics does.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I waited for the inevitable drivelous response (now post #100) before casting my views .. but I don't know why ... you were right on the mark!
I guess in this instance the characteristic of posting references which actually refute the extolled EU delusions is on display for all to see ..
Nuffin' has changed!

Except you haven't refuted anything yet, just keep making claims without actually producing anything.....

Standard response when presented with scientific evidence versus fantasies of things never seen and no one even knows what it is.... but then that's 95% of your cosmology, isn't it....

 

[sjastro]

Lol, what a bunch of drizzle. You mean the same three body problem gravity cant solve either?????

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem

"Gravitational systems
A prominent example of the classical three-body problem is the movement of a planet with a satellite around a star. The general case of the three-body problem does not have a known solution and is addressed by numerical analysis approximations."

http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/10/q-what-is-the-three-body-problem/

"The three body problem is to exactly solve for the motions of three (or more) bodies interacting through an inverse square force (which includes gravitational and electrical attraction).

The problem with the 3-body problem is that it can’t be done, except in a very small set of frankly goofy scenarios (like identical planets following identical orbits)."

What I find funny is you bring up a problem you have no solution for either, but didn't bother to mention that to the readers, now did you.... instead letting it be implied that only electrodynamics had no solution.....


Hacks, one and all..... ones that can't even be honest when they report something.....

The only individual that is being dishonest here or perhaps has the memory of a goldfish is your need to regurgitate an old post from another thread which was refuted.
Let me remind you……..

“And here we have the case of your inability to grasp the meaning of the stability of the three body problem and using the false dichotomy fallacy.

Once again you demonstrate limited comprehension skills given your (ask a mathematician) link relates to orbits not being repeatable making accurate predictions impossible while I am referring to the stability or longevity of the orbits and ultimately whether such orbits can exist in the first place.

For gravity only forces there are no such problems as ternary star systems exist as do triple gravitationally bound galaxies.
In the case of a three body system involving electromagnetic forces it doesn’t take much insight to realise that at least two of the three bodies will carry the same charge and the electromagnetic force between the pair will be repulsive.
Needless to say forming a three body system composed of three bodies is impossible let alone being stable.
While you go around lecturing individuals on studying plasma physics you are blissfully unaware the range of the electromagnetic force is extremely limited due to Debye shielding.”

The next time you question the honesty of posters I suggest you back it up with facts otherwise it will backfire leaving your own honesty in question.

And electromagnetism HAS solved the three body problem, even if man hasn't...

http://www2.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/02/3.html

"How do we distinguish between them? They each have one single proton (Z = 1), but differ in the number of their neutrons. Hydrogen has no neutron, deuterium has one, and tritium has two neutrons...."

"....The atoms of these isotopes have one electron to balance the charge of the one proton."

One proton, one neutron and one electron... the only known solution to the three body problem.... And gravity has nothing to do with the solution at all..... but electrodynamics does.....

This is just plain stupid as your link has absolutely no relevance in explaining the stability of orbits for a three body problem using electromagnetic forces.

One of the main reasons for the development of quantum mechanics was the realisation that modelling an atom as a miniature solar system failed as orbiting electrons around a positive nucleus would lose energy through synchrotron radiation and spiral into the nucleus.
Congratulations not only have you drawn attention to why the three body problem doesn’t work at atomic scales but fails as a two body problem as well.

I’m still waiting on your magic plasma explanation………………

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The only individual that is being dishonest here or perhaps has the memory of a goldfish is your need to regurgitate an old post from another thread which was refuted.
Let me remind you……..

The next time you question the honesty of posters I suggest you back it up with facts otherwise it will backfire leaving your own honesty in question.

This is just plain stupid as your link has absolutely no relevance in explaining the stability of orbits for a three body problem using electromagnetic forces.

One of the main reasons for the development of quantum mechanics was the realisation that modelling an atom as a miniature solar system failed as orbiting electrons around a positive nucleus would lose energy through synchrotron radiation and spiral into the nucleus.
Congratulations not only have you drawn attention to why the three body problem doesn’t work at atomic scales but fails as a two body problem as well.

