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.

 

This completely destroys the big bang and E=MC2 theory..

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Now that the Red Shift is now recognize a bull, this completely destroys the big bang and E=MC2 theory...yet why hold fast to a sinking ship....cause is will dispel all is electric and holographic in this pair of dimes(1100101010101100101) binary lie shift....


HAlton ARP.....coincidence...HAARP????


edit on 12-9-2014 by knightsofcydonia because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-9-2014 by knightsofcydonia because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 12:56 AM
link   
For anyone interested this is what they are talking about:

en.wikipedia.org...

www.sciencedaily.com...




I should add, what it has to do with haarp, e=mc2, or any other OP ramblings, I don't know. I was multitasking when I posted and didn't get to finish my thought...
edit on 12-9-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: boncho

Thanks. So HAARP causes LQGs?



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 01:09 AM
link   
I've read his stuff before and after reading it. I have for a long time thought it us a pseudonym. A play on names. Been looking at quarks and quasars along with primer fields now for years. How all of them dispel the common "laws" as myths. Hence my note on Einstein the fraud.


Also when in free space. There is no light. Light only happens when grounded. Only the planets are visible. So the whole light year thing is also a lie. As photons are nothing more than the projector playing a movie on a green screen. This is the false blinding light. Tesla knew this and they used Einstein to lead away from torsion physics and created the lie of quantum. Lol.a reply to: Phage

edit on 12-9-2014 by knightsofcydonia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Since the article states the structure is 4 billion LY across and a typical quasar only lasts in brightness for 100 million years, that would mean they are not all there at the same time, and if they are all not there at the same time then it isn't a structure, it's a mirage.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
I don't know how you get that about HARP from that…
tetra



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: tetra50
From the OP.

HAlton ARP.....coincidence...HAARP????



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 01:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
Oh sorry…DUH. I'm having trouble reading tonight, is my excuse. One of my eyes is giving me trouble. Feels like there's something in it, but I can find nothing with the other eye. LOL. The other eye doesn't seem so good at reading by itself, either.

Now that we've dispensed with the dummies, I'll shut up, and the rest of you big brains can carry on….
But one more from the peanut gallery (and I'll place money on no one here knowing where that expression came from, though many are probably too young to have even heard it used)…but, really, back on topic, is it not pure egoism that we ever thought we'd developed instruments capable enough to say that we'd seen all there is to see or imagine?
tetra



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 01:28 AM
link   
How does this destroy the big bang theory? And how is HAARP related?? Expand the OP so those of us that can't/won't watch a video will understand!



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 01:41 AM
link   
a reply to: knightsofcydonia

First off I'm a stern believer in the electric universe theory and I'd love for someone, anyone, to come out and explain to me why so many of these quasars are being viewed with connecting bridges of matter to galaxies that are red shifted billions of light years away. There are so many obvious pictures of this, yet they say it's a coincidence that they're overlapping, but fail to recognize quasars viewed in FRONT of younger galaxies.

Secondly what do you mean by E=MC2 being proven wrong? This has nothing to do with the equation. That equation has been proven right for a long long time and we wouldn't have nukes if it didn't make sense.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: knightsofcydonia

Well dude you'd have to understand the theory of relativity before you can claim that you're smarter than Albert Einstein. And your inclusion of haarp shows your not even smarter than a fifth grader.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: TsukiLunar

It shows that the visible universe is not homogeneous at large scales and that if the age of the universe was correct then why does such a massive structure exists where the Big Bang theory says it should not. It is too big and way too early in time to exist.....that's by the Big Bang theory anyways, which I don't prescribe to.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 01:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
How does this destroy the big bang theory? And how is HAARP related?? Expand the OP so those of us that can't/won't watch a video will understand!


I'm not the OP but I watched and read and here is what they are saying:

The video says it destroys it in two ways, the article just mentions one.

Both say it destroys the theory because if these objects are as big and far away as redshift says then they are outside the model of the Big bang. They destroy the "Cosmological Principle."



In modern physical cosmology, the cosmological principle is an axiom that embodies the working assumption or premise that the distribution of matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic when viewed on a large enough scale, since the forces are expected to act uniformly throughout the universe, and should, therefore, produce no observable irregularities in the large scale structuring over the course of evolution of the matter field that was initially laid down by the Big Bang.

link

The video says that redshift has been shown for many years by one astronomer to be wrong. And predicted a finding just such as this one. They say redshift is not a measure of distance and quasars prove that. These objects are much closer. If this is true red shift is not a measure of distance and it destroys the current big bang theory.

