It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Astronomers Need Electric Theory Training

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dolour
plotting an "8.85x10^14gm proton" would make no sense
So what is the mass of the Schwarzschild proton he plotted? Do you agree it's larger than the "standard proton" mass on the plot, and what is that standard proton mass, the actual measured mass of the proton in experiment?
edit on 8-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
There's really no need to defend Haramein's credibility, just watch the video of his presentation about a sungrazing comet and how it allegedly "jumped" across space in an instant. You can hear his audience go "woooow!" But examining the original footage of the comet reveals that Haramein removed a frame or two from the footage, with the purpose of wooing his audience and selling his brand of snake oil.

www.youtube.com...


Haramein has _no_ credibility. rationalwiki.org...



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace
Like his proton paper, the video is self-debunking. He says "We shouldn't be here" (If what he claims is true). But we are here, hence what he claims is not true. At least one of his audience members was astute enough to recognize this. Why would anyone need to debunk him when he debunks himself so well?

Same with his paper, he plots the actual proton mass and his "predicted" proton mass on the same graph showing there aren't even close.There's no need for anybody else to show his predicted value of proton mass is false, he does that for us in his own paper, hence, self-debunking.

The rational wiki article wasn't too kind to his followers but they do need to be lacking cognitive ability to not appreciate the fact we are still here, so something is obviously wrong with Haramein's claim that "we shouldn't be here".




posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 06:20 AM
link   

So what is the mass of the Schwarzschild proton he plotted? Do you agree it's larger than the "standard proton" mass on the plot, and what is that standard proton mass, the actual measured mass of the proton in experiment?

the "standard proton mass" is garbage, bc its NOWHERE near the measured value.
he did not plot the measured proton, its even called "standard proton" instead of "measured or reference proton"...

allso: "Using the radius of a standard proton (0.8775 x 10-13 cm), he obtains a value of 1.603498 x 10-24 g, namely a 4% difference with relation to the value of the proton mass.
Using the new value of the radius of a muonic proton (0.84184 x 10-13 cm), he obtains 1.6714213 x 10-24 g, that is, a difference of 0.07% with relation to the proton mass reference (1.672622 x 10-24 g)."

everything you brought up so far, can be found in debunk-papers written by guys like this "bob", who clearly talk a big pile of BS, totally differing from the actual writings content.
shame on you... seriously, shame on you mr scientist!


There's really no need to defend Haramein's credibility

i dont care if this guy believes in flying spaghetti monsters, poseidon being the supreme ruler of the 7seas or whatever, what i DO care for is the MATH part!
yet i havent seen any valid complaint regarding his math, but lots and lots of yelling about him being a weirdo for not sharing the offenders believe system.
weaksauce... bring proof if you can! mathematical proove!


just watch the video of his presentation about a sungrazing comet and how it allegedly "jumped" across space in an instant.

first of all, this stuff isnt recorded in real time. nowhere does he say anything about the object in question "jumping"
anywhere, but that this solar flare apparently altered its course.
at that point it becomes apparent that this is, again, some sort of really lame discrediting attempt, that doesent
even match what the "victim" says...

unsuprisingly you managed to avoid the basic question, wich is:
how can an object well above the size of jupiter cross the solar system without causing major catastrophies?
...and how can that occour without public notice? wheres the "giant comet travels through solar system!" headline?


Like his proton paper, the video is self-debunking. He says "We shouldn't be here" (If what he claims is true).

o contraire, up to this point all your defraud attempts on the proton-paper have miserably failed.
the only thing that was proven, is you just quoting this bob guy, who himself has either no clue(his poor pupils, lol) at all or is purposely talking BS.
(the latter is more likely imho, bc i refuse to believe anyone could be THAT dumb.)


He says "We shouldn't be here" (If what he claims is true). But we are here, hence what he claims is not true.

how irritatingly illogic, especially for someone whos questioning others sanity...
theres only 2 logical conclusions here really:
1. the object wasnt anywhere as big as proposed.
- to me this thing appears to be really big indeed, taken the size of the solar-disc, the objects trajectory and speed into account.
without knowing the distance from the probe to the object its hard to tell tho...
2. the object did not cause gravitational effects one would expect from something that size, wich implies an artificial origin.
- the assumption an object that size may be artificial appear weired indeed, but consider that even for our civilization, the concept of for example a deison-sphere is allready more than half a cenury old(thats just an example)...
i suggest you google up "aerial battle over nuremberg in 1561" and rethink how crazy this really is.


Same with his paper, he plots the actual proton mass and his "predicted" proton mass on the same graph showing there aren't even close.

see top of the post...
do you think, just a thought, if wed throw some cash into a pot to sponsor you some reading lessons(since you nowhere admitted that you were blatantly lying when you claimed you'd read the darn thing), would you make use of them, for the sake of keeping the garbagepost level to a minimum?


The rational wiki article wasn't too kind to his followers but they do need to be lacking cognitive ability to not appreciate the fact we are still here,

wow insults again, how original...
whats with some facts that dont crumble at even a quick look for a change?
distracting from the origininal "message" again?
wich is: "hey, we didnt expirience any shifts in planetary orbits, any huge tides or something, even tho this vast object traveled the solar system!
be darn happy it wasnt an ordinary planet or youd most likely be dead by now!"


edit on 9-7-2014 by Dolour because: moar typos



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dolour
the "standard proton mass" is garbage, bc its NOWHERE near the measured value.
he did not plot the measured proton, its even called "standard proton" instead of "measured or reference proton"...

allso: "Using the radius of a standard proton (0.8775 x 10-13 cm), he obtains a value of 1.603498 x 10-24 g, namely a 4% difference with relation to the value of the proton mass.
Using the new value of the radius of a muonic proton (0.84184 x 10-13 cm), he obtains 1.6714213 x 10-24 g, that is, a difference of 0.07% with relation to the proton mass reference (1.672622 x 10-24 g)."
I asked you:
-"what is the mass of the Schwarzschild proton he plotted?"
I don't see an answer. As you can see from the chart below, it's 8.89E+14 g, the figure you keep denying.

I asked you about the standard proton, you answered that but you answered wrong:
"what is that standard proton mass, the actual measured mass of the proton in experiment?"
You said "he did not plot the measured proton". What did he plot for the standard proton mass?
1.67E-24 g, see table below from his paper.

According to Wikipedia that's the measured value of the proton's mass.

Proton: Mass 1.672621777(74)×10−27 kg
which is the same value Haramein used of 1.67E-24 g except it has more significant digits and you have to convert the units but it comes out essentially the same.

So the mass of the Schwarzschild proton, from Haramein's Table 1 below (8.89E+14g) is greater than the measured mass of the proton (1.67E-24g) also from from Haramein's Table 1 below, is not different by 0.07%, it's greater by a factor of

532335329340000000000000000000000000000. (8.89E+14g/1.67E-24g)

hiup.org...


If you have any cognitive ability you should be ale to confirm Haramein's proton mass is larger than the measured proton mass by a factor of 532335329340000000000000000000000000000, and not "off by 0.07%".

Haramein then makes a claim about accelerating protons to relativistic velocities increasing their effective mass, which in effect is what we do at the LHC, and at the LHC, the proton does appear to gain what could be called "relativistic mass" of over 10,000 times greater than the mass of a proton at rest, but you see we know this because we've measured the mass of a proton in various ways so we know what it is before it's accelerated at the LHC and after it's accelerated at the LHC.

The claim that Haramein's predicted proton mass is greater by a factor of 532335329340000000000000000000000000000 than the actual, measured proton mass due to relativistic velocity of the proton isn't consistent with any measured values of the proton mass where we know the velocity of the proton.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I asked you:
-"what is the mass of the Schwarzschild proton he plotted?"
I don't see an answer. As you can see from the chart below, it's 8.89E+14 g, the figure you keep denying.

the explanation is directly below the very chart youve just linked(in the .pdf, your bob-source may vary).
he accounts mass-dialation caused by spin for it, with the conlusion that only a fraction of c would be required.
an assumtion that is absolutely coherent, even mandatory for the thesis, if theres no "strong force" contributing to the mass of matter.

btw, quote from wiki: "The rest mass of the proton is, thus, the invariant mass of the system of moving quarks and gluons that make up the particle"
in "case" you didnt knew, mainstream science pretty much does the same thing.

i fail to see your argument at all, considering that the standard-models proton being a #load of magnitudes farther away from what we observe in our makro reality in the first place, and that MSC is working with far more "esoteric forces" applied to make the model work. *tard*
a fact you keep ignoring even tho its been pointed out multiple times, awsome that you just leave out stuff that doesent help your case(again).


I asked you about the standard proton, you answered that but you answered wrong:
According to Wikipedia that's the measured value of the Proton: Mass 1.672621777(74)×10−27 kg which is the same value Haramein used of 1.67E-24 g except it has more significant digits and you have to convert the units but it comes out essentially the same.

quote from wikipedia: "most recent calculations claim that the mass is determined to better than 4% accuracy"
where does it say something about measured values?
its the way i sayd, he plotted the mathematically derived standard proton.


So the mass of the Schwarzschild proton, from Haramein's Table 1 below (8.89E+14g) is greater than the measured mass of the proton (1.67E-24g) also from from Haramein's Table 1 below, is not different by 0.07%, it's greater by a factor of 532335329340000000000000000000000000000. (8.89E+14g/1.67E-24g)

quoted from 2 posts above: "allso: "Using the radius of a standard proton (0.8775 x 10-13 cm), he obtains a value of 1.603498 x 10-24 g, namely a 4% difference with relation to the value of the proton mass.
Using the new value of the radius of a muonic proton (0.84184 x 10-13 cm), he obtains 1.6714213 x 10-24 g, that is, a difference of 0.07% with relation to the proton mass reference (1.672622 x 10-24 g)."

totally twisted my words again, thats obviously the only thing you can do.
i obviously didnt refer to that graph, and sayd multiple times allready that the estimated mass of the proton would be 4.98x10^55gm according to the paper.
what he plotted was the minimum mass required for a proton to obey the schwarzschild condition.


If you have any cognitive ability you should be ale to confirm Haramein's proton mass is larger than the measured proton mass by a factor of 532335329340000000000000000000000000000, and not "off by 0.07%".

we should get serious about those reading lessons... see above.


Haramein then makes a claim about accelerating protons to relativistic velocities increasing their effective mass, which in effect is what we do at the LHC, and at the LHC, the proton does appear to gain what could be called "relativistic mass" of over 10,000 times greater than the mass of a proton at rest, but you see we know this because we've measured the mass of a proton in various ways so we know what it is before it's accelerated at the LHC and after it's accelerated at the LHC.

so youeve read relativistic and instantly thought "z0mg speed of lightz0rz!!!"? lawl.
i got news for you: the stated "1.88x10^-39 less than c" is only a tiiiiiiiny weeeeny lille fraction of the speed of light.
again, twisted words and nonsense, pointing at "scientific stuff the average user has no clue about"...


The claim that Haramein's predicted proton mass is greater by a factor of 532335329340000000000000000000000000000 than the actual, measured proton mass due to relativistic velocity of the proton isn't consistent with any measured values of the proton mass where we know the velocity of the proton.

getting back to lesson one again? forgot to apply the archimedic pricliple? ...again?
totally forgot about the rediculous ammount of vaccum energy?
...the very essence of the whole theorem you argue against?
scientist... lawl...

edit on 9-7-2014 by Dolour because: moar typos



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dolour
i fail to see your argument at all, considering that the standard-models proton being a #load of magnitudes farther away from what we observe in our makro reality in the first place
The standard model doesn't predict a mass for the proton. It's a measured value, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Haramein's value doesn't match the measured value so it's certainly not the same.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The standard model doesn't predict a mass for the proton. It's a measured value, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Haramein's value doesn't match the measured value so it's certainly not the same.

en.wikipedia.org...
hf reading, i even quoted parts of it in the same post you replied to.
sure you dont want any reading lessons?

