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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Sirius factor, gravity, time, magnetism and my current opinion

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 04:52 AM
link   
I’m not a scientist and this summary is only an exercise to try and put my different viewpoints into perspective and therefore only reflects my private opinions without proven facts.

Gravity seems to be this illusive weak attraction we need to understand better and I do not see why. We need to know how to overcome it and Newton’s law that’s all. Everywhere I look I see this natural tendency of attraction and rejection between the same/similar and opposing particles, objects and even living organisms.
There are from basically vacuum areas where particles are to far apart to have a gravitational effect on each other, to dense clouds where particles reach a balancing push/pull point between each other. What I do see is that everything spins around each other from the nano-scale up to the infinitely large.
I also do not see time as a constant but only used as on Earth to measure periods and for calculations purposes. We would have worked on a different time scale if we were Martians.
I also have a problem with the terms “Anti and Dark” although anti makes some sense in a way, except for being overused.
Up to this point we are only beginning to understand magnetic fields, and that is the player we need to investigate and solve. We do know that high energetically charged particles, although not limited, tend to move along magnetic lines. And yes they will collide with none-conductive particles stirring the soup that can even kick gravity into play in a dormant balanced cloud to start the formation of a new system (like a supernova). In a gravitational process similar particles will still attract each other and the electrically charged ones will start forming a local magnetic field. Obviously the make-up of the soup will determine the strength of the local field. And forming bodies in this soup will also have a more local magnetic field depending on their position, rotation speed and composition. But that’s not what I’m after
Sirius and p recession maybe gives an answer. There is no way we can end up with our p recession cycle and be spinning around Sirius. So how about us sharing the same magnetic line with Sirius while together we are spinning around the same current unknown. I cannot grasp another explanation for Sirius following our p recession cycle so truly. Maybe that also explain the angle our Solar System is spinning in relation to the center of the Milky-Way. I do remember reading a NASA article about an unknown source of very highly charged/speed particles reaching our Solar System. If we find the source we should be able to find what we are spinning around before spinning around the Milky-Way center. I just don’t buy that our Solar System is bobbing up and down like a sine wave in its movement within the Orion-Spur. We are not a rouge system racing through space ejected by other gravitational forces
I’m currently still staying clear from frequency, time and light warping. Einstein’s theories together with the other special people will hopefully be able to calculate and let us find what we think we need. Wouldn’t it be productive if the brilliant brains work together instead of shooting down certain theories, without even investigating, like angular momentum? I must say there seems to be a slow change of opinion happening as the theories about the inner workings of our Sun are changing that would make it acceptable to adapt the obvious.
On a departing note I just wonder if more than 2 people will read this tread after the mad-house political agendas the past couple of months. Wow!!! It does however seems that common sense prevailed but who knows. But the filth, wow again!!! I think I will follow the lead of that Carnaby guy from down-under and vote for his (GFP) Guitar Finger-Picking Party next time around. Even in my none-corrupt with squeaky clean politician’s country South Africa, we are in a mess.

Thanx




posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 05:51 AM
link   
a reply to: ICycle2

Your post is worth approximately 37 political threads even if it generates no discussion (I would contribute some but I am not in a position to do so at the moment...I also feel like some of the more suppressed but easily comparable fields of study like scalar waves could possibly have made this is a richer gold mine of connections).



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 06:21 AM
link   
I'm afraid I can't offer much to your post, but the subject of gravity has been something of a household quest as of late. I'm curious what responses this thread may get. I am NOT good at mathy-science personally, so I cannot begin to understand equations, algorithms, etc.
There's some question whether gravity exists whatsoever actually. After all, it's technically a "made up" theory. Just a name given to the idea - a "fictitious force". This "force" that may or may not have all the answers to physics has no actual evidence it would appear.

Now, that's going to get a lot of heavy reaction from those who ARE mathy-sciencey, but there are those who question it.

According to my friend, some scientists/researchers lose their grants, suffer humiliation or get expelled from jobs/study when exploring other possible answers(such as magnetism) instead of gravity. I have no examples of these at the moment but will try to get them. It insinuates that the field of science is a big club that is easy to get kicked out of when questioning commonly accepted theories.

As is it, the theory of black matter is under scrutiny at this time as well, which would render even more questions on this topic.

One major factor that's quite interesting to follow is the work of Nassim Haramein

Also, there is a site that calls itself the Thrive Movement that concerns itself with The Nature Code involving the torus shape.

Again, I remain skeptical of these theories, but it's something me and my friends are lightly exploring (and haven't had much time to do so with all the political madness as of late). Hopefully, your thread here will generate some interesting possibilities!



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 06:27 AM
link   
I think Dark Energy is really interesting. It's really just stunning to think the Universe is not only expanding but expansion is accelerating. Maybe there's a relationship between two bodies having gravity where attraction and repulsion are governed by some kind of rules or process. Maybe gravity itself is not a property but a force that could be created by some process. Well, whatever it is, if it does exist, it will require a crazy amount of genius and imagination to figure it out. It will be 200 years before we ever see anti-gravity or FTL drives.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Thanks for posting your thoughts and musings. But using some paragraph breaks would have made reading that wall of text easier.


originally posted by: ICycle2
I cannot grasp another explanation for Sirius following our p recession cycle so truly.

No idea what you're talking about. I've been reading about space a lot, and have never come across any connection between Earth (or the whole Solar System) and Sirius. It's simply physically impossible. We don't rotate around Sirius, and neither we nor Sirius rotate around a common point. Sirius is freaking 8.6 light years away from us! Alpha Centauri has more gravitational influence on us because it's much closer.

