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.

 

Black holes do NOT exist and the Big Bang Theory is wrong, claims scientist - and she has the maths

page: 9
37
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Nochzwei

He can't answer clearly, not to your satisfaction anyway, because you've described the very language necessary as "wish washy". The problem is not with dragon rider but you.
How come you do not notice that all the answers are going off on a tangent to very precise and specific questions? So I don't think you are well versed in physics to judge and I don't really recall asking for your opinion.
edit on 17-10-2014 by Nochzwei because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Hey pl give me what specific numbers you derive out of Einstein equations that you apply to aim your antenna?
1/4 tan theta = what?
all this is wishy washy stuff mate and this is not the answer to my ques. If you cannot answer it clearly, say so.
a reply to: dragonridr



I did look at the equation unless you dont understand the math i guess which means were back to me explaining it to you instead of showing the math. See when you get what you want you change your mind odd seems you just want to keep changing the rules.
Nope I aint changing the rules. My ques was what numbers do you derive out of Einstein equation to enable successful microwave comm for mars probes.
Basically what is required is
Elevation/Azimuth (both numerical values) of the 2 antennas while compensating for travel time of the em wave and rotation around the sun and spin about their own axes, of the 2 planets. You may choose any convinient lat/long of the 2 antenas.
Deviation of these values as opposed to straight line comm.
So what values have been plugged into which equations to arrive at these 2 numerical values?



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 01:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Hey pl give me what specific numbers you derive out of Einstein equations that you apply to aim your antenna?
1/4 tan theta = what?
all this is wishy washy stuff mate and this is not the answer to my ques. If you cannot answer it clearly, say so.
a reply to: dragonridr



I did look at the equation unless you dont understand the math i guess which means were back to me explaining it to you instead of showing the math. See when you get what you want you change your mind odd seems you just want to keep changing the rules.
Nope I aint changing the rules. My ques was what numbers do you derive out of Einstein equation to enable successful microwave comm for mars probes.
Basically what is required is
Elevation/Azimuth (both numerical values) of the 2 antennas while compensating for travel time of the em wave and rotation around the sun and spin about their own axes, of the 2 planets. You may choose any convinient lat/long of the 2 antenas.
Deviation of these values as opposed to straight line comm.
So what values have been plugged into which equations to arrive at these 2 numerical values?


Problem is we just cant use a straight line can we ? Trying to shoot an Azimuth at a given location isnt going to work will see if you can figure out why? But ill give you a hint when you look upat the sky and see mars thats where it used to be not where it is. Then of course we have to calculate the difference in frequency caused by earths gravitational field or we end up listening in the wrong place. Also need to know how much curvature we actually have on our signal because even if we did calculate position than we still have to get our signal there. Ever wonder why probes get lost ? Simple answer we get our math wrong.And yes we even need to know time dilation in digital communications because we need to make sure the computer sending and the one receiving are in sync. This is all that stuff that was posted on how GPS systeme work. You know the wishy washy stuff. So now that we discussed GPS and satellite communications and of course probes and planetary alignments using relativity. Id say its your turn pick something in relativity and please explain why its wrong. Will go over it and if your right ill personally put you in for a nobel prize. But see smarter people than you have allready tried to discredit Einstein and guess what no ones managed yet.

See people like you want to make grandiose statements how Einstein misled the world and science is all wrong the problem is two fold. One being no one on the planet has been able to disprove Einstein and trust me they have been trying any time a scientist can think of a new test its tried. Second problem is things you believe to be science are not not to mention alot of misconceptions. So please enlighten us on how the equations are wrong pick one and will go through it.
edit on 10/17/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 05:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Hey pl give me what specific numbers you derive out of Einstein equations that you apply to aim your antenna?
1/4 tan theta = what?
all this is wishy washy stuff mate and this is not the answer to my ques. If you cannot answer it clearly, say so.
a reply to: dragonridr



