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: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dolour
we account 100% of what we see to gravity,
False. Electric power from coal? How is that related to gravity?

while experiments indicate that it might be just one factor.
The interesting experiments in the last 100 years have been written up in peer reviewed scientific papers. Have you got one you'd like us to review?

Pointing a camera at something and making a video may be fun. I enjoyed watching the videos of guys who stuck various objects inside microwave ovens to see what would happen. They destroyed a number of microwave ovens in the process, and I guess you could call them "experiments" but they aren't advancing science, because the results were largely predictable if one knows enough about how to model microwave energy. I don't see your link advancing science for similar reasons.


originally posted by: Nochzwei
Being beyond pay scale only means figuratively that, this subject ought not to be discussed. nothing to do with rich or poor really.
You haven't posted anything in support of your anti-science claims. Now I will post something to suggest that your interpretation of this expression may be as flawed as your understanding of science:

Above my paygrade

The expression above my paygrade is used to indicate someone doesn't know, and that someone more senior is the one to ask. It can mean either that the speaker does not consider themselves competent to answer the question, isn't high enough in the organization to answer it, or just isn't paid enough to deal with the problem.
So it definitely can be about pay but more often in my experience it's referring to asking someone with more competence (who generally tends to earn more so even when referring to competence level, it could still be related to pay).

More importantly, it seems like an excuse for you to say "this subject ought not to be discussed" which I interpret to mean you either can't or don't want to try to back up your claims with evidence because people who know the topics better than you will point out the flaws in your arguments and evidence. In the forums "Gray Area" and "Skunk Works", you can make claims without evidence, but in other forums you're expected to at least try to back up your claims with evidence, not make excuses.




posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   
>>
The high priests of science will go on spewing their fake gravitational religion
>>

I think it's ironic you just cited a scientific article....TO DISPROVE (or criticize) SCIENCE? : )

Oh, here's the last paragraph from the article:

>>
The researchers say science may initially balk at the premise but has historically embraced challenges to accepted theories, and for good reason.

"When you have a clear contradiction like this, you ought to focus on it," said David Merritt, professor of astrophysics at Rochester Institute of Technology and co-author of the new study. "This is how progress in science is made."
>>


edit on 6/22/2014 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=18064380]Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Being beyond pay scale only means figuratively that, this subject ought not to be discussed. nothing to do with rich or poor really.
You haven't posted anything in support of your anti-science claims. Now I will post something to suggest that your interpretation of this expression may be as flawed as your understanding of science:

Above my paygrade

The expression above my paygrade is used to indicate someone doesn't know, and that someone more senior is the one to ask. It can mean either that the speaker does not consider themselves competent to answer the question, isn't high enough in the organization to answer it, or just isn't paid enough to deal with the problem.
So it definitely can be about pay but more often in my experience it's referring to asking someone with more competence (who generally tends to earn more so even when referring to competence level, it could still be related to pay).

More importantly, it seems like an excuse for you to say "this subject ought not to be discussed" which I interpret to mean you either can't or don't want to try to back up your claims with evidence because people who know the topics better than you will point out the flaws in your arguments and evidence. In the forums "Gray Area" and "Skunk Works", you can make claims without evidence, but in other forums you're expected to at least try to back up your claims with evidence, not make excuses.
That expression also means thy shall not discuss classified subjects which may be classified in the interests of national security. Your rant about backing up claims / and or excuses and gray or skunk areas is not understood?



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 11:00 PM
link   
i doubt anyone here is really privy to classified information, only privy to their own dreams of grandeur and ego to make lengthy discussions and excuses to why anything can be said without backup or proof.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
That expression also means thy shall not discuss classified subjects which may be classified in the interests of national security.
I've never heard the expression used in that context.

The expression I usually hear in that case is: "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you" if they want to be more colorful that just saying "no comment" or "it's classified". I usually only hear those when discussions of specific technologies come up. When the topic is fundamental science like the standard model, most scientists I know are pretty skeptical that there's a classified version of the standard model somewhere which is different in a significant way from the publicly known standard model.

