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.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
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:
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.
I do not have the numbers yet. Time compression reduces as you go up and the reduction may not be linear. Need empirical data to formulate some sort of equations, as I am talking about purely universe's own time which has not been addressed by anyone to date.
originally posted by: ErosA433
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
You said:
originally posted by: Dolour
only that all those milestones are about plasma- and not astrophysics, and therefore dont even regard celestial movements.
Those papers are about physics of celestial objects so I think you're being dishonest by saying they're "not astrophysics". Plasma and electric charge distribution around stars are topics in astrophysics, aren't they? They discuss electric fields and electric charge distribution, so they prove your "we account 100% of what we see to gravity" statement false.
originally posted by: Dolour
we account 100% of what we see to gravity,
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Do you expect the literature to say electricity causes the planets to orbit the sun?
It's not a coincidence, but I always thought it was a very simple geometric relationship which is illustrated in the wiki on inverse-square law here:
originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
As I mentioned earlier, I find it VERY interesting that gravity obeys an inverse square law. Electrostatics happen to obey the same rules. Is it just fluke of the universe that gravity and electrostatic forces happen to follow the same inverse square rule? Just random coincidence? Me thinks not.
How is it obvious? Because of the inverse square thing? That only tells me something about geometry of an isotropic field. I've seen no evidence gravity is created by electrical properties of matter. Maybe it is somehow, but nobody has shown that yet in anything that can be repeated.
Gravity is obviously created by some kind of electrical property of matter.
I've seen no evidence for this, so I don't see how it fits any bill.
Thornhill suggest radially aligned dipoles, which seems to fit the bill. If it's not that, it's something along those lines.
I'm not quite sure how to interpret your comments. If you're saying the frequency of the light source wouldn't be stable enough without ionizing the isotope of interest then yes I agree. But with ionizing aluminum they claim to measure the 1.121 PHz frequency shift at a height difference of 33cm, though the systematics are pretty noisy. At 1 meter it should be more clearly above the systematics though.
originally posted by: ErosA433
I suspect lifting by 1 meter would not give any kind of frequency shift that is measurable beyond the systematics of the experiment. The other thing here is that there are lasers around the world that are tuned to hyperfine splittings, allowing them to be used to selectively ionize an isotope of interest, where it can then be collected.
These are some of the most accurately frequency tuned lasers that exist, or at least a very good benchmark... I don't think that height differences between the different sites that perform this, is really a factor in the tuning... as i suspect any effect is extremely small, if there is an effect at all.
Do you agree with my paint example, that to apply a given thickness of paint to a sphere, for a sphere with double the radius it takes 4 times as much paint?
originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I disagree with your assessment of the inverse square law. The square law has to do with the nature of the source and distance from that source.
Those papers are about physics of celestial objects so I think you're being dishonest by saying they're "not astrophysics". Plasma and electric charge distribution around stars are topics in astrophysics, aren't they?
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Do you agree with my paint example, that to apply a given thickness of paint to a sphere, for a sphere with double the radius it takes 4 times as much paint?
If so can we declare paint and gravity and electricity to all be related?
OK how about sound? Clap your hands and the sound pretty much follows the inverse square law. Does this mean sound, electricity and gravity are all related?
originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
I disagree with your using paint as an analogy. Gravity isn't a physical medium, it is a force field. There is no reason that it need obey an inverse square law.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
OK how about sound? Clap your hands and the sound pretty much follows the inverse square law. Does this mean sound, electricity and gravity are all related?
originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
I disagree with your using paint as an analogy. Gravity isn't a physical medium, it is a force field. There is no reason that it need obey an inverse square law.
Except that light isn't typically considered matter, it's considered energy.
originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
The fact that light, sound, electrostatics, light, gravity, etc... all obey inverse square rules points to a connection between all of them - and that connection is matter itself.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Except that light isn't typically considered matter, it's considered energy.
originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
The fact that light, sound, electrostatics, light, gravity, etc... all obey inverse square rules points to a connection between all of them - and that connection is matter itself.
It's pretty easy to show that the propagation of sound is quite different from that of electromagnetic radiation even though they both obey the inverse square law, so again this fact affirms that the geometry is the relationship, and not any underlying similarity of the nature of sound waves versus light waves.
-Light can travel in the absence of matter, while sound can't
-When you clap your hands the sound in air is compression waves, while light is known to be transverse waves.
And so on; light and sound are quite different in spite of both following the inverse square law.
"...The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass implies that gravity is also an electrical force. Before Einstein, some noted scientists were suggesting that the gravitational force between neutral particles might ultimately be due to electrical polarization within the particles. In 1882, Friedrich Zöllner wrote in the introduction to his book, Explanation of Universal Gravitation through the Static Action of Electricity and The General Importance of Weber's Laws, "…we are to conclude that a pair of electrical particles of opposite signs, i.e. two Weberian molecular pairs attract each other. This attraction is Gravity, it is proportional to the number of molecular pairs." Indeed, gravity can be represented as the sum of the radially aligned electric dipoles formed by all subatomic particles within a charged planet or star.
Again, your ignoring the fact that matter is necessary in all cases. Nothing can't emit light. Light may be energy, but you can't have a light source without matter.
id like to point out that the vacuum can create photons... a pretty strong indicator that space could be what connects everything.
originally posted by: KrzYma
who said that ? mathematical equations ?
this spontaneous emissions are caused by EM field interaction I think and not like creationist say they come from nothing.
originally posted by: Dolour
the ammount of energy hypothetically contained in empty space, compared to ordinary matter, is just staggering to say the least.
originally posted by: KrzYma
and what is empty space anyway ? without anything it is nothing, there must be at least two things in it to determine something like size or distance... then nothing is infinite, infinite big and infinite small simultaneously
first of all, its experimentally proven(yes those particles get anihilated soon after theyr created, nevertheless they originate from "epmty" space). second, "empty space" is alot of things, anything but surely not empty. wich is even stated in the same post...
originally posted by: KrzYma
NO, all the test and experiments are not done on empty space. they are done on contained region of space manipulated to appear empty, but is it ?
originally posted by: KrzYma
Nobel prize has no value or meaning any more, Obama get it for piece... this says everything