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: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dolour
@Arbitrageur: a creationism site, really?
wow, you seem to be running out of "valid mainstream arguments"...
Your reading comprehension and cognitive ability score has been demoted. The site is elsewhere arguing against creationism, not for it.
edit on 23-6-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   
I thought the standard model was already "in question"...

There are a large number of problematic..."things"...physicists and cosmologists are still trying to understand and work into their theories...

...."invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator."
— Paul Davies, A Brief History of the Multiverse

and the same can be said of unseen matter/energy...but this is all just the beginning...

At the start, Newtonian physics was all rather elegant and simplistic...but as we begin to uncover more the theories begin to get more and more complex...We get these little pockets of missing information that we have to fill in...How we fill that in need not be "observable" by any means...but it has to fit what we DO observe and all of the mathematical formulas involved therein....

The standard model IS in question...and will CONTINUE to be in question....until, if ever, all these pockets of missing info are filled in with FACT...

As far as any other model is concerned, if they fit what we observe better than our standard model, they would in fact BE our standard model...but they just simply don't fit the observable criterion, nor the mathematical...

A2D

edit on 24-6-2014 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Dolour
@Arbitrageur: a creationism site, really?
wow, you seem to be running out of "valid mainstream arguments"...
Your reading comprehension and cognitive ability score has been demoted. The site is elsewhere arguing against creationism, not for it.


Since your amoungst the First ones to argue against info from such sources, you have to grant others the Same liberty.
Reliable source plx.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dolour
Since your amoungst the First ones to argue against info from such sources, you have to grant others the Same liberty.
Reliable source plx.
When did I ever argue against information from mainstream scientists? Tom Bridgman is mainstream, but he was referring to the work of others in the field of Astrophysics, starting with Pannekoek and Rosseland.

You can't tell mainstream from non-mainstream?
You can't tell if he's arguing for or against creationism?
And now, you can't type a couple of author names into Google to find the papers he's talking about? Seriously?

OK I'll take the first one on his list, Pannekoek-Rosseland Field, and type that into Google for you. This nice presentation with a list of mainstream papers about electrical effects of large astrophysical objects was literally the very first result on the search:

www.ioffe.ru...


Then a more specific reference to the papers is given with a summary of the Pannekoek-Rosseland Field:


I think it's safe to say that 1922-1924 pre-dates any of these electric universe guys like Wal Thornhill and Don Scott. I think it's also safe to say that the claim mainstream astronomers don't consider the effects of electric charge on astrophysical objects is a myth, or you could say a lie promoted by the EU proponents such as Don Scott in his book "Electric Sky", p53.
edit on 24-6-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Correct. Now discard the GR and start interpreting observations to the exact opposite of it and things will start falling into place



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei
GR says if a clock in the lab is lowered by 1 meter, it should tick more slowly. It does.
The opposite of GR would be that the clock speeds up if lowered 1 meter (I guess, though not sure if this is what you mean by opposite). It doesn't do that.

edit on 24-6-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Nochzwei
GR says if a clock in the lab is lowered by 1 meter, it should tick more slowly. It does.
The opposite of GR would be that the clock speeds up if lowered 1 meter (I guess, though not sure if this is what you mean by opposite). It doesn't do that.


GR isn't necessary for GPS clock calculations, and in fact, GR transformations are not preformed on the present GPS system.

Paper by The Aerospace Corporation discussing the lack of GR transformations in the GPS system:
oai.dtic.mil...

Steady State clock calculations:
www.metaresearch.org...





edit on 6/24/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist
I didn't say anything about GPS in that post, I was referring to the experiment I cited a few pages back and similar experiments using optical clocks which are moved up and down in a lab. It's independent of GPS, though the GPS system does account for the same effects on a larger scale:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I think it's safe to say that 1922-1924 pre-dates any of these electric universe guys like Wal Thornhill and Don Scott. I think it's also safe to say that the claim mainstream astronomers don't consider the effects of electric charge on astrophysical objects is a myth, or you could say a lie promoted by the EU proponents such as Don Scott in his book "Electric Sky", p53.


Sure, they incorporate impossible fields, such as assuming the space plasma in question is perfectly conductive with zero resistance, which is a laboratory proven impossibility.

And when their models fail to account for observation, such as they do in various regimes of magnetic reconnection, they throw in "anomalous" resistivity until they get their models to fit. Of course, the model will then only account for one particular set of "reconnection" variables, and fail when it is applied to a differing set.

Alfven called MHD theory a pseudo-science. Again, papers showing this to be true are roundly ignored.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist
I didn't say anything about GPS in that post, I was referring to the experiment I cited a few pages back and similar experiments using optical clocks which are moved up and down in a lab. It's independent of GPS, though the GPS system does account for the same effects on a larger scale



As the papers show, GR isn't necessary to account for those effects.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
As the papers show, GR isn't necessary to account for those effects.
You clearly don't understand either paper.