As support for this, look at the cutting edge of standard model research at the LHC at CERN. Do you think some classified lab has a bigger particle accelerator somewhere? It would be pretty hard to hide something that big.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
i doubt anyone here is really privy to classified information, only privy to their own dreams of grandeur and ego to make lengthy discussions and excuses to why anything can be said without backup or proof.
So wheres the proof that mass energy equivalence makes relativity work?



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Larger lab than lhc? Probably not. But the scientists that run these accelerators don't know about the fundamental changes in particles that move at near light speeds
a reply to: Arbitrageur



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 06:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
So wheres the proof that mass energy equivalence makes relativity work?
I already posted the proof of how this comes from from relativity.

I already agreed with you that other people came up with mass-energy equivalence ideas, but they knew their models didn't match experiment. So far Einstein's model has matched every experiment. I asked you if you know of a model other than relativity that matches experiment which can explain this and I get either crickets or excuses.


originally posted by: Nochzwei
But the scientists that run these accelerators don't know about the fundamental changes in particles that move at near light speeds
Are you claiming to know something they don't? What do you claim to know and how do you claim to know it?



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 06:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Nochzwei
So wheres the proof that mass energy equivalence makes relativity work?
I already posted the proof of how this comes from from relativity.

I already agreed with you that other people came up with mass-energy equivalence ideas, but they knew their models didn't match experiment. So far Einstein's model has matched every experiment. I asked you if you know of a model other than relativity that matches experiment which can explain this and I get either crickets or excuses.


originally posted by: Nochzwei
But the scientists that run these accelerators don't know about the fundamental changes in particles that move at near light speeds
Are you claiming to know something they don't? What do you claim to know and how do you claim to know it?
Its conjuring tricks and not proof. I already posted 2 videos that conclusively prove GR wrong.
Which mass energy equivalence expts exactly?
Time dilation changes the mass so particles are not exactly the same as at rest.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   

False. Electric power from coal? How is that related to gravity?

you are aware that were talking about the movement of celestial bodies, right?
or are you just trying to redicule something by intentionally talking nonsense?


The interesting experiments in the last 100 years have been written up in peer reviewed scientific papers. Have you got one you'd like us to review?

heres something for you: show my ANY half reasonable explanation, that mainstream science came up with, wich accounts for celestial bodies settling in a DISC around any mass.
did i miss something? when did gravity start to become selective in regards of direction?
But hey, screw observations if they violate your narrow minded believe system!


Pointing a camera at something and making a video may be fun. I enjoyed watching the videos of guys who stuck various objects inside microwave ovens to see what would happen. They destroyed a number of microwave ovens in the process, and I guess you could call them "experiments" but they aren't advancing science, because the results were largely predictable if one knows enough about how to model microwave energy. I don't see your link advancing science for similar reasons.

and again, without crosschecking available evidence(you clearly wouldnt make such claims if youd actually watched lapoints videoseries) you redicule something, while lacking any reasonable arguments, and further below cliticizing the same behaviour we see from you? ... poorsauce.
edit on 23-6-2014 by Dolour because: moar typos



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Hey he will ridicule everything that opposes MS or GR, as if there is an unwritten rule in MS ' Thy shall not prove Einstein wrong ' or maybe ats earns a reprimand from tptb or whatever entity, if ideas opposing MS are entertained in this forum. Besides even if proof is staring in his face Arbitrator will still find an excuse to deny it.
a reply to: Dolour



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
If I said an invisible man in the sky holds galaxies together, how is that any different than claiming dark matter does the same thing?



A stealth bomber makes an attack.

The scientist says the plane was there and launched a missile, but we can't detect the plane.

You are suggesting an invisible plane is religious nonsense and instead electrical effects caused an explosion.

One of those sounds like religious nonsense at least ....


Actually a stealth bomber can be detected in some other EM wavelengths, this is not even close to cloaking technology, it name says what it is, stealth tech
Dark matter in this sence, must be running it's cloaking device at full power, why is it so shy


from Wiki


Dark matter is a type of matter in astronomy and cosmology hypothesized to account for effects that appear to be the result of mass where such mass cannot be seen. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level. It is otherwise hypothesized to simply be matter that is not reactant to light.[1] Instead, the existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe.


a lot of hypothesizes for any proof of anything other than some maybe in someone's head.
mind bug


edit on 23-6-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   


accounts for celestial bodies settling in a DISC around any mass.
did i miss something? when did gravity start to become selective in regards of direction?
But hey, screw observations if they violate your narrow minded believe system!