A true damed if you do, damned if you don't type situation.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: tetra50
Now that we've dispensed with the dummies, I'll shut up, and the rest of you big brains can carry on….
But one more from the peanut gallery (and I'll place money on no one here knowing where that expression came from, though many are probably too young to have even heard it used)…

Off topic: It came from poor theatre (note, not movies) goers being in their cheap seats (nose bleed) and purchasing cheap peanuts to snack on while heckling the performance ... ironically, nose bleed came about in a similar manner, cheap seats where fights broke out.

I am 31 and am told by my wife all the time "you and your old sayings no one knows or heard of"

On topic: Still looking into all this stuff, but I know traditional models are breaking down fast and giving way to M-theory and Holographic Universe, etc. How do you guys feel about Nasim Haramein?



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 02:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: boncho

Thanks. So HAARP causes LQGs?


Is that what the OP is blathering about? I couldn't make heads or tails out of the OP or the video, but I found a few nifty articles on LQGs

Space stuff, always makes for good 'on the can' reading.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: AllSourceIntel


How do you guys feel about Nasim Haramein?


Are you dressing up as a loon for halloween?



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: boncho

Well that tells me how you feel about him and I hope you realize my question about him in no way reveals how I do.
edit on 9/12/2014 by AllSourceIntel because: spelling



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: knightsofcydonia


A play on names. Been looking at quarks and quasars along with primer fields now for years. How all of them dispel the common "laws" as myths. Hence my note on Einstein the fraud.


Are you David LaPoint? (odd fellow likes to play with magnets on YT and tout he's smarter than Einstein?)

Because every thread you make here you seem to shout on the rooftops (figuratively) that 'Einstein is a fraud', everything everyone knows about physics is wrong and they'll all idiots, and the only person who knows what's going on is you and David LaPoint with your "primer fields" which are seemingly the answer to any and every question in the universe.

Damn double donut answer has been staring law and order in the face for years... Law and Order , Universal - - -Law and Order, ...law and order of the universe, in a dbl donut no less!

So, begs the question, are you David LaPoint or do you just suckle at his pseudoscientific teet (no offence meant, simply colourful metaphor for your infatuation with the man) unless of course, you are one and the same.

Hard to find much on primer fields except his ramblings, so I wonder how you can have "studied it for years". Doesn't even come up on the ngram finder on google.

How did you "look at primer fields" for years then?
edit on 12-9-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 02:54 AM
link   
So red shift is bull?

Like when we observe two galaxies which are right next to one another, possibly even gravitationally entangled, and moving in similar directions, but have vastly different degrees of 'red shift'?

But, dark matter...



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 04:09 AM
link   
a reply to: knightsofcydonia
The original paper outlining this report can be viewed here
mnras.oxfordjournals.org...
After you read it, you will find that these claims are not a true representation of its findings and that they do not make reference to the matter that they are based on a solution to an Einstein equation - the Robertson-Walker metric.
To quote the original report
"The usual models of the Universe in cosmology, varying only
according to the parameter settings, are built on the assumption
of the cosmological principle – that is, on the assumption of homogeneity
after imagined smoothing on some suitably large scale.
In particular, the models depend on the Robertson–Walker metric,
which assumes the homogeneity of the mass–energy density."

And
"A recent review of inhomogeneous models is given by Buchert (2011).
We adopt the Yadav et al. (2010) fractal calculations as our
reference for the upper limit to the scale of homogeneity in the
concordance model of cosmology: inhomogeneities should not be
detectable above this limit of ∼370 Mpc. The Yadav et al. (2010)
calculations have the appealing features that the scale of homogeneity
is essentially independent of both the epoch and the tracer used.
Note that the scale of ∼370 Mpc is much larger than the scales
of ∼100–115 Mpc for homogeneity deduced by Scrimgeour et al.
(2012), and, for our purposes, it is therefore appropriately cautious."

At no stage does it "completely destroys the big bang and E=MC2 theory". Rather, it challenges current models of cosmological homogeneity and perhaps distribution of the still yet unknown dark matter across the universe.

Please share with us your interpretation of their findings, rather than basing your understanding of a person without enough talent to write their own script - they are reading a Science Daily article word for word - and uploaded by someone who I personally would not regard as a reliable source, based on their uploads, as entertaining as they were.

I only watched the first 30 seconds on the video - that was enough as I immediately knew it was a misrepresentation of the report and was not going to bother with wasting my time on what is simply not true.

Every good student does their homework and checks it before submitting.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join