/edit: physicists here in germany have a saying: "Wer misst, misst Mist."
wich means as much as "whos measuring, is measuring crap."
how in the WORLD do you, as a renown scientist(lawl), get the idea something like a proton mass reference could EVER be the result of measurments?
if anything, you do a measurment to see if it falls anywhere close to the predicted... -.-

edit on 9-7-2014 by Dolour because: moar typos



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Dolour
If you're talking about this

en.wikipedia.org...

A proton has a mass of approximately 938 MeV/c2, of which the rest mass of its three valence quarks contributes only about 11 MeV/c2; much of the remainder can be attributed to the gluons' QCBE.
the larger figure of 938 MeV/c2 is already the same value as Haramein used for the standard proton, so there's no reason Haramen's value should be any larger than this, in fact it should match, not be 532335329340000000000000000000000000000 times larger. If you want to compare Haramein's mass to the mass of the quarks, then the discrepancy becomes even larger:

938/11 x 532335329340000000000000000000000000000

So referring to this only makes Haramen's value worse, it doesn't help.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Arbitrageur
what part of "the mass total of 4.98x10^55gm includes vacuum energy, wich is usually renormalized" is it you didnt understand?
thats like the basic thing hes saying: "if you allso consider vaccum energy the ammount is staggering! way more than needed to meet schwarzschild condition."
just to give a quick review in case youve allreay forgotten the basic topic again... -.-

WHAT is it you dont anderstand with that?
WHAT is unreasonable with pointing out that the QF portion should NOT be ignored?
and WHY would that not be correct if the equation gives you that result?

i cant find any mistakes on how he derives his PSU, its plain simple.
same as stacking as many of them into a protons volume as possible, and adding them to obtain a total.
again, so simple a trained monkey could do that!

btw, a similar way was used, melting sample ice cubes and stacking them, to derive the suns energy-output, to astonishing accuracy.
its one of sciences most "sophisticated" methods and a proovenly viable one!

again: if the equation says "its that way!" then either falsify the equation or deal with the result.
other models not taking QF into account do NOT change theese results.
staggering to unbelievable(yay nuclear power, huh?) or not. period.
i choose to trust numbers over personal oppinions.
edit on 9-7-2014 by Dolour because: moar typos



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Dolour

Haramein also has a new paper, "Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass."

I don't know how it would compare to Thornhill's idea that gravity is part of the electric force.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
Haramein also has a new paper, "Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass."
I don't know how it would compare to Thornhill's idea that gravity is part of the electric force.

oh sweet, many thnx!
moar stuff to read into is allways appretiated.

you might coincidentially allso have a link to thornhills paper(s)?
google brings up all kinds of stuff named thornhill, just nothing related to physics... :p
im actually intreagued to have a whack on weather there be any intersections.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Dolour

This is not a paper but it's an article from his website explaining his thinking on gravity: "Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe."

He published a paper in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Sciences in 2007, "The Z-Pinch Morphology of Supernova 1987A and Electric Stars." He also has an article about the content on his website "Supernova 1987A Decoded."



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dolour
again: if the equation says "its that way!" then either falsify the equation or deal with the result.
The measured mass of the proton falsifies the equation, because it's 532335329340000000000000000000000000000 times smaller than what Haramein's math shows, and his relativistic mass explanation doesn't explain the discrepancy, of you can even call a factor of 532335329340000000000000000000000000000 a "discrepancy", because we van evaluate the "relativistic mass" of the proton at different velocities including those at the LHC, and none of them experimentally match or can be projected in any way the mass in Haramein's paper.

It's summed up here:


edit on 9-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   

because we van evaluate the "relativistic mass" of the proton

and thats what he does, amoungst other things, in his paper.
its really not my fault that you cant solve equations, and since you dont seem interested in reading into the stuff you argue about(inevitably talking bs torn out of context) i doubt youll ever even figure what you misunderstood.

again the 532335329340000000000000000000000000000 times proton energy is a TOTAL, his "rest mass" calculations of the proton matches the one you keep babbling about.
it is NOT to be compared or confused with any wheigt-measurments(that would be the REST mass, not the TOTAL).
...wich youd know if you had read the paper, but lets not have facts ruin a good story.