Conservation of angular momentum. You find that if you do simulations of clouds of objects, any net imbalance in the systems total angular momentum results in not only a spinning central object, but also the cloud will form a dusty disk around the central object.

Do the math, do the physics and you will see that a spinning disk is the lowest energy configuration for the system.

Oh but of course right, screw simulations and observations right? screw people who have already figured it out. because you don't really understand it, dont want to actually understand maths and physics, so its better to say "I dont get it, so it must be wrong" right?



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dolour
you are aware that were talking about the movement of celestial bodies, right?
or are you just trying to redicule something by intentionally talking nonsense?
it's still false for celestial bodies. Here's an article on the REAL electric universe:


Many EU advocates try to claim that astrophysics ignores the effects of electric fields and currents as possible drivers of astrophysical phenomena. Once they do this, EU advocates try to hijack the discoveries of legitimate researchers, claiming success for their theories with any mention of currents in mainstream astrophysics. Yet electric currents and fields are discussed throughout the professional astrophysical literature, predating much of the Electric Universe....
-Pannekoek-Rosseland Field...
-Offset Rotating Magnetic Dipoles...
-Charge-separation by radiation pressure...
-Black Hole Electrodynamics...
-Currents...

All these mechanisms create the charge separations and currents using energy from other processes, usually gravity. The charge-separation itself is not the original energy process but can create non-thermal distributions of charged particles....

In one recent e-mail discussion, a correspondent claimed that EU advocates use all of these processes. However, aside from an indirect reference in Thornhill (2007) (Thornhill references a paper at mentions the Pannekoek-Rosseland field), I have found none. I would be interested to discover if EU advocates use such processes as the offset dipole or charge separation by radiation pressure. Considering how much of this early work was done by astronomers, it would suggest that the EU advocates knew they were making false statements when claiming astronomers ignore electric processes.


Eros answered your other question about why discs form.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

That is really awesome, So one thing that i had always wondered about was generally getting none thermal particle distributions, but yeah that does seem key. Iv always known that plasma physics and the treatment of large scale electrical phenomena is very important, and is key to understanding things at the 2nd or 3rd order. For most of what we see, our 0th and 1st order is pretty good to base things from.

I was at a conference all of last week, some of the black hole talks where quite interesting, as they discussed the interplay of the 'atmosphere' close to a spinning black hole, and what to look for in accretion disks. It was all pretty cool.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Conservation of angular momentum.

the question where this momentum originates from still remains.
science accounts it to pressure waves caused by nearby supernovae, allbeit ANY atronomer will tell you that it can only explain PART of whats observed.


Do the math, do the physics and you will see that a spinning disk is the lowest energy configuration for the system.

So you compare atoms to solar systems, even galaxies, but when someone out of MSC makes such claims he doesent know what hes talking about?

Mind that we account the disc shape to the rotating gas cloud everything was formed of(yes conserveration of momentum. but again, whats the origin?), and if it had anything to do with celestial bodies aspiring lower energy configurations, we wouldnt see any spherical clusters, wich are allso subject to gravity.
The conclusion that black holes and stars must emit some sort of field is only logical, or the disc shaped orbits would apply to ALL objects.
Do you see the controversy?


Oh but of course right, screw simulations and observations right? screw people who have already figured it out. because you don't really understand it, dont want to actually understand maths and physics, so its better to say "I dont get it, so it must be wrong" right?

dito, looking into stuff yourself insted of memorizing spoonfed info, that when looking deeper into the topic stops to make sense, will help.

ive been defending mainstream physics for allmost 2 decades(NOTHING out of the ordinary exists! yay!), and been down the same road your on right now.
(btw, nowhere did i say something about not understanding the current model, maybe you should make yourself aware that not agreeing with you, isnt nessesarily the result of a lack of mathematical/physical knowledge.)

youll have your revelation too, if your only willing to consider non-mainstream theories to be not "all garbage"...
took me 20years to realize that, as underdeveloped new theories might be at start, some of the stuff out there is just BRILLIANT!
Like Hamareins theory for the observed expansion of the Universe. It grows evermore complex, thus contains increasing information, wich would require more "surface area" to store.
Thats, imo, WAY better than a "strange, ever increasing, not measurable(!) force", and should really be closely reviewed.