I’m still waiting on your magic plasma explanation………………

Still spouting drizzle I see.....

The experts tell you that there is no gravitational solution to the three body problem, just as there is no electromagnetic solution to the three body problem....

What they haven't told you is that it will take BOTH forces to arrive at a correct solution.

But, since astronomers only have one tool in their toolbox, of course no solution has been found...

You are indeed lying to the readers when you suggest that the orbits of trinary star systems have been computed gravitationally, as no such solution has been found mathematically. But then astronomers refuse to apply electromagnetic forces to the equations, because they have only one tool in their tool box, which is why every single time they look into space they are surprised by what they find and another model bites the dust......

Just like triple star systems the Deuterium atom is a nucleus of a proton and neutron (binary pair) orbited by an electron......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_system#Trinary

"Alpha Centauri is a triple star composed of a main binary yellow dwarf pair (Alpha Centauri A and Alpha Centauri B), and an outlying red dwarf, Proxima Centauri."

You can't get away from the fact that there is no gravitational equation that exists to explain their orbits. Yes, they exist, but knowing something exists and being able to explain it with gravitational only math is two different stories......

Keep repeating drizzle so the readers can see your excuses for what they are.

But unlike gravitational three body problems in which no solution is found, the Deuterium atom indeed shows that an electromagnetic solution exists if one knows the charge to mass ratio's of the trinary star system, which we do not...... unlike knowing the charge to mass ratio of the proton, neutron and electron.....

But until astronomers calculate BOTH forces into the equation, no answer will be found. It is not one force or the other, but both. But that's why every single time they look another model they relied on goes down the drain......

My magic plasma explanation??? Lol, that's a riot coming from someone who requires 95% never seen, never detected, don't even know what it is to fudge their cosmological models.... LOL...... You got enough magic for the both of us....

 

[sjastro]

Still spouting drizzle I see.....

The experts tell you that there is no gravitational solution to the three body problem, just as there is no electromagnetic solution to the three body problem....

What they haven't told you is that it will take BOTH forces to arrive at a correct solution.

But, since astronomers only have one tool in their toolbox, of course no solution has been found...

You are indeed lying to the readers when you suggest that the orbits of trinary star systems have been computed gravitationally, as no such solution has been found mathematically. But then astronomers refuse to apply electromagnetic forces to the equations, because they have only one tool in their tool box, which is why every single time they look into space they are surprised by what they find and another model bites the dust......

Again taking me out of context when I have made it perfectly clear to you that the issue is about the very existence of orbits instead of their repeatability or predictability is clear indicator of who is doing the lying here.
Changing the goalposts in midstream by now putting gravity and electromagnetic forces on the same footing in order to explain the existence of orbits in a three body problem is dishonest as well and doesn't work.
As I explained in a previous post the range of the electromagnetic force in plasma is of the order of several Debye lengths which is measured in metres and therefore plays absolutely no role at scales involving distances concerning stars and galaxies.
If on the other hand the Debye length was not a limiting factor, the electromagnetic force is considerably stronger than gravity making it impossible to form orbits.
Incorporating electromagnetic forces into the maths would make things a lot simpler, orbits cannot be formed and one wouldn't have to worry about why the three body problem cannot make accurate predictions.
Instead of making bold pronouncements about astronomer's limitations I suggest you try overcoming your own considerable limitations through education.

Just like triple star systems the Deuterium atom is a nucleus of a proton and neutron (binary pair) orbited by an electron......

There seems to be a recurring theme here of having to repeat myself.
Electrons do not orbit nuclei because because they lose energy through synchroton radiation.
Ignoring the facts and repeating the same nonsense doesn't make it right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_system#Trinary

"Alpha Centauri is a triple star composed of a main binary yellow dwarf pair (Alpha Centauri A and Alpha Centauri B), and an outlying red dwarf, Proxima Centauri."

