Question About Pleiades and Light Speed (more specifically HD 23514)

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 13 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Well let the scientific among you jump on this! Who can say what the maximum speed that anyone can travel at? The theory of relativity is just that a theory. At one time it was said that if man travelled faster than a horse he would bleed from all his orifices and die. Ok you can say that the speed of light in known but who can say that it is the fastest speed anyone can travel. No-one in the world can say that(though they can quote their theories to try and prove you can't) or prove outright that you can. Everything under the stars is yet not known.




posted on May, 13 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: crayzeed
Well let the scientific among you jump on this! Who can say what the maximum speed that anyone can travel at? The theory of relativity is just that a theory.


Do you understand what a scientific theory is?



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   
I was writing a reply and somehow managed to lose it. It was about the same - meaning of word theory - in science theory does not mean hypothesis...



Scientific Theory
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.
* source


Yes, at the moment fastest speed we know of is speed of light, and according to theory of relativity no object (except light itself) can reach that speed.

Here is also informative video regarding planet finding on youtube:




posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed



The theory of relativity is just that a theory.


I'm REALLY getting tired of this crap. A scientific theory is NOT 'just a theory'.

A scientific theory is a demonstrably accurate explanation for some phenomenon.



At one time it was said that if man travelled faster than a horse he would bleed from all his orifices and die.


That was not a scientific theory, because it was demonstrably not accurate. It was in fact, one person's excuse for why he didn't think the automobile was a good idea. In other words it had nothing to do with science and everything to do with propaganda.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   
WHAT!! Let me explain. A theory is a conclusion that someone has arrived at with the evidence at his disposal at the time of his investigation. IT IS NOT A FACT. Theories stand or fall with the current evidence till other conflicting evidence shows up to change the theory. People throughout the centuries have put forward theories that they and their friends believed to be cast iron truth. Get the fact"till proven false". Just because we modern people vainly think that we are at the end of scientific knowledge does not detract that theories are only theories until someone comes along to prove them erroneous or plainly wrong. Theory is not fact no matter how clever or educated that theorist is.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed

Given your own explanation we can relate that to the speed of light:

It's possible(given what evidence we have) that we can approach the speed of light but never reach it.

It's possible(given what evidence we have) that we can approach an absolute fact but never reach it.

So, we can be 99.9% certain on something, but that doesn't mean it can be dismissed as 'just a theory.'



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

To your first 2 statements add yet to the ends. To your last statement. No-one knows when you've reached 99.5% of the evidence you're again assuming the figure. Who knows that in the future they find out that our level of knowledge of the theory of light (at this time now)has only been 25% of what they know then. You are assuming as they did in the middle ages that "the now" knowledge is the pinnacle(using your quote of 99.5%) of what is known fact. As I said before no-one can,or even claim to, know any fact as 100% true and correct. It's that small percentage that comes and bites ones ass to alter(notice I say alter not disprove) any theory thereby proving a theory is not a fact and can be altered updated or even proved completely erroneous.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed

But until any theory is proved erroneous we need to accept it as it is. That's how it works. If it's wrong, we prove it wrong and come up with a new theory.

Hypothesis--->Test--->Theory--->Repeat

A theory is based on results. If you think it's wrong then test it and show us, write a paper, publish it in Nature. But don't dismiss the hard work of the thousands of people who've shown us the information as nothing. It may be incomplete, but a theory is the best we have at this point, it's not something you should just dismiss.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I don't think it has anything to do with our concept of time, or the conventional age of the constellations.

They don't know the age.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
The Pleiades Problem

From the thunderbolt website.


All of the older methods of determining the distance to the stars involve assumptions based on either the theory of nuclear stars or the theory of gravity (or both). But from an Electric Universe point of view, stars are powered by galactic electric currents, not nuclear furnaces. And gravity isn't a constant, but a variable dependent on electrical characteristics.

The question we need to ask is how the electric currents of a cluster of stars are different from those of single stars. With many stars to share a current, will the individual stars seem brighter or dimmer than their non-clustered neighbors? Will the double stars in a cluster orbit each other under the influence of a different gravitational constant?
....