@Arbitrageur: a creationism site, really?
wow, you seem to be running out of "valid mainstream arguments"...
allso, your own link states that charge seperation isnt even taken into account.

Unfortunately, astronomy has become so specialized that there are a lot of professional astronomers who don't know about these mechanisms.


So nope, since electrostatic effects arent considered, they cant explain the current model(wich they are NOT part of).
edit on 23-6-2014 by Dolour because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   
The interaction of a planetary gas cloud is not comparable to stars orbiting in elliptical galaxies, they are two different mechanisms, the difference being density. A protoplanetary disk is orders of magnitudes more dense than an elliptical galaxy. What you see is that as astronomers look at more distant objects, galaxies appear mostly to be ellipticals, it appears that disc formation in galaxies is determined by age (Old spherical galaxies appear more elliptical... oh you mean like a disc?
)

Simulations also show or hint at disk at spiral arm formation is spurned by close gravitational interaction between two (or more) galaxies.

Comparing something at atomic scale and then scaling up and saying "hey there is a contradiction" is to not understand the big picture. It is an extremely naive assumption to just simply point at two objects that you believe should be similar, and say "Hey physics is wrong" You will find many examples of phenomenon that depend of external influences, matter densities and energy densities.

Well, I guess you have 8 years on me! I went on and did a PhD and never stopped updating my knowledge, always tried to update myself on general physics and re-visit material that I had learnt as an undergrad, and see if things had changed.

The funny thing about many invokers of 'eu' style arguments is that they continually make statements but do not provide anything close to an explanation other than a few youtube videos they dont understand (but convinced themselves they make perfect sense) where these videos are from speakers acting like self appointed prophets and wise men, more than actually providing any theories and answers.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dolour
heres something for you: show my ANY half reasonable explanation, that mainstream science came up with, wich accounts for celestial bodies settling in a DISC around any mass.
did i miss something?


Yes, conservation of angular momentum.


when did gravity start to become selective in regards of direction?


It didn't. Initial conditions were not isotropic.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 09:00 PM
link   
@mbkennel: 2 posts farther up, im not goina repeat it.


The interaction of a planetary gas cloud is not comparable to stars orbiting in elliptical galaxies, they are two different mechanisms, the difference being density.

wich is why black holes are alot more massive than stars, stars are alot more massive than planets, and so on...
the mechanism still is the same. scale varies, not general behaviour.
Big picture and stuff?


Comparing something at atomic scale and then scaling up and saying "hey there is a contradiction" is to not understand the big picture.

correct, and its been you who derived conclusions based on energy configurations.
feel free to enlighten me, but isnt that even part of astro physics due to the lack of observable solar systems? (reference plx)


Simulations also show or hint at disk at spiral arm formation

you are aware that celestial movement within spiral galaxies is yet totally unexplainable, due to the unnatural pace of stars within the galaxy, and NO simulation ive ever heared of was able to replicate the observed without serious rigging?

thats propably the most important factor to realize: we insert an ARBITRARY force to bring the model back in line with the observed, while OTHER theories can explain the observed withOUT such means!
edit on 23-6-2014 by Dolour because: moar typos



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433

The funny thing about many invokers of 'eu' style arguments is that they continually make statements but do not provide anything close to an explanation other than a few youtube videos they dont understand (but convinced themselves they make perfect sense) where these videos are from speakers acting like self appointed prophets and wise men, more than actually providing any theories and answers.



Please.

I've posted hundreds of papers on here. All of which are ignored by people like you.

College ruins your common sense. What little common sense is left, that your grad program hasn't destroyed, they finish off by threatening funding, refusing publication, etc.. etc.. etc.. Threatening the established clergy results in a gigantic scarlet A tattooed on your forehead.

But hey, why not post one more for old times sake. You want papers and references? Here's over a hundred:

www.libertariannews.org...

Nice little collection I've built up, hey? I got more I haven't bothered to add yet, like Robitaille's work on the CMB and solar models. References are at the bottom of the article.



edit on 6/23/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join