You can't get away from the fact that there is no gravitational equation that exists to explain their orbits. Yes, they exist, but knowing something exists and being able to explain it with gravitational only math is two different stories......

Keep repeating drizzle so the readers can see your excuses for what they are.

But unlike gravitational three body problems in which no solution is found, the Deuterium atom indeed shows that an electromagnetic solution exists if one knows the charge to mass ratio's of the trinary star system, which we do not...... unlike knowing the charge to mass ratio of the proton, neutron and electron.....

But until astronomers calculate BOTH forces into the equation, no answer will be found. It is not one force or the other, but both. But that's why every single time they look another model they relied on goes down the drain......

Even ignoring your nonsense involving the limited range of the electromagnetic force or electrons don't orbit nuclei; this is a classic circular argument.
Conclusions are reached, you don't start off by assuming a conclusion is correct.

My magic plasma explanation??? Lol, that's a riot coming from someone who requires 95% never seen, never detected, don't even know what it is to fudge their cosmological models.... LOL...... You got enough magic for the both of us....

So instead of showing how your magic plasma stands on its own merits you need to engage in false dichotomies.
This is a straight out confession in admitting you don't know what you are "talking" about.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Again taking me out of context when I have made it perfectly clear to you that the issue is about the very existence of orbits instead of their repeatability or predictability is clear indicator of who is doing the lying here.

Yes it does, since you found it necessary in your first post to only allude that electromagnetism didn't have a solution to the three body problem.....

Changing the goalposts in midstream by now putting gravity and electromagnetic forces on the same footing in order to explain the existence of orbits in a three body problem is dishonest as well and doesn't work.

Then why did you find it necessary to attempt to change the goalposts???? Who is putting them on the same footing???? The electromagnetic force is 39 billion, billion, billion, billion, billion times stronger......

As I explained in a previous post the range of the electromagnetic force in plasma is of the order of several Debye lengths which is measured in metres and therefore plays absolutely no role at scales involving distances concerning stars and galaxies.

Now who's changing the goalpost and ignoring that those clouds of plasma are hundreds of millions of light years in diameter??????

NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

If on the other hand the Debye length was not a limiting factor, the electromagnetic force is considerably stronger than gravity making it impossible to form orbits.

False statement to the extreme....

Charged Particle in a Magnetic Field

Incorporating electromagnetic forces into the maths would make things a lot simpler, orbits cannot be formed and one wouldn't have to worry about why the three body problem cannot make accurate predictions.

So you say, but each by itself already fails to make accurate predictions..... You forget, that outside of the solar system where gravity theory has been shown to be 99.8% accurate in non-ionized matter, that same theory requires 95% ad-hoc fudges because it couldn't make accurate predictions in a universe 99.9% plasma. Granted it did very well in .1% of the universe, but that's it...

So basically you want us all to believe that a theory 99.8% accurate with non-plasma needs 95% corrections added when applied to plasma, and we are to ignore every plasma experiment for the last 200 years. yah right...

Instead of making bold pronouncements about astronomer's limitations I suggest you try overcoming your own considerable limitations through education.

Instead of requiring 95% unknown, never observed, fudge factors I suggest you study plasma physics and figure out what the dominating force is in what makes up 99.9% of the universe and is verified in every plasma laboratory.....

There seems to be a recurring theme here of having to repeat myself.
Electrons do not orbit nuclei because because they lose energy through synchroton radiation.
Ignoring the facts and repeating the same nonsense doesn't make it right.

I know synchroton radiation is produced by electrons accelerated by electric fields moving or spiraling in a magnetic field....

Synchrotron radiation - The Plasma Universe theory (Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

Don't blame me because astronomers don't understand plasma physics in a universe 99.9% plasma..... blame them for ignoring 99.9% of the universe.... Then you'll understand why they are surprised every time they look into space....

Even ignoring your nonsense involving the limited range of the electromagnetic force or electrons don't orbit nuclei; this is a classic circular argument.
Conclusions are reached, you don't start off by assuming a conclusion is correct.