I did look at the equation unless you dont understand the math i guess which means were back to me explaining it to you instead of showing the math. See when you get what you want you change your mind odd seems you just want to keep changing the rules.
Nope I aint changing the rules. My ques was what numbers do you derive out of Einstein equation to enable successful microwave comm for mars probes.
Basically what is required is
Elevation/Azimuth (both numerical values) of the 2 antennas while compensating for travel time of the em wave and rotation around the sun and spin about their own axes, of the 2 planets. You may choose any convinient lat/long of the 2 antenas.
Deviation of these values as opposed to straight line comm.
So what values have been plugged into which equations to arrive at these 2 numerical values?


Problem is we just cant use a straight line can we ? Trying to shoot an Azimuth at a given location isnt going to work will see if you can figure out why? But ill give you a hint when you look upat the sky and see mars thats where it used to be not where it is. Then of course we have to calculate the difference in frequency caused by earths gravitational field or we end up listening in the wrong place. Also need to know how much curvature we actually have on our signal because even if we did calculate position than we still have to get our signal there. Ever wonder why probes get lost ? Simple answer we get our math wrong.And yes we even need to know time dilation in digital communications because we need to make sure the computer sending and the one receiving are in sync. This is all that stuff that was posted on how GPS systeme work. You know the wishy washy stuff. So now that we discussed GPS and satellite communications and of course probes and planetary alignments using relativity. Id say its your turn pick something in relativity and please explain why its wrong. Will go over it and if your right ill personally put you in for a nobel prize. But see smarter people than you have allready tried to discredit Einstein and guess what no ones managed yet.

See people like you want to make grandiose statements how Einstein misled the world and science is all wrong the problem is two fold. One being no one on the planet has been able to disprove Einstein and trust me they have been trying any time a scientist can think of a new test its tried. Second problem is things you believe to be science are not not to mention alot of misconceptions. So please enlighten us on how the equations are wrong pick one and will go through it.
Lol im not looking for this extraneous stuff. No your turn, my turn etc.
Pl answer this post www.abovetopsecret.com... only to the point and only if you can.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 05:27 AM
link   
It's funny when scientists need to prove they happen to belive in Santa Claus as well.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 05:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
It's funny when scientists need to prove they happen to belive in Santa Claus as well.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems


You know, I can't count how many experiements and studies have been abandoned because another theory was proven before they could prove their own hypothesis.

But....

Once something has been proved to be true... we shouldn't then argue about it just because it doesn't fit nicely with our views on how things should be.

We should alter our views based upon what was found to be true.

The trouble is just like Santa Clause, to do so would ruin a perfectly lovely believe system that people have clung onto for a long time.

The whole Quantum Religious group of people are a perfect example.

There is not room whatsoever for faith in science!

Korg.

edit on 17-10-2014 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 05:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

I certainly don't want to advocate new-age anti-science.
BUT, even Isaak Newton had his apocryphal scripture you know.

As a Belgian guy I hardly can let someone try to waste the only two Nobel prices physics we have : Alpha and Omega.




posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: Korg Trinity

I certainly don't want to advocate new-age anti-science.
BUT, even Isaak Newton had his apocryphal scripture you know.

As a Belgian guy I hardly can let someone try to waste the only two Nobel prices physics we have : Alpha and Omega.



You have to take into account two things when talking about Newton.

1. The times he was living in

and

2. His unquenchable thirst for knowledge.

Newton was without a doubt a great mind but the grimness of life and the lack of scientific knowledge during those days led many people astray into religious beliefs.

Newton was known for his obsessions with the occult and spent many many years on attempting to achieve the Philosophers stone and the transmutation of matter.

I do not deny Newtons brilliance but I think if he has focused less on philosophy and religious oculist activities he would have achieved far more.

Korg.


edit on 17-10-2014 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Indeed, Newton didn't bite the apple, he was knocked down by it.
Considering Gödel's theorem, I still think I may have a point for putting only theoritical demonstrations into perspective.