He also showed that this excess of redshift in younger objects applies to a smaller extent to stars - bluer, hotter stars have higher redshifts than redder, cooler stars


In layman's terms. Red shift in a nuclear cooling, universe, the conventional model, gives them a chance to age something. And hotter, more energetic, blue energy is often perceived as immature stars.

But....in the Electric Universe Grid, the problems with red shift have pointed out that their models are probably not accurate.

So, in a grid or area that is very cooperative as if they're a little circuit themselves, in a larger network, our hub, which includes Pleiades and our own solar system, one could suggest that that Highly Energetic System is a Master Input Source for our Hub.....

ie, if you take this a little further, and follow David Bohm, Phd, and his look into atoms and holographic universe theory, and other coordinating works and theories. You'd have a concept that Pleiades is inputting Source Code and perhaps, Spiritual Assistance, from the Higher Universe that this is a copy of or mirror of.

Now, things change a bit then, and the Pleiadians can now be seen as Angel Ets, which they are.

The system itself in our story/floor/of the building/universe we're in, has quite a lot of dark brown dwarfs, which in a duality system of Love/Power, Light/Dark, Wings/Gravity, shows us the Love of Power, Dark side and Gravity.

So some of the players that could have been negative can still come from that system too, on lower levels.

We have a lot of bad in our solar system, but also I imagine a lot of Good.

So, Higher Realm is streaming in through those Highly Energetic Stars.

I'm very attracted to pleione. I read in lore it was considered "mother" to other stars. As a Cancer, Mom and having Mother's Energy of Equality for some reason, was pleased to see that after doing a search on pleione.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit

originally posted by: bhaal
An astronomical unit is a unit of measurement equal to 149.6 million kilometers, the mean distance from the center of the earth to the center of the sun.

1 light year = 63 239.7263 Astronomical Units.


That's right, and I knew that, too. I looked up a light year and I think the source referred to it as "An astronomical unit of measure", which can also apply to a parsec. It was confusing at the moment.






1 parsec = 3.2616 light year (roughly)

We use parsecs amongst ourselves in astronomy.

lightyears are used to convey distances to the general public since they're more well known and help educate people as to just how vast space is.


a parsec has to be about the dumbest unit of measure ever. that is unless there is a secret to why it was picked or created. to layman it seems not only arbitrary but not particularly useful unit because of the decimals. why not 3 light years or 4 or 5? and anyway it confused george lucas and then han solo who thought it was a unit of time.


it seems like it might have been an Inaccurate guess as to the ditance to alpha proxima or perhaps between two well known stars by angular distance calculation.
edit on 20-6-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit

originally posted by: bhaal
An astronomical unit is a unit of measurement equal to 149.6 million kilometers, the mean distance from the center of the earth to the center of the sun.

1 light year = 63 239.7263 Astronomical Units.


That's right, and I knew that, too. I looked up a light year and I think the source referred to it as "An astronomical unit of measure", which can also apply to a parsec. It was confusing at the moment.






1 parsec = 3.2616 light year (roughly)

We use parsecs amongst ourselves in astronomy.

lightyears are used to convey distances to the general public since they're more well known and help educate people as to just how vast space is.


a parsec has to be about the dumbest unit of measure ever. that is unless there is a secret to why it was picked or created. to layman it seems not only arbitrary but not particularly useful unit because of the decimals. why not 3 light years or 4 or 5? and anyway it confused george lucas and then han solo who thought it was a unit of time.


it seems like it might have been an Inaccurate guess as to the ditance to alpha proxima or perhaps between two well known stars by angular distance calculation.


Actually the name "parsec" is derived from the words Parallax and Arcsecond.

It was first used in publication back in 1913 by Astronomer Frank Dyson. Herbert Turner actually came up with the name. Dyson wanted to use the term "astron"

The distance is derived at measuring what the distance of an object would be that has exactly 1 arcsecond of parallax from the sun.

As you showed, the closest star is further than that....meaning that it has more than 1 arcsecond of parallax. If there were such an object (one that had exactly 1 arcsecond of parallax) then that is how far it would be: 3.2616 light years.