Even ignoring your nonsense about ignoring hundred thousand light years clouds of plasma.......

So instead of showing how your magic plasma stands on its own merits you need to engage in false dichotomies.
This is a straight out confession in admitting you don't know what you are "talking" about.

Say the person that has a cosmology that requires 95% unknown things to prop it up, lol.....

Might as well say you are ignorant of how 95% of the universe is and behaves.....

 

[sjastro]

Yes it does, since you found it necessary in your first post to only allude that electromagnetism didn't have a solution to the three body problem.....


Then why did you find it necessary to attempt to change the goalposts???? Who is putting them on the same footing???? The electromagnetic force is 39 billion, billion, billion, billion, billion times stronger......



Now who's changing the goalpost and ignoring that those clouds of plasma are hundreds of millions of light years in diameter??????

NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

View attachment 241411


False statement to the extreme....

Charged Particle in a Magnetic Field

View attachment 241412



So you say, but each by itself already fails to make accurate predictions..... You forget, that outside of the solar system where gravity theory has been shown to be 99.8% accurate in non-ionized matter, that same theory requires 95% ad-hoc fudges because it couldn't make accurate predictions in a universe 99.9% plasma. Granted it did very well in .1% of the universe, but that's it...

So basically you want us all to believe that a theory 99.8% accurate with non-plasma needs 95% corrections added when applied to plasma, and we are to ignore every plasma experiment for the last 200 years. yah right...


Instead of requiring 95% unknown, never observed, fudge factors I suggest you study plasma physics and figure out what the dominating force is in what makes up 99.9% of the universe and is verified in every plasma laboratory.....



I know synchroton radiation is produced by electrons accelerated by electric fields moving or spiraling in a magnetic field....

Synchrotron radiation - The Plasma Universe theory (Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

Don't blame me because astronomers don't understand plasma physics in a universe 99.9% plasma..... blame them for ignoring 99.9% of the universe.... Then you'll understand why they are surprised every time they look into space....



Even ignoring your nonsense about ignoring hundred thousand light years clouds of plasma.......




Say the person that has a cosmology that requires 95% unknown things to prop it up, lol.....

Might as well say you are ignorant of how 95% of the universe is and behaves.....

Even after factoring in your intellectual level, your response is more incoherent than average.
The facts are you have failed miserably to address the two questions which completely undermine your pet theory.
First of all you haven’t been able to explain why orbits don’t fly apart for a three body problem where electromagnetic forces dominate. Your responses ranging from accusing me of being a liar to gravitational models being unable to accurately predict orbital coordinates as a justification of your pet theory reflects the intellectual level you operate at.

Similarly there is the magic plasma issue.
Once again you fail to explain why plasma plays no role in the solar system yet when the plasma density is a million times less at intergalactic and cosmological scales it becomes the dominate factor.
To put this in perspective the plasma density at these scales is less than is found in extremely high laboratory vacuums.
Your nonsensical justification is to repeat the mantra that all the problems in the Universe are automatically solved by “considering” plasma without even bothering to provide a single example of how this occurs.

You are the poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect.
Your limited intellectual capacity prevents you from seeing the flaws in your own argument while you continue to delude yourself in claiming to know and understand more than anyone else.

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

In these philosophy classes you've taken - did you learn about what a non sequitur is?

Never mind - you clearly did not.

Am I to understand that you do not know how to differentiate between a cosmological system and a scientific theory?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Even after factoring in your intellectual level, your response is more incoherent than average.
The facts are you have failed miserably to address the two questions which completely undermine your pet theory.
First of all you haven’t been able to explain why orbits don’t fly apart for a three body problem where electromagnetic forces dominate. Your responses ranging from accusing me of being a liar to gravitational models being unable to accurately predict orbital coordinates as a justification of your pet theory reflects the intellectual level you operate at.

