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.

 

The Electric Universe Goes Dark

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: choos




I like to go down into the docking compartment and turn out all the lights and watch the nighttime sky through the two portholes there.


From inside the ISS there are no views of deep space, they have to be EVA to look away from Earth. From inside they must look 'sideways', through the Earths atmosphere. It is the atmosphere that makes stars, or planets, and even the Moon visible. Without clarification from Hadfield about his statement though, I have to take him at his word, as I do Armstrong.





first they are not in total darkness for 90mins at a time.. it takes 90mins to do a full revolution of the Earth, a full revolution means they will be on the sunlit side of the globe for part of that 90mins.


Yes, you are correct, so it's 45 minutes of light, 45 dark, but because of their altitude, the dark period is a little shorter, about 35 from running Celestia. Still lots of time to dark adapt, even if it was neccessary, which it isn't, and that's a test you can do for yourself. Look at the brightest light you can stand for as long as you can stand it, then look up on a stary night. I can see stars in less than 5 seconds. Sure I can see more as I dark adapt, but Hadfield should have been able to see them after a few seconds, he has vision that is among the best in the world, or space.
Well off-topic here though, better not push the subject here...




posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Electromagnetism is the strongest force in the universe. Gravity is simply a manifestation of Electromagnetism in my opinion, in fact; with enough electrical charge, one can counter the force of gravity (levitation).

Is the Universe Electric?

It contains countless individual EMFs (all mass has EMF, our bodies have its own EMF; the Earth has its own, the Stars etc.) overlapping and forcing one another into interactions/attractions observed as 'gravity' physically.

Do Universal objects discharge Electrically?

Solar flares, and CME are electronically driven discharges.

Are these facts the Electronic Universe Theory?

NO.

But to ignore these facts because they have the words "electric" and involve the "universe" would also be unwise. Do not make the mistake of throwing out the baby (real electronic facts governing the universe) with the bathwater (terribly crafted EU theory). Forget the theory and look at the facts.

Electromagnetism is the key to understanding the physical realm and how frequencies/forces can effect everything from Universal design, to thoughts in the mind of mankind.

no one knows all, and those that think they do; are the greatest of fools.

God Bless,



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElohimJD
Electromagnetism is the strongest force in the universe. Gravity is simply a manifestation of Electromagnetism in my opinion
Yes that's what EU proponents say and without any experiments to back up opinions, the opinions aren't very helpful. You could have an opinion that leprechauns make a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but it's still not true.


in fact; with enough electrical charge, one can counter the force of gravity (levitation).
The fact you can apply an opposing force of a different type says nothing about the nature of gravity.


Is the Universe Electric?
Solar flares, and CME are electronically driven discharges.

Are these facts the Electronic Universe Theory?

NO.

But to ignore these facts because they have the words "electric" and involve the "universe" would also be unwise.
Mainstream physics doesn't ignore electricity and plasma in the universe. Wikipedia has an article about the mainstream topic called Space Plasma Physics, or just Space physics:


Space physics, also known as space plasma physics, is the study of plasmas as they occur naturally in the universe. As such, it encompasses a far-ranging number of topics, such as heliophysics which includes the solar physics of the sun: the solar wind, planetary magnetospheres and ionospheres, auroras, cosmic rays, and synchrotron radiation. Space physics is a fundamental part of the study of space weather and has important implications not only to understanding the universe, but also to practical everyday life, including the operation of communications and weather satellites.


So yes, the universe is electric to an extent, just not the way Electric Universe scammers like Wal Thornhill claim.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Considering we have landed on 1 of an incalculable amount of comets, I wouldn't say anything definitively. That being said I was not even aware of this idea but take offense to the religion bashing.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN

From inside the ISS there are no views of deep space, they have to be EVA to look away from Earth. From inside they must look 'sideways', through the Earths atmosphere. It is the atmosphere that makes stars, or planets, and even the Moon visible. Without clarification from Hadfield about his statement though, I have to take him at his word, as I do Armstrong.


The Apollo astronauts used a small telescope to see stars to help them navigate, but on the moons surface given the general brightness of the moons surface it basically drowns out all the stars..

but what would i know?

heres a 10 year old asking the experts if they can see stars:

From: Jason Puddister from Fredricton, Canada, age: 10
To: Mission Specialist Patrick Forrester

Question: Can you see the stars from the station?