At least it would be nice if you gave some links or cited some sources that say Sirius has a connection with us. I bet any such sources will be from pseudoscientific, anti-mainstream, crank websites.


originally posted by: gottaknow
There's some question whether gravity exists whatsoever actually. After all, it's technically a "made up" theory. Just a name given to the idea - a "fictitious force". This "force" that may or may not have all the answers to physics has no actual evidence it would appear.

So if you step of a cliff, you will just levitate? I'd like to see you challenge this "made up" theory in practice.
edit on 20-11-2016 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Your text is really confusing but I will say first particles always effect each other no matter the distance.

Next time I'd just the measure between two events. For example what we call a year is simply the time it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun. A day is the time it takes for the earth to spin once. Cesium-133 oscillates at 9,192,631,770 cycles per second. If we make the second more or less only effects the number of cycles we can count in that time period. What ever we call it Time exists everywhere what you choose to call it is irrelevant.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: gottaknow



There's some question whether gravity exists whatsoever actually.

Even though it has been detected and measured as a wave?
Done
Next



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Hope it work, been a while
Link - Karl-Heinz Homann pdf

Link - Sirius Research



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

No. That's not exactly what it means. Of course you'll fall and you'll float in "low gravity" areas. The question exists in the theory itself and what makes these things happen rather than just a flat term such as "gravity". Instead of actually determining what makes us fall, we declared there must be this "force". The theory of gravity SORT of fits into the equations, but it also does not in a lot of ways.

It's difficult to conceive of at first and very easy to cast aside from our learned certainties.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: gottaknow

I strongly disagree.
In my own opinion, gravity is a no-brainer.
Spinning fast (like the earth does) creates a force towards its center aka gravity. Its quite logical.


edit on 20-11-2016 by Justanotherman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justanotherman
a reply to: gottaknow

I strongly disagree.
In my own opinion, gravity is a no-brainer.
Spinning fast (like the earth does) creates a force towards its center aka gravity. Its quite logical.


Almost. Mass acting on the space-time fabric
Your example is about the "fictitious" force known as Centrifugal . Not connected at all to gravity
Centrifugal Force
Done
Next
edit on 11/20/16 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Well, the proving of gravitational waves has been disputed as well. Even though they have supposedly been discovered twice, I understand that there is corrupted data within them.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ICycle2


We are not a rouge system racing through space ejected by other gravitational forces

Just one spark in a galactic sized pinwheel. If you want to study the motion comparatively on a lesser scale look at the dynamics of hurricanes. Each drop of water could be a star, spinning around the axis, in an ether of atmosphere. On a galactic scale the ether has to be gravity, no?

See the flattened disk of the hurricane and the galaxy, there is an ecliptic in both cases, a center, spiral arms, and particulates.

Edit: A time-lapse of the birth, life and death of a galaxy. From within we're just a rain drop, have to zoom out to see the whole thing.

edit on 20-11-2016 by intrptr because: Edit:



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: ICycle2

I definitely found the OP interesting - and now going to look into the precession cycle with Sirius you mentioned, which I find really intriguing. Thanks for posting this!

Btw - better to let an interesting thread speak for itself, rather than invite politics in by tainting your OP with that last paragraph. What's refreshing is when a thread can go on for more than 3-4 posts without someone finding a way to flip it to politics.
edit on 11/20/2016 by dogstar23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Justanotherman
a reply to: gottaknow

I strongly disagree.
In my own opinion, gravity is a no-brainer.
Spinning fast (like the earth does) creates a force towards its center aka gravity. Its quite logical.


Erm, no, spinning doesn't create gravity. To the contrary, rapid spinning counteracts gravity at the equator due to inertia (or what's called "centrifugal force").

Regarding this thread, there is indeed a curious fact that Sirius doesn't precess like all other stars do. There's very little scientific documentation on this (judging by a quick Google search) and most of articles are from mystic/non-mainstream sources.

I've asked Phil Plait to have a look into this.
edit on 20-11-2016 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: Justanotherman
a reply to: gottaknow

I strongly disagree.
In my own opinion, gravity is a no-brainer.
Spinning fast (like the earth does) creates a force towards its center aka gravity. Its quite logical.


Erm, no, spinning doesn't create gravity. To the contrary, rapid spinning counteracts gravity at the equator due to inertia (or what's called "centrifugal force").


Ye, i see my error. did not think it trough enough ^^ Got me thinking about the OP's post again though. interesting stuff.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ICycle2

This Viewzone Link, by William Brown, well-notated with sources, is a great, reasonable (detailed without being overly technical) read on the Sirius-Sol precession topic. Here's an excerpt:


Celestial bodies in our Solar System show harmonic resonance with the Sirius system. Pluto and Sedna are at an incline to the plane of the solar system of roughly 17°, the same as Sirius. Both have orbital periods of 250 years and 12,000 years, which are at 1:5 and 1:2 resonances with Sirius, respectively (12,000 years is roughly one half of the orbit of the Sun around Sirius, hence a 1:2 resonance).



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: dogstar23


well-notated with sources, is a great, reasonable (detailed without being overly technical) read on the Sirius-Sol precession topic.
No. Not reasonable. It's utter nonsense.


Therefore, the idea that the Earth orbits the Sun, or that the Sun orbits Sirius, or that Sirius orbits Alcyone and that Alcyone orbits the Galactic Nucleus, is not revolutionary -- it's just a rediscovery of lost knowledge.
www.viewzone.com...

Sirius does not orbit Alcyone and the Sun does not orbit Sirius. All are far too distant from each other.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I'll admit, I haven't vetted the theory, mainly because I don't have the knowledge to do so, but it seemed at least a thorough explanation of the theory.

On second look, it is fairly unscientific and nonspecific, but "sounded good." I suppose if it could be valid, it could be easily proven.

Damn.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
What would you say about Sirius not precessing like the rest of the stars do?




top topics



 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join