What is the nickname of Higg's Boson again?

You shouldn't always try to close the circle but realise that it's a normal evolution of things to spiral out.
Know the Heisenberg duality principle ? Another anoying one ...
I think it's the one that define the most acurately our universe. You can transpose it to the well know Ying/Yang principle and realise the most important : excess of Ying generates Yang and vice-versa. When you concentrate too much, it explodes.

Science has been focusing on the materialistic consideration of our universe. It will be now time to embrace a broader perspective where things that cannot be put into equation have to be considered.

I guess you are atheist ... I'm technicaly speaking a roman-catholic.
But I think well will switch to science-fiction anytime soon ... gnostism VS atheism.
And ultimately the hardcore science atheist will probably be converted by their own theory.

edit on 17-10-2014 by theultimatebelgianjoke because: Spelling



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
Indeed, Newton didn't bite the apple, he was knocked down by it.
Considering Gödel's theorem, I still think I may have a point for putting only theoritical demonstrations into perspective.

What is the nickname of Higg's Boson again?

You shouldn't always try to close the circle but realise that it's a normal evolution of things to spiral out.
Know the Heisenberg duality principle ? Another anoying one ...
I think it's the one that define the most acurately our universe. You can transpose it to the well know Ying/Yang principle and realise the most important : excess of Ying generates Yang and vice-versa. When you concentrate too much, it explodes.

Science has been focusing on the materialistic consideration of our universe. It will be now time to embrace a broader perspective where things that cannot be put into equation have to be considered.

I guess you are atheist ... I'm technicaly speaking a roman-catholic.
But I think well will switch to science-fiction anytime soon ... gnostism VS atheism.
And ultimately the hardcore science atheist will probably be converted by their own theory.


Yes if you want to label me an atheist, I'm happy to wear that badge.

The sooner people realize that there doesn't need to be a meaning for everything and look at reality using intelligent scientific reasoning the better.

The concept that somehow GOD created the universe and that we Humans know the mind of GOD and what he told us is right and wrong is preposterous!

Korg.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

The nickname for the Higgs Boson was the "goddamn particle", abbreviated to "god particle".



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

That's where scientist will be handy, for cleaning up religions from their dogmas.
Sorry for crashing your post, here is a little joke for appologize.

You quoted 'there doesn't need to be a meaning for everything' that's true, there must be some sense anyway ...



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
It's funny when scientists need to prove they happen to belive in Santa Claus as well.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems
There is nothing wrong if scientists embrace God.
The universe did not come into existence without the creator God.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

Danke.

As often quoted : there is no worse blind man than the one who doesn't want to see.

And to prove the point : Scientists Find Giant Black Hole Inside One of the Tiniest Known Galaxies



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
It's funny when scientists need to prove they happen to belive in Santa Claus as well.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems
There is nothing wrong if scientists embrace God.
The universe did not come into existence without the creator God.


Many scientists believe in god the issue only becomes a priblem when we accept that as an answer. Remeber originally lightening was thought to be from god we learned later its a natural process. As our understanding grows the need to use god as an excuse dwindles. Which leads me to a question some here seem to believe the two cant coexist many scientists work for the Vatican especially in cosmology.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
It's funny when scientists need to prove they happen to belive in Santa Claus as well.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems
There is nothing wrong if scientists embrace God.
The universe did not come into existence without the creator God.


Many scientists believe in god the issue only becomes a priblem when we accept that as an answer. Remeber originally lightening was thought to be from god we learned later its a natural process. As our understanding grows the need to use god as an excuse dwindles. Which leads me to a question some here seem to believe the two cant coexist many scientists work for the Vatican especially in cosmology.
That is the general feeling. But actually God is beyond understanding and faith is allowed. Though what happens when you gain by Grace the physical significance of God? When this happens faith and understanding takes a somewhat back seat.
So yes science and God can certainly co exist.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 06:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
It's funny when scientists need to prove they happen to belive in Santa Claus as well.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems
There is nothing wrong if scientists embrace God.
The universe did not come into existence without the creator God.