Forrester: Well, Jason, you can see the stars very well from the station and from the shuttle. They're quite clear. They don't twinkle. You can see the colors in them mainly because you're not looking through the atmosphere. It's also interesting to note that the galaxy - you can see the Milky Way very clear, and it's just a beautiful sight up here.


did you know that the atmosphere makes the stars appear to twinkle??





Yes, you are correct, so it's 45 minutes of light, 45 dark, but because of their altitude, the dark period is a little shorter, about 35 from running Celestia. Still lots of time to dark adapt, even if it was neccessary, which it isn't, and that's a test you can do for yourself. Look at the brightest light you can stand for as long as you can stand it, then look up on a stary night. I can see stars in less than 5 seconds. Sure I can see more as I dark adapt, but Hadfield should have been able to see them after a few seconds, he has vision that is among the best in the world, or space.
Well off-topic here though, better not push the subject here...


hadfield can see stars but the ISS was well lit inside.. i dont think you quite get what is going on here, ask any photographer any scientist..

go here:
spaceflight.nasa.gov...
ask the experts if you want.

Stars are DIM, it doesnt take much light to drown them out.. that is why astronomers complain about light polution, that is partially why you cant see stars well at night time in large cities also.
edit on 18-11-2014 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElohimJD
Gravity is simply a manifestation of Electromagnetism in my opinion


i still dont get this general statement. help.

the Earth's magnetic field is donut in shape, a magnetic compass relies on this to know which way is north or south.. so then how is it that Earth's gravity is more or less constant anywhere on the surface?



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   
This just in: Organic molecules detected by Philae.

From the article:


Other analyses suggest the comet's surface is largely water-ice covered with a thin dust layer.

...and the last flickers of Electric Universality gutter away.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley


Since, to the best of my knowledge, I was the only one who attempted to bring any real science into the discussion on the pro-EU side, I assumed those comments were addressed "at" me.

Well, they weren't, at least not by me. There is some prize idiocy being posted in this thread, but not by you.


I have an open and curious mind that views any unexpected behavior as worthy of research.

Glad to hear it. However, the possibility that Philae would bounce was always substantial, so the fact that it did was far from unexpected. Did you see the BBC's landing-simulator game, released well before the landing? Bouncing off the surface is one possible outcome of the game.

With regards to electrical charging, you suggested Rosetta would be charged by its journey through space because


the total charging it would experience is time dependent.

Not only is the static charging of satellites a well-known phenomenon, the techniques used to mitigate it are also well established. Do you really imagine Rosetta would be allowed to accumulate sufficient charge to interfere with its operations? Of course it wasn't, and neither the satellite nor the lander would have had anything beyond (at most) a tiny, transitory charge as they approached the comet. If EU theory had been true, then the makers' precautions would have been useless; Rosetta would have been fried.


The equation that you quote is for a quantum particle. In the real world, the energy transported by a wave is directly related to the amplitude of the wave, independent of frequency.

The Planck-Einstein equation works for both a wave and a particle model. More correctly, you should say that the energy transported by a wave is related to the amplitude of the wave packets — or the rate of photon emission in a particle model. But even a nice big packet of photons with energies as low as those detected from 67P/C-G would have minimal total energy. This is complicated stuff; but if the amplitude of the signals emitted by the comet had been high enough to matter, the signal would have been detected much (much) farther out. No large bursts of photons are being emitted by this comet.


edit on 18/11/14 by Astyanax because: of this just in.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13


How can one comet be the end of a theory there are many.

Indeed, there must be millions, if not billions of actual and potential comets out there.

However, one falsification is enough to disprove an hypothesis (or, if you prefer, a 'theory').



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Hi,

Thanks for the interesting discussion and the respect that you have given me. A few others here have not been so lucky, and perhaps deservingly so.


However, I don't want to debate this any further at this time. I've got a few more important things to do. And I need to spend a little more time looking into Plasma Cosmology theories that provide a more sound scientific basis than the ones that I have looked at so far. I believe theories that start with a sound scientific basis, founded on valid observations, which reach alternative conclusions are much easier to defend. Without the proper maths, EU is difficult to debate with any validity.

I thank you for pushing me to review a lot of theory and technique to which I have not been exposed for many years.



dex



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax



If EU theory had been true, then the makers' precautions would have been useless; Rosetta would have been fried.


All critical components on all spacecraft are enclosed in a Faraday cage. The plasma density around the comet would also prevent the build up of large value electric fields. Where there is little plasma, much higher fields can exist.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN


All critical components on all spacecraft are enclosed in a Faraday cage.

