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.

 

Dwarf Galaxies Call Standard Model Into Question

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The power source is staring you in the face - push the play button.

Believing what I can see with my own two eyes is far from a religious belief.

Denying what one can see with their own two eyes however....

Like I said, you're in denial.



edit on 6/20/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=18027774]AnarchoCapitalist
Indeed.

Of course, I'm confident this evidence will be thoroughly ignored by everyone. 100,000 to 1 odds? pffffffft. We've already had papers showing 3,000,000,000 to 1 odds of the standard model being incorrect. The high priests of science will go on spewing their fake gravitational religion, conjuring up infinite densities and invisible matter, like misguided Mid-Evil alchemists.


Lol. This is like poison ivy.
You have hit the nail squarely on its head



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: grey580
So the question then begs.

What is gravity really?



Given that gravity obeys an inverse square law, it's most likely an electrical property of matter. That also means there is probably some way to manipulate the field.


If it were so, then gravity would be related to electrical & isotopic properties of matter, but it doesn't appear so, it is determined by mass and mass alone as far as anybody can find.


Gravity is determined by Mass and mass alone is right. But what is lacking is to accept mass is intrinsically connected with Time



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 01:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The power source is staring you in the face - push the play button.

Believing what I can see with my own two eyes is far from a religious belief.
In that case, push the play button on this video and believe what you see if you're that easy.

You can get all the free energy you want from a power strip, what do you need Blacklight power for? Keely also knew this ancient secret.

Power Strip - Infinite Power!


The ancient secret isn't free energy, it's "you can't fool all the people all the time, but you can fool some of the people some of the time, and as long as they have deep pockets, they are all you need". Or, as Dr Robert Park put it, BLP only needs investors with "deep pockets and shallow brains":

HYDRINOS: HOW LONG CAN A REALLY DUMB IDEA SURVIVE?

BlackLight Power (BLP), founded 17 years ago as HydroCatalysis, announced last week that the company had successfully tested a prototype power system that would generate 50 KW of thermal power. BLP anticipates delivery of the new power system in 12 to 18 months. The BLP process, (WN 26 Apr 91) , discovered by Randy Mills, is said to coax hydrogen atoms into a "state below the ground state," called the "hydrino." There is no independent scientific confirmation of the hydrino, and BLP has a patent problem. So they have nothing to sell but bull #. The company is therefore dependent on investors with deep pockets and shallow brains.
Note that was in 2008 over 6 years ago, and they were supposed to go to market in 12-18 months.

Keely used a secret air supply to fool people. After he died, they found all the hidden air hoses in his lab connected to the compressor in the basement. BLP is a modern day incarnation of the Keely scam all over again using a different form of trickery. Same spiel of saying they'll have a product soon....year after year after year, for decades.


originally posted by: Nochzwei
Gravity is determined by Mass and mass alone is right. But what is lacking is to accept mass is intrinsically connected with Time
Implying General Relativity doesn't accept that and mathematically define the connection.
edit on 21-6-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 02:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ah yes, Mills is just making it all up, like some magician in his garage.

All those independent lab tests and videos of exploding water are a figment of my imagination.

It's a grand conspiracy involving hundreds of people!

Mills is actually Barack Obama.

I forget, did Keely have a corporation behind him? Did Keely submit his findings to independent university and corporate testing? Did Keely obtain millions of dollars from Swiss investors? Did Keely have a doctorate from Harvard? Help me out here.


edit on 6/21/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 02:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: [post=18058270]Arbitrageur

Gravity is determined by Mass and mass alone is right. But what is lacking is to accept mass is intrinsically connected with Time
Implying General Relativity doesn't accept that and mathematically define the connection.
Just simplify the approximated equation E=mc2 into its time component and you'll have your answer.



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 03:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
I forget, did Keely have a corporation behind him?
Yes. The Keely Motor Company.


Did Keely submit his findings to independent university and corporate testing?
I have a hard time finding independent university sources who believe Mills, so I'd say both Mills and Keely fail here:

Analysis of Mills models


Did Keely obtain millions of dollars from Swiss investors?
Why do they have to be Swiss? Keely obtained more funding, adjusted for inflation, than Mills and BLP. Last I heard BLP had maybe 80 million dollars funding compared to over $110 million for Keely, after adjusting for inflation. BLP might have caught up to Keely by now if they got more funding.


Did Keely have a doctorate from Harvard?
As far as I can tell Keely had as much training in physics as Mills, which is hardly any. Mills is the other type of doctor, the same kind that hoaxer Steven Greer is. If you stub your toe he could prescribe some pain killer, but that doesn't mean he knows physics, and in fact Mills plagiarized much of what he "wrote" from textbooks, the part that made some sense. The parts that didn't make any sense he probably wrote himself:

en.wikipedia.org...