The Van Flandern article is talking about special relativity. Raising the clock by 1 meter is general relativity so that paper doesn't discredit general relativity that I can find.

The other paper by Fliegel and DiEsposti talks about transmitter and receiver frequencies which are employed in GPS, but no such technology was used in the lab experiment I cited.

So yes, GR or some alternative theory with similar predictions to GR is necessary to account for that effect and neither paper refutes that.
edit on 24-6-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The Flandern paper talks about both GR and SR, and how they are self-canceling under Einstein's flavor of relativity. I'm confused about how that doesn't apply here.

Here's another paper where Flandern addresses the Twins Paradox.

metaresearch.org...



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The Flandern paper talks about both GR and SR, and how they are self-canceling under Einstein's flavor of relativity. I'm confused about how that doesn't apply here.
In that part of the paper he's consistent with the mainstream view, that they do cancel at a particular altitude between the ISS and GPS satellites, as seen in this graph where the blue line crosses the horizontal axis:

en.wikipedia.org...



There's no challenge to general relativity that I can find.

But at the end of the paper where he's apparently attempting to challenge mainstream interpretation he only talks about special relativity.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
But at the end of the paper where he's apparently attempting to challenge mainstream interpretation he only talks about special relativity.


Well, isn't it implied that LR can account for the findings of GR?

If the values can be computed under a unified theory, such as LR, they can also account for the results of GR. The thrust of my argument remains the same. The experiments don't prove anything one way or the other. They can't be cited as "proof" because other theories of relativity can account for the findings.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Nochzwei
GR says if a clock in the lab is lowered by 1 meter, it should tick more slowly. It does.
The opposite of GR would be that the clock speeds up if lowered 1 meter (I guess, though not sure if this is what you mean by opposite). It doesn't do that.
Am talking about the universe's own time and not man's chronometer time. Now they should try this expt using a light source. As the light source is moved up, the freq of light will increase, though the power drawn for the light source will also increase



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 04:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
Well, isn't it implied that LR can account for the findings of GR?
I don't think so.


If the values can be computed under a unified theory, such as LR, they can also account for the results of GR.
There is a physicsforums thread about this topic. LR was an alternative to SR, which Einstein talked about in 1907. This is why Van Flandern's paper is written the way it is, comparing LR to SR.

But Lorentz didn't write his version of GR as far as I know which is echoed in the comment below, and when Einstein's GR came out, Lorentz wrote a paper explaining Einstein's GR, rather than creating his own version of general relativity. So if it's true that Lorentz never wrote his version of general relativity, and I think it is, then we can't evaluate it, unless you have some "Neo-Lorentzian model" written by someone other than Lorentz to consider in which case we'd have to look at how that model differs from GR, if it does:

General Lorentzian Relativity

Einstein downplayed the differences in his 1907 summary of their papers; not surprisingly SR became then known as the theory of Einstein and Lorentz. See also the first collection of papers on SR [1].

Concerning a generalization to accelerated reference systems, I'm not aware of such an attempt by Lorentz; instead he wrote a book on "The Einstein Theory of Relativity" in order to explain it.



originally posted by: Nochzwei
Am talking about the universe's own time and not man's chronometer time. Now they should try this expt using a light source. As the light source is moved up, the freq of light will increase, though the power drawn for the light source will also increase
They used optical atomic clocks which are the only type accurate enough so far to detect such small clock speed changes, when the clock is moved up less than one meter, and they use light, from a laser:

Atomic Clocks to Become Even More Accurate

Now physicists are developing new optical atomic clocks which could be about 100 times more precise than microwave-based ones. They operate in a similar manner, but use laser light instead of microwaves. Laser light has a much higher frequency and hence gives much better timing resolution and much faster transmission of data.
Of course the higher frequency is more energetic, there's really no question about this so I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make.
edit on 25-6-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
[



Now physicists are developing new optical atomic clocks which could be about 100 times more precise than microwave-based ones. They operate in a similar manner, but use laser light instead of microwaves. Laser light has a much higher frequency and hence gives much better timing resolution and much faster transmission of data.
Of course the higher frequency is more energetic, there's really no question about this so I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make.

I'm using em wave as a yardstick to address the universe's own time rather than man's chronometer time.



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

What kind of frequency shift do you expect from a 1 meter rise?



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Nochzwei

What kind of frequency shift do you expect from a 1 meter rise?
1 m or more to bring freq shift to be measurable



posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

No, but if you raise for example a green laser, say around 490nm, or 570 THz, then what level of frequency shift to you expect to see by raising the laser by 1m



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join