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.

 

Cosmology in Crisis—Again! Electric theory gains more support

page: 1
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Contradiction upon Contradiction

The physicists do believe that this phenomenon can only be explained if the satellites were created a long time ago through collisions between younger galaxies. “The fragments produced by such an event can form rotating dwarf galaxies,” explains Dr. Metz, who has recently moved across to the Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (German Aero-space Center). But there is an interesting catch to this crash theory, “theoretical calculations tell us that the satellites created cannot contain any dark matter.” This assumption, however, stands in contradiction to another observation. “The stars in the satellites we have observed are moving much faster than predicted by the Gravitational Law. If classical physics holds this can only be attributed to the presence of dark matter,” Manuel Metz states.

Or one must assume that some basic fundamental principles of physics have hitherto been incorrectly understood. “The only solution would be to reject Newton´s classical theory of gravitation,” says Pavel Kroupa. “We probably live in a non-Newton universe. If this is true, then our observations could be explained without dark matter.” Such approaches are finding support amongst other research teams in Europe, too.

The deviations detected in the satellite galaxy data support the hypothesis that in space where extremely weak accelerations predominate, a "modified Newton dynamic" must be adopted. This conclusion has far-reaching consequences for fundamental physics in general, and also for cosmological theories. Famous astrophysicist Bob Sanders from the University of Groningen declares: “The authors of this paper make a strong argument. Their result is entirely consistent with the expectations of modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND), but completely opposite to the predictions of the dark matter hypothesis. Rarely is an observational test so definite.”


www.thunderbolts.info...

I love that website





posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
I've always been a fan of the electromagnetic universe! Thanks for this article.

It's a breath of fresh air to see some sanity at last. Dark matter and Dark Energy are completely ridiculous. I've never understood the need to create these magical and highly exotic particles...

oh yes I do.. because the original theories are completely flawed! I can't believe people are payed to propagate this 'pie in the sky', band-aid science. My next wish is for the complete annihilation of String Theory.

Nice Find!
IRM



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Just because something is not a duck, does not mean it is a tiger.

That doesn't lend support to the "electric" theory at all.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Illuminatus I
 


ridiculous statement.

Current held theories, require black holes, dark matter and other stuff which we cannot prove to exist in the first place.

The electric model does not require any such inventions.

Watch the movie and expand you knowledge, unless you prefer living in a box.

ThunderBolts of the Gods



Google Video Link







posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by warrenb
 
I usually favor established models because they are always supported and cross-referenced to other models. Peer-reviewed papers, citations etc. You can double-check and folk can judge for their selves. New ideas grow from decades of study and prior research...if they're valid they become established. Either way, science is the embodiment of fluid change and adaptation...homo floriensis and exoplanets are two big changes that spring to mind.

I'm not wholly convinced by EU having read arguments for and against. It's still interesting. Some link recently led me to the thunderbolts site from a YT video about comets. Gotta say it raised some challenging points about what a comet is. I haven't done the usual source, check, source. check and cramming for information yet, but it's on the list...Pavel Kroupa has co-authored a 101 papers, but it's unclear that he supports the EU model. Check, check, check etc.

If I can find the video, I'll come back and link it



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Current cosmology is simply a collection of theories built upon other theories. An astute mind would wonder how much credence can be given to a theory considering it is simply a theory. We can invent any kind of math or explanation to support a theory; but in the end they are just theories. We cannot travel to black holes nor can we get samples of "dark matter" to investigate them.

We can however use current non-theoretical knowledge, meaning real science in the field of electricity, to explain many of the features found in our galaxy as well as others.

Because of this ability (stated above), it lends more credibility to the electric model, rather than the model that requires all sorts of fabrications and invented explanations.




posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
The problem with current cosmology is that it's based on established principles which are many, many years old; at this point in time we are learning so much more about the universe that it's just obvious that EVERYTHING we think we know about it can change.

But that's where the real strength of science lies, the ability to adapt and change. I think that once so many scientists are done saying, "I don't see it, it doesn't exist," some real, good experiments will be conducted that will settle this for good.

I hope the EU is right, it's much more simple and easy to understand IMO.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Here's part two of the video I mentioned. I don't why, but the part 1 has been removed by the user. He's a member on here and will likely show up on this thread...



I haven't formed an opinion yet, but the video series is interesting. He undermines the delivery somewhat by ridiculing and laughing at other theories, that aside it's interesting stuff.

WarrenB, I think an astute mind is open to persuasion by evidence and theories are abundant. None are 'unified theories of everything;' scientists and anyone else accept theories that make sense to them.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by Kandinsky]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Have we found out what burnt out star exploded its
molten iron core to make planet Earth yet.
Atomic fusion for Stars goes down to the element iron.
Not up on what happens next but some might explode at
that point. Interesting how iron is an element that can be
magnetized.

Every Earth like planet, and perhaps others, is a conductor
of electricity and a source of electrons if the power companies
are doing what they say they are doing.

There might be an electrical equation for planet spacing and
other astronomical phenomena.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
I've always been a fan of the electromagnetic universe! Thanks for this article.

It's a breath of fresh air to see some sanity at last. Dark matter and Dark Energy are completely ridiculous. I've never understood the need to create these magical and highly exotic particles...

oh yes I do.. because the original theories are completely flawed! I can't believe people are payed to propagate this 'pie in the sky', band-aid science. My next wish is for the complete annihilation of String Theory.

Nice Find!
IRM


We are diagnosing symptoms, not the cause, Plamsa cosmology can change this IMO. They saw an effect and tried to understand it within their framework, even though it doesn't fit.

EMM



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by warrenb
 


Post flagged, because the electric theory makes sense. We live in a world where people hate to change their mind in face of the truth, and scientists are no different.

There are other ridiculous things scientists believe as well like treating infinity as a number.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by warrenb
reply to post by Illuminatus I
 


ridiculous statement.

Current held theories, require black holes, dark matter and other stuff which we cannot prove to exist in the first place.

The electric model does not require any such inventions.

Watch the movie and expand you knowledge, unless you prefer living in a box.


The availability of interpretive explanations for phenomenon with unknown and fathomable causes is a main reason why current theories hold more weight than an electric one which portends to have an explanation for everything which has not been observed.

I'd rather live in a box than on a pile of #.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
well thankfully we dont have to have our pseudo-scientist debates about which theory is correct for much longer. . . . theres an experiment just preparing to fire up in geneva. . . . i know you all know what im talkig about
anyway hopefully it will give some closure to some of these questions. . . but then again i can only imagine the pandoras box of exotic weird phenominon it may uncover. . . but i wonder if their is an end to the small man inside the small man paradox. . . . hmm heres to someday cheers



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Hi, the playlist with part 1 is located here

www.youtube.com...

The electric universe is the real deal folks.

Oh, btw, the permanent link to OP's article

www.holoscience.com...

His link is a blog link that may change over time.



[edit on 28-5-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by warrenb
 


This is the first I've heard of an em universe model and I am happy its out there. I thought string theory was a runaway concensus and this drove me crazy In highschool. I've had a similar view for quite sometime and will definitely look into it more. They probably came up with much better proof than I did.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


my bad

it loaded really slow and had lots of stuff from thunderbolts

no offence intended



btw you guys are doing a great job with getting the info out, I think many more people are taking the EM seriously, esp. after watching Thunderbolts of the Gods



[edit on 29-5-2009 by warrenb]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by warrenb
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


www.thunderbolts.info is the actual site of the science group not a blog
although the link is to a blog on their site

the link you provided is a cheap copy, it copies all their content and pretