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: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I don't believe in any magical theory. I'm just trying to think outside the box. Through ideas out there.

Clearly the way we look the universe is missing about 80%....so it is time to look from a different perspective.




posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod
I'd like to find the rest of the universe which is missing too, and I'm open to statements and ideas which might help us find it. But saying "light isn't traveling anywhere" when we can measure the speed of light, meaning it is traveling, isn't helping, is it?

To use another analogy you probably won't like, it's like saying "elephants float in the air like balloons". Both that and the "light doesn't travel anywhere" statements seem like absolute nonsense, contradicted by observation because we can see that elephants don't float like balloons and we can see that light does travel somewhere, so these statements do nothing to help us understand the universe better.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 02:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I don't believe in any magical theory. I'm just trying to think outside the box. Through ideas out there.

Clearly the way we look the universe is missing about 80%....so it is time to look from a different perspective.
I don't agree with the EU theory one bit.
imo what is missing is the understanding of universe's own time and would be a step in the right direction, if any effort is made towards it.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 05:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
imo what is missing is the understanding of universe's own time and would be a step in the right direction, if any effort is made towards it.


Would an understanding of the universe's own time explain what causes gravity?



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 06:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: Nochzwei
imo what is missing is the understanding of universe's own time and would be a step in the right direction, if any effort is made towards it.


Would an understanding of the universe's own time explain what causes gravity?
certainly it would



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

Wal Thornhill of the Thunderbolts Project:


Gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons. [18]

www.holoscience.com...


How does your theory explain it better?



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 06:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


But saying "light isn't traveling anywhere" when we can measure the speed of light, meaning it is traveling, isn't helping, is it?

Maybe it's not helping. This is a bit of semantics though. I believe the point being conveyed is that light is not like a substance that moves from a to b.

In the water wave analogy, how far does a water molecule travel? It's the energy that's travelling, not the water.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: Nochzwei

Wal Thornhill of the Thunderbolts Project:


Gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons. [18]

www.holoscience.com...


How does your theory explain it better?
Lol. I do not read any EU crap.
time coupled dark matter is responsible for graviy. I may publish it someday.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lol. I do not read any EU crap.

Then how do you know it's crap?



time coupled dark matter is responsible for graviy.

Oh. That matter that's assumed to exist because it has to.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
Maybe it's not helping. This is a bit of semantics though. I believe the point being conveyed is that light is not like a substance that moves from a to b.
I didn't call it a "substance", but it definitely moves from point a to point b.


In the water wave analogy, how far does a water molecule travel? It's the energy that's travelling, not the water.
In the water wave analogy, the fabric of space-time (or new aether as Einstein once called it) would be the water, and light moves through the space-time fabric as waves moves through the water.

This is not semantics as in subtle definitions, these are completely different terms and concepts which shouldn't be confused.
edit on 15-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



But saying "light isn't traveling anywhere" when we can measure the speed of light, meaning it is traveling, isn't helping, is it?


EM waves do not travel like particle does. Electrons change position, EM field changes magnitude.

What you measure is the time it takes for EM field to reconfigure, change it's value, the information propagates with the speed C so if you change it in point A (emit light) it takes T time till this information propagates to point B and you detect the EM wave at point B

Anyone who describes EM field as something that moves has no clue and should stick to Discovery Channel !



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lol. I do not read any EU crap.

Then how do you know it's crap?



time coupled dark matter is responsible for graviy.

Oh. That matter that's assumed to exist because it has to.

I do not waste my time reading EU nonsense. I say because im educated and choose wt I should read.

Yes.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I'd like to find the rest of the universe which is missing too, and I'm open to statements and ideas which might help us find it.

abolutely not, anyone crawling through your posts will clearly see that you contradict EVERYTHING, particulary even stuff you claimed in other threads, as long as someone else mentiones it.
its safe to say that you dont have any interest in finding anything thats not backed up by what your told.


But saying "light isn't traveling anywhere" when we can measure the speed of light, meaning it is traveling, isn't helping, is it?

purposely misinterpreting again?
its obvious that if light propagates through an ether, it most likely wont do so instantaneously...
just like a wave transports energy, instead of moving the water in the actual direction of propagation.
basically its not really moving anywhere, its more like a loala-wave passing on the "push" from one participant to the next.
c is just the velocity of the wave in the ether-medium, similar to sound in the air for example.


Both that and the "light doesn't travel anywhere" statements seem like absolute nonsense

to put this into perspective: makes no sense if you dont have any clue what your arguing against, or purposely ignore the fundamental thought of a model.
even tho it explicitly says an gasoline or liquid spacetime-foam is to be assumed.
so yeah, obviously the latter again.


contradicted by observation

as is the asumption gravity alone could form the cosmos.
ockham would turn in his grave, if he knew we made up an esoteric force, instead of taking fundamental forces other than gravity into account.
edit on 15-7-2014 by Dolour because: moar typos



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
I do not waste my time reading EU nonsense. I say because im educated and choose wt I should read.

Yes.


Now I know what to expect from you




posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma
So, let me see if I understand this, you're saying that light is going from point A (let's say the sun) to point B (let's say the Earth) without traveling from point A to point B?

If the light wasn't traveling from the sun to the Earth, wouldn't it still be at the sun where it was created?

And yes I think the Discovery channel once said that light travels from the sun to the Earth in about 8 minutes. At the time I didn't think it was wrong, but now you're saying the Discovery channel is wrong too?


originally posted by: Dolour
its safe to say that you dont have any interest in finding anything thats not backed up by what your told.
There's an ATS member working on a dark matter detector, I think his team might stand a chance of finding dark matter, though only time will tell.

I fail to see how saying "light doesn't travel" will help us find dark matter.

edit on 15-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



So, let me see if I understand this, you're saying that light is going from point A (let's say the sun) to point B (let's say the Earth) without traveling from point A to point B? If the light wasn't traveling from the sun to the Earth, wouldn't it still be at the sun where it was created?



what discovery Channel didn't told you is how EM wave propagates.

It takes 8 min for the information to get to us but the EM Field near the Sun didn't moved to us.
EM Field you and I are in is 8 minutes from the EM Field near the sun away.
This is of course one and the same EM Field,

here, a distance as letters
a b c d e f g h
from point A to H there is a distance of 6
now, if A changes in value, this information goes to B, it changes, than it goes to c..... till it is on H, 7 time units from A to H
but A is not moving to H !
a b c d e f g h stay where they are, information propagates

BTW there is also a big misunderstanding how electricity works, everyone talks about electrons moving.
Yes they do, but not at the speed of light like E Field propagates.
If I remember right the electrons in the wire move something about 15cm a minute
edit on 15-7-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-7-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
I do not waste my time reading EU nonsense. I say because im educated and choose wt I should read.


You're going by the term "electric universe" and rejecting that out of hand?



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: Nochzwei
I do not waste my time reading EU nonsense. I say because im educated and choose wt I should read.


You're going by the term "electric universe" and rejecting that out of hand?
more or less as it implies that electricity, magnetism, electromagnetism is connected or responsible for gravity, which is certainly not the case, by any or even wild stretch of imagination.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: Nochzwei
I do not waste my time reading EU nonsense. I say because im educated and choose wt I should read.

Yes.


Now I know what to expect from you

Lol. why should you expect anything from anyone.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
]There's an ATS member working on a dark matter detector, I think his team might stand a chance of finding dark matter, though only time will tell.

I fail to see how saying "light doesn't travel" will help us find dark matter.

i think you fail to see the initial dilema.
sciences authoroties refuse to take electric effects into account whatsoever.
in astronomy the ONLY factors that is considered having an effect at all, is gravity.
there are some guys who managed to not get kicked out and still work on a model of electrical influence, but the vast vast vast majority of astronomy deliberately REFUSES to take it into account.

wich is totally illogical, granted darn 99,99% the matter in the visible universe is plasma!
IF you now do take electricity, and therefore magnetic effects caused by flowing current, into account(wich would be the logical assumtion) you dont have a NEED for this obscure unseen, undetected(the attempts to do so might very well turn out futile) matter anymore.

now im not saying this would be the holy grale or something, but theese are logical assumptions that have to be taken into account, and mustnt be deliberatly ignored.

edit on 15-7-2014 by Dolour because: moar typos




top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join