Parallax is used to determine the distance of stars up to a certain distance (I believe it's somewhere between 1,500 to 2,000 light years).



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Aside from the most obvious, Electric Universe, following into the works of Keely, Tesla, Walter Russel and so many more, the holographic one, streaming out from a higher plain also seems to have proponents and some evidence:

www.phys.washington.edu...

Both change what is thought about Pleiades alot.
edit on 20-6-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Unity_99
Aside from the most obvious, Electric Universe, following into the works of Keely, Tesla, Walter Russel and so many more, the holographic one, streaming out from a higher plain also seems to have proponents and some evidence:

www.phys.washington.edu...

Both change what is thought about Pleiades alot.


No it doesn't. You completely misunderstand what is being researched at that link.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar

No I don't. It tells us our age is all wrong. And there's another thing, in an electrical circuit and considering our area is a neighborhood, what is the input system going to be like? More highly energetic.

Or on the internet, with all the little towns and smaller cities wired up, stars as hubs?

The point is, we're not viewing this in the actual way it is.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Unity_99
a reply to: JadeStar

The point is, we're not viewing this in the actual way it is.

And the Electric Universe theorists, of course, know the actual way the universe works. Ancient hieroglyphs and cave paintings told them.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 03:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit

originally posted by: bhaal
An astronomical unit is a unit of measurement equal to 149.6 million kilometers, the mean distance from the center of the earth to the center of the sun.

1 light year = 63 239.7263 Astronomical Units.


That's right, and I knew that, too. I looked up a light year and I think the source referred to it as "An astronomical unit of measure", which can also apply to a parsec. It was confusing at the moment.






1 parsec = 3.2616 light year (roughly)

We use parsecs amongst ourselves in astronomy.

lightyears are used to convey distances to the general public since they're more well known and help educate people as to just how vast space is.


a parsec has to be about the dumbest unit of measure ever. that is unless there is a secret to why it was picked or created. to layman it seems not only arbitrary but not particularly useful unit because of the decimals. why not 3 light years or 4 or 5?


That's a pretty silly argument. They are two completely different units, derived by completely different methods.

You might as well say, 1cm = 0.393700787 inches. That seems not only arbitrary but not particularly useful because of all the decimals. Why not 0.39 or 0.4 or 0.5? Or 1?




posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit

originally posted by: bhaal
An astronomical unit is a unit of measurement equal to 149.6 million kilometers, the mean distance from the center of the earth to the center of the sun.

1 light year = 63 239.7263 Astronomical Units.


That's right, and I knew that, too. I looked up a light year and I think the source referred to it as "An astronomical unit of measure", which can also apply to a parsec. It was confusing at the moment.






1 parsec = 3.2616 light year (roughly)

We use parsecs amongst ourselves in astronomy.

lightyears are used to convey distances to the general public since they're more well known and help educate people as to just how vast space is.


a parsec has to be about the dumbest unit of measure ever. that is unless there is a secret to why it was picked or created. to layman it seems not only arbitrary but not particularly useful unit because of the decimals. why not 3 light years or 4 or 5?


That's a pretty silly argument. They are two completely different units, derived by completely different methods.

You might as well say, 1cm = 0.393700787 inches. That seems not only arbitrary but not particularly useful because of all the decimals. Why not 0.39 or 0.4 or 0.5? Or 1?


In fact, it is the inch that is completely arbitrary and confusing. One of the earliest definitions for an inch is "three grains of barley, dry and round, placed end to end, lengthwise". Before the adoption of the metric system, several European countries had customary units whose name translates into "inch". en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Unity_99
a reply to: JadeStar

No I don't. It tells us our age is all wrong. And there's another thing, in an electrical circuit and considering our area is a neighborhood, what is the input system going to be like? More highly energetic.

Or on the internet, with all the little towns and smaller cities wired up, stars as hubs?

The point is, we're not viewing this in the actual way it is.


Sorry I don't have time for Velikovsky derived psuedo-science.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join