Many scientists believe in god the issue only becomes a priblem when we accept that as an answer. Remeber originally lightening was thought to be from god we learned later its a natural process. As our understanding grows the need to use god as an excuse dwindles. Which leads me to a question some here seem to believe the two cant coexist many scientists work for the Vatican especially in cosmology.
That is the general feeling. But actually God is beyond understanding and faith is allowed. Though what happens when you gain by Grace the physical significance of God? When this happens faith and understanding takes a somewhat back seat.
So yes science and God can certainly co exist.


That's just it though isn't it...

For the faithful.. when they come across something they don't understand it must be of GOD...

For the scientific minds if they come across something they don't understand they try their best to work it out and prove why it is the way it is.

Science constantly proves things as they are.... and every time this happens the faithful look more and more like the fools they are.

Korg.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
It's funny when scientists need to prove they happen to belive in Santa Claus as well.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems
There is nothing wrong if scientists embrace God.
The universe did not come into existence without the creator God.


Many scientists believe in god the issue only becomes a priblem when we accept that as an answer. Remeber originally lightening was thought to be from god we learned later its a natural process. As our understanding grows the need to use god as an excuse dwindles. Which leads me to a question some here seem to believe the two cant coexist many scientists work for the Vatican especially in cosmology.
That is the general feeling. But actually God is beyond understanding and faith is allowed. Though what happens when you gain by Grace the physical significance of God? When this happens faith and understanding takes a somewhat back seat.
So yes science and God can certainly co exist.


That's just it though isn't it...

For the faithful.. when they come across something they don't understand it must be of GOD...

For the scientific minds if they come across something they don't understand they try their best to work it out and prove why it is the way it is.

Science constantly proves things as they are.... and every time this happens the faithful look more and more like the fools they are.

Korg.


Even religious people can and do search for the truth greatest example i can think of is Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître the scientists that first proposed the big bang theory. He was a jesuit priest and for him there appeared to be no conflict between science and religion. Problem becomes when atheists make it a goal to disprove god and of course religion makes it a point to prove god. Ultimately his faith led him to believe something or someone had to kick the ball into motion.So the faithful as you put it dont have to be fools. and fools arent exclusive to the faithful. I consider myself agnostic as you can tell i cant deny that which i cannot disprove. But i will say id prefer death not to be the end of the journey.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
Problem becomes when atheists make it a goal to disprove god and of course religion makes it a point to prove god.


There is no need to disprove something that has no proof positive.

Also believing in god is very much like believing in the OS of 911. It's comforting and it doesn't require any logical critical thinking.

Anyone over a certain intelligence level can see that religions and their foundations are based upon uncivilized man witnessing the raw power of nature coupled with politics megalomania greed and Narcissism.

And the irony is the religious all look at the people who see life for what it is and quote ethics! Pah!

Korg.
.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
There is no need to disprove something that has no proof positive.


In the same way there is no need to disproof the black holes when the are observed.

Seriously, I think we have a least one thing in common : we are both no hypocrites and we thus know too well what is the untold quest behind this kind of exercise : science VS religion
Don't worry I happen to have some serious issues with the religions and their archaic dogmas.
As a gnostic I can only hope this publication is correct. Because this would mean science is capable of denying the existence of phenomenon it can't explain but that is known to exist through observation.
If the demonstration is correct and the black holes exist this proves nothing but the total irrelevance of all the science and math used to perform the study ... And my guess is that this was not the original goal of the author.

What you should understand is that this sort of exercise is nothing but a very sophisticated alternative version of 'squaring the circle'.


edit on 19-10-2014 by theultimatebelgianjoke because: Spelling

edit on 19-10-2014 by theultimatebelgianjoke because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join