Does that include the communications equipment? If so, how does Rosetta communicate with Earth? If not, how come the communications equipment wasn't damaged by electrical activity in the vicinity of the comet?


The plasma density around the comet would also prevent the build up of large value electric fields.

Because any electric potential between the spacecraft and the comet would be equalized in a conductive medium, yes? Through discharges, yes? That would, if sufficiently powerful to validate EU predictions, be at least noticeable through their interference with spacecraft telemetry, right? If not through actually damaging or destroying the craft itself, am I correct?

Well, did any of that happen? Is the spacecraft — Rosetta, that is — destroyed or out of contact with Earth?



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax



Because any electric potential between the spacecraft and the comet would be equalized in a conductive medium, yes? Through discharges, yes? That would, if sufficiently powerful to validate EU predictions, be at least noticeable through their interference with spacecraft telemetry, right? If not through actually damaging or destroying the craft itself, am I correct?


Discharges don't have to be arc mode, they can be glow or even dark mode, so there is electron flow and a gentle equalisation. Obviously the design of these probes takes all that into account, and the antennas are not destroyed. There is lots of info on the net about considerations for spacecraft design, and the problems of surface charging have ben dealt with since the beginning of space exploration. I don't know why you keep insisting that these craft should get zapped or blow up if EU ideas were true.



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Lol

This is the first time Iv heard of the electric universe and its sounds nearly as retarded as young earth creationism and flat earth supporters!



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

Answer the first question, please. How does communications and navigational equipment work inside a Faraday cage?


Discharges don't have to be arc mode, they can be glow or even dark mode, so there is electron flow and a gentle equalisation.

Yes, high-school physics teaches that. All discharges generate RF interference.


I don't know why you keep insisting that these craft should get zapped or blow up if EU ideas were true.

Because that is what ATS's top EU promoter was expecting.


Orignally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
I'm reserving this post for gloating should the probe short out, explode, or otherwise fail to return good data because of electrical interference on the comet.

He's gone all quiet now, of course.


edit on 20/11/14 by Astyanax because: /.



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax




Answer the first question, please. How does communications and navigational equipment work inside a Faraday cage?


Obviously the antenna is outside of the Faraday cage.



Because that is what ATS's top EU promoter was expecting.


He does not represent the views of all EUers, they are as mixed in their views about what is going on out there as standard model scientists are about gravity only models, the exitence of dark matter, etc. The standard model is still looking into new ideas, and so is the EU, neither approach has a complete model yet.
I also have some very different ideas to the popular EU model though, so I'm though to be 'out to lunch' by both sides! Anyway, here is an older gif movie from the rings of Saturn. Here you will see Prometheus approaching a ring, and you can see at first an attraction of the moon and ring dust to each other as they have differing charge. As the charge equalises Prometheus slows, but its inertia pushes in to a point where an arc discharge occurs, and a sputtering of dust from the ring to the Moon surface, which is how they grow and also get their surfaces modified. Then they have equal charge so the moon is repulsed, the dust in the ring does some equalisation. The rings have sufficient magnetic tension in them, a longitudinal magnetic field, that they should be considered plasma flywheels, which is why there is sufficient mechanical force to repulse Prometheus, rather than it just passing through the ring. And yes, the dropout during the arc discharge is from RF interference, but the antenna and electronics both survived, and have likely survived many such events, due to the proper design.

Prometheus and ring interaction.
edit on 20-11-2014 by GaryN because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 01:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN

Anyway, here is an older gif movie from the rings of Saturn. Here you will see Prometheus approaching a ring, and you can see at first an attraction of the moon and ring dust to each other as they have differing charge. As the charge equalises Prometheus slows, but its inertia pushes in to a point where an arc discharge occurs, and a sputtering of dust from the ring to the Moon surface, which is how they grow and also get their surfaces modified. Then they have equal charge so the moon is repulsed, the dust in the ring does some equalisation. The rings have sufficient magnetic tension in them, a longitudinal magnetic field, that they should be considered plasma flywheels, which is why there is sufficient mechanical force to repulse Prometheus, rather than it just passing through the ring. And yes, the dropout during the arc discharge is from RF interference, but the antenna and electronics both survived, and have likely survived many such events, due to the proper design.



and how do these electromagnetic forces relate to earth??

more specifically, if these electromagnetic forces are strong enough to repel an object the size of prometheus, how should a magnetic compass react on earth?



posted on Nov, 21 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: GaryN


Obviously the antenna is outside of the Faraday cage.

Yet picks up no RF interference from all these discharges? How come?



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join