Similarly there is the magic plasma issue.
Once again you fail to explain why plasma plays no in the solar system yet when the plasma density is a million times less at intergalactic and cosmological scales it becomes the dominate factor.
To put this in perspective the plasma density at these scales is less than is found in extremely high laboratory vacuums.
Your nonsensical justification is to repeat the mantra that all the problems in the Universe are automatically solved by “considering” plasma without even bothering to provide a single example of how this occurs.

You are the poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect.
Your limited intellectual capacity prevents you from seeing the flaws in your own argument while you continue to delude yourself in claiming to know and understand more than anyone else.

Blah, blah, blah. If all you can do is post ad-hominem attacks then you have already lost the argument......

When people have actual reasons for disagreeing with you, they offer those reasons without hesitation. Strangers on social media will cheerfully check your facts, your logic, and your assumptions. But when you start seeing ad hominem attacks that offer no reasons at all, that might be a sign that people in the mass hysteria bubble don’t understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own.

I understand you know nothing about electromagnetism in a universe 99.9% plasma so I forgive you your ignorance!

Which is why your post contained not one scientific rebuttal to the science I presented.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Am I to understand that you do not know how to differentiate between a cosmological system and a scientific theory?

If they did they wouldn’t keep wondering why they are surprised every time they look in the telescope....

 

[sjastro]

Which is why your post contained not one scientific rebuttal to the science I presented.

You have got to be kidding.
It’s remarks like this that simply confirm the intellectual level you operate at.

The two questions I posed to you were rebuttals.
They were expressed as questions to give you the right of reply and structured so to minimize your annoying and dishonest habit of using butchered Wikipedia and other links to give any answer you want.
Your failure to address the questions is because it requires to you to do something you are unfamiliar with; to think for yourself and not hide behind irrelevant links.

The truth hurts……

Blah, blah, blah. If all you can do is post ad-hominem attacks then you have already lost the argument......

When people have actual reasons for disagreeing with you, they offer those reasons without hesitation. Strangers on social media will cheerfully check your facts, your logic, and your assumptions. But when you start seeing ad hominem attacks that offer no reasons at all, that might be a sign that people in the mass hysteria bubble don’t understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own.

Were you looking in the mirror when performing this cut and paste job?
Your inability of addressing my questions resulted in you turning the thread into an attack on my honesty.
Let’s add double standards to your resume including your trolling of various threads trying to flame individuals by claiming that tertiary qualifications are achieved by people who can’t think for themselves.
A truly pathetic example of anti intellectualism.

 

[SelfSim]

Blah, blah, blah. If all you can do is post ad-hominem attacks then you have already lost the argument......

Except there was no 'ad-hom attack' .. just observations being reported.

When people have actual reasons for disagreeing with you, they offer those reasons without hesitation.
...
But when you start seeing ad hominem attacks that offer no reasons at all,

The counter reasons were given (and there was no 'ad-hom attack'):
i) orbits fly apart in three body problems where the electromagnetic force dominates;
ii) the magic plasma problem increases over increasing scales;
iii) 'considering plasma' provides no examples tending towards dismissing arguments (i) and (ii) above.

I understand you know nothing about electromagnetism in a universe 99.9% plasma so I forgive you your ignorance!

You might 'understand' that .. but it appears your own demonstrated ignorance in this thread, leads you to that erroneous conclusion, so your overall opinion of others' knowledge, is easily dismissed on that basis alone.

Which is why your post contained not one scientific rebuttal to the science I presented.

sjastro's post contained three scientifically based rebuttals. You must have been reading some other post.

 

[SelfSim]

You have got to be kidding.
It’s remarks like this that simply confirm the intellectual level you operate at.

The two questions I posed to you were rebuttals.
They were expressed as questions to give you the right of reply and structured so to minimize your annoying and dishonest habit of using butchered Wikipedia and other links to give any answer you want.
Your failure to address the questions is because it requires to you to do something you are unfamiliar with; to think for yourself and not hide behind irrelevant links.