What (Park) found initially were mathematical blunders and unjustified assumptions. To his surprise, however, portions of the book seemed well organized. These, it now turns out, were lifted verbatim from various texts. This has been the object of a great deal of discussion from Mills' Hydrino Study Group. "Mills seems not to understand what the fuss is all about."



originally posted by: Nochzwei
what is lacking is to accept mass is intrinsically connected with Time
I suggested it's not lacking because it's in general relativity.


originally posted by: Nochzwei
Just simplify the approximated equation E=mc2 into its time component and you'll have your answer.
So now you're agreeing it's in General relativity? Then why did you say "what is lacking is to accept mass is intrinsically connected with Time"?
edit on 21-6-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: ArbitrageurNo I'm not agreeing with general relativity at all. GR does not say mass is directly proportional to time



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei
GR describes the relationship between mass and time and the equation you cited comes out of general relativity, so you're contradicting yourself, saying to use the equation derived from general relativity, then saying you disagree with general relativity. Not only that, you're disagreeing with laboratory experiments that have verified GR, which say that your feet age more slowly than your head, because your feet are closer to the mass of the Earth:

NIST Clock Experiment Demonstrates That Your Head is Older Than Your Feet
That is direct experimental evidence of the relationship between mass and time, as predicted by relativity.
edit on 21-6-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Nice whitewash of the independent lab testing. Wiki, such a solid source of information.

Here's a few for you:

www.blacklightpower.com...
www.blacklightpower.com...
www.blacklightpower.com...

Not that it matters.

Even if Mills created a generator and it was powering your house at this very minute, you still wouldn't believe him.



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   
mass energy equivalence was not originated by Einstein and has nothing to do with GR.
Beside mass being directly proportional to time and vice versa means, greater the mass, the greater is time compression a reply to: Arbitrageur



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 02:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
Wiki, such a solid source of information.
It's not perfect, but do you dispute the claim Blacklight said their product would be on the market in 12-18 months, six years ago?

The world has survived without Keely's motor 115 years after his death and I suspect it will probably survive at least that long after Mills death without any product from him. But if Mills ever comes up with anything to sell besides bull plop, please let me know.

a reply to: Nochzwei
Actually E=mc² comes straight out of relativity:

www.emc2-explained.info...

When Einstein first proposed his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905 few people understood it and even fewer people believed it. It wasn't until 1919 that the Special Theory was "proved by inference" from an experiment carried out on his General Theory of Relativity. ...

E = mc2 is derived directly from Special Relativity. If relativity is wrong, then nuclear weapons simply wouldn't work. Any theory or point of view that opposes Special Relativity must explain where E = mc2 comes from if not relativity. Other models of relativity that contain E = mc2 exist but here we are concerned with the "standard" model as proposed by Einstein.

This page explains, with minimal mathematics, how E = mc2 is derived from Special Relativity. In doing so it follows the same theoretical arguments that Einstein used.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 02:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: [post=18061640]Arbitrageur
a reply to: Nochzwei
Actually E=mc² comes straight out of relativity:


Actually not. It has only been conjured up to seem so.
Einstein did not originate E=mc2



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 02:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei
Predecessors came up with similar ideas, but they couldn't come up with a functional theory to make them work, which is why Einstein got the credit. How else do you explain it without using Einstein's relativity? The other models used had problems, which is why they weren't accepted, and even the guys coming up with the other models knew they had problems.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 03:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Nochzwei
Predecessors came up with similar ideas, but they couldn't come up with a functional theory to make them work, which is why Einstein got the credit. How else do you explain it without using Einstein's relativity? The other models used had problems, which is why they weren't accepted, and even the guys coming up with the other models knew they had problems.
That my friend is the grand conspiracy. They tptb somehow made relativity stick. E=mc2 does not make relativity work in any way shape or form, by any stretch of imagination.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Ever done any GR?

The theory is not exactly easy, and simply saying tptb is not a proof of anything. Do you work in the field of science? do you know how science works at all? Yes standard procedures have changed over the years and yes there is sometimes a sense of "the important person says this you should accept it" but in truth it is not as severe as everyone believes it to be.

The issue is that the true form of the equation is not E=mc^2 but more over E=ymc^2 (y here is a gamma)

So please other than stating "E=MC^2 doesnt make relativity work in any way shape or form" please explain the statement, and no do not simply post a youtube video of someone ranting away.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
Ever done any GR?

The theory is not exactly easy, and simply saying tptb is not a proof of anything. Do you work in the field of science? do you know how science works at all? Yes standard procedures have changed over the years and yes there is sometimes a sense of "the important person says this you should accept it" but in truth it is not as severe as everyone believes it to be.

The issue is that the true form of the equation is not E=mc^2 but more over E=ymc^2 (y here is a gamma)

So please other than stating "E=MC^2 doesnt make relativity work in any way shape or form" please explain the statement, and no do not simply post a youtube video of someone ranting away.

Looks like only you have done science. As GR is all hokum, I do not dwell on it. Introducing gamma does not help your case any.
Suppose you tell me how your equation makes GR relevant.
Someone ranting away could be highly cutting edge science but maybe beyond your pay scale



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

interesting how the dismissal of arguments is more prevalent from the opponents of science. Have fun in that world of yours.

Please, elaborate the whole pay scale inclination... you know... real scientists don't get paid all that much, you don't go into fundamental science (physics anyway) in order to get rich.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   
we account 100% of what we see to gravity, while experiments indicate that it might be just one factor.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Nochzwei

interesting how the dismissal of arguments is more prevalent from the opponents of science. Have fun in that world of yours.

Please, elaborate the whole pay scale inclination... you know... real scientists don't get paid all that much, you don't go into fundamental science (physics anyway) in order to get rich.
Being beyond pay scale only means figuratively that, this subject ought not to be discussed. nothing to do with rich or poor really.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join