/edit: @Mary Rose: thnx again, ill do a sweep soonish.
/edit2: btw, feynman quotes... (you ignored your share allready during the discussion, and now bring quotes yourself? letz try again.).

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.
Albert Einstein"

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'
Max Planck"

edit on 11-7-2014 by Dolour because: couldnt resist...



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   
In the Thunderbolts Project Picture of the Day today about Saturn:


. . . instances of electrical discoveries in planetary environments, NASA scientists can only see internal pressure, centrifugal force, and “gas flow.” Of course, they are aware that plasma makes up more than 99% of the visible Universe, but they have yet to consider the role of charge distribution within the plasma of space. Instead, a charge-neutral Solar System is held up as the sine qua non of theoretical speculation.

www.thunderbolts.info...


A better approach:


Electrical theorists argue that Saturn moves within the plasmasphere of the Sun and interacts with the Sun’s electric field. Planets and moons in the Solar System are charged bodies. They are not isolated in “empty” space, but “converse” electrically with each other. Enceladus, Dione and Tethys all move within the plasmasphere of Saturn, so it is only to be expected that they would transact electrically with their primary. The simplest, most straightforward explanation for the charged particle acceleration is electric discharge, so there is no need to conjure implausible internal dynamics to account for them.

www.thunderbolts.info...



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   

"Instead, Saturn’s atmosphere is said to reflect X-rays from the Sun, although the science team admitted when the discovery was made that the intensity of the “reflections” was “surprising.”

lol, 90mw worth of x-rays reflected by saturn...
THANK GOD those xrays didnt bother about hitting earth on their way through the solar system. *tard*

i really dont get how they can deny electromagnetsism being at least an "infuential factor" in the face of saturns polar phenomena.


edit on 11-7-2014 by Dolour because: moar typos



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Mel Acheson of the Thunderbolts Project:

"Plasma is more complex than gravity; there are many more possibilities. Gravity is tinker toys; plasma is architecture. Gravity has only attraction to work with - collapse and collision are the extent of its repertoire. To get anything to move the other way, it must resort to a ballistic response of a small fraction of the energy of a collision. Plasma has both attraction and repulsion at its disposal. Even the attraction comes in two flavors - pulling toward a center, like gravity, but also pulling toward an axis, like a Birkeland current or ring current. In addition, plasma inducts and transmits energy; it spins things; it sorts constituents, and it grows instabilities. Gravity usually operates under conditions of equilibrium and continuity. Plasma usually operates under conditions that are far from equilibrium. . . . "

Beginning at 19:58:

edit on 07/11/14 by Mary Rose because: Typo



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   
It wouldn't hurt a lot of people to become more familiar with how electricity works. Particularly the way it doesn't traverse a vacuum, and the way it neutralizes after a discharge. Then maybe they wouldn't come up with such ridiculous ideas about it.



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
It wouldn't hurt a lot of people to become more familiar with how electricity works. Particularly the way it doesn't traverse a vacuum, and the way it neutralizes after a discharge. Then maybe they wouldn't come up with such ridiculous ideas about it.

letz not forget to mention that we really need to reevaluate our concept of electromagnetism in general!
"Relativistic Maxwellian electrodynamics does not conform to the first relativity principle."
maxwells equations are most likely incorrect, wich doesent really help understanding an eventually electric driven universe.


/edit: by Sir Oliver Lodge

“..it may be that when the structure of an electron is understood, we shall see that an ‘even-powered’ stress in the surrounding aether is necessarily involved. What I do feel instinctively is that this is the direction for discovery, and what is needed is something internal and intrinsic, and that all attempts to explain gravitation as due to the action of some external agency, whether flying particles or impinging waves, are doomed to failure; for all these speculations regard the atom as a foreign substance — a sort of ‘grit’ in the aether — driven hither and thither by forces alien to itself. When, some day, we understand the real relation between matter and aether, I venture to predict that we shall perceive something more satisfying than that.” [11]

i think hes particulary wrong on this one.
if we assume an aether we need some external force to act uppon it, or it will just sit there.
thats what planck meant when he sayd "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force..."

edit on 12-7-2014 by Dolour because: couldnt resist...




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join