The truth hurts……

Even the mildly interesting link to the page on charged particles in a magnetic field goes on to explain the evolution of a spiral trajectory (not circular). So yet again, Justatruthseeker's quote mining and selective blindness serves to again undermine his own argument!

I now see what you mean when you conclude things about the intellectual 'level' of his presented counter-arguments .. (which is not an ad-hom attack on him .. because the counter-argument he raises, simply doesn't 'make the grade' in piquing any intellectual concerns).

Your inability of addressing my questions resulted in you turning the thread into an attack on my honesty.
Let’s add double standards to your resume including your trolling of various threads trying to flame individuals by claiming that tertiary qualifications are achieved by people who can’t think for themselves.
A truly pathetic example of anti intellectualism.

There is abundant evidence of these observations (and its conclusion) both in this thread, and across several other concurrent threads.
I'm thus inclined to agree .. That is, unless Justatruthseeker can demonstrate otherwise ... or apologise for his unjustified accusations? ...

 

[sjastro]

Even the mildly interesting link to the page on charged particles in a magnetic field goes on to explain the evolution of a spiral trajectory (not circular). So yet again, Justatruthseeker's quote mining and selective blindness serves to again undermine his own argument!

Note how this link was provided to support the idea that electromagnetic forces can form orbits despite the fact he clearly has zero comprehension of the link.
His level of understanding is confined to individual words; not sentences, paragraphs, chapters etc.
In this particular case he is blissfully unaware the spiral trajectory is along a uniform magnetic field where the field lines are straight as illustrated in his link.
The magnetic field surrounding objects such as atomic nuclei and stars are considerably more complicated and form dipole fields like the magnetic fields of bar magnets.
Even if it was possible to form circular orbits it was explained to him such orbits are short lived as charged particles lose energy through synchrotron radiation.

Then there is the case of observation.
Circular orbits based on gravity are in fact unstable (and rare) and the slightest perturbation can create elliptical or open ended orbits.
If electromagnetic forces can form orbits which are circular then why are these not observed in any of the star systems that have had their orbital elements measured?

I now see what you mean when you conclude things about the intellectual 'level' of his presented counter-arguments .. (which is not an ad-hom attack on him .. because the counter-argument he raises, simply doesn't 'make the grade' in piquing any intellectual concerns).

His reasoning is the plasma of the gaps argument which is a false dichotomy.
Note how he is incapable of providing one single example of how plasma works such as explaining the rotation curves of galaxies.
His ideas are purely faith based devoid of logic which is compatible with his intellectual level which places no demands on critical analysis.

There is abundant evidence of these observations (and its conclusion) both in this thread, and across several other concurrent threads.
I'm thus inclined to agree .. That is, unless Justatruthseeker can demonstrate otherwise ... or apologise for his unjustified accusations? ...

Note the common denominator where he seems to opposes any mainstream idea..............

 

[lesliedellow]

Even the mildly interesting link to the page on charged particles in a magnetic field goes on to explain the evolution of a spiral trajectory (not circular). So yet again, Justatruthseeker's quote mining and selective blindness serves to again undermine his own argument!

Why does anybody waste time on him? He is even worse than Michael when it comes to being a living breathing example of the Dunning Kruger Effect.

I gave both of them up as a lost cause long ago.

 

[tas8831]

Am I to understand that you do not know how to differentiate between a cosmological system and a scientific theory?

Am I to understand that you do not know what a non sequitur is?

 

[sjastro]

Why does anybody waste time on him? He is even worse than Michael when it comes to being a living breathing example of the Dunning Kruger Effect.

I gave both of them up as a lost cause long ago.

Michael is no longer a problem.
The only justification in dealing with the likes of these individuals is to counter the misinformation and straight out lies that some of the public not sufficiently educated might take seriously.

 

[SelfSim]

Why does anybody waste time on him? He is even worse than Michael when it comes to being a living breathing example of the Dunning Kruger Effect.

I gave both of them up as a lost cause long ago.

Michael is not around for a very specific reason, lesliedellow .. we didn't give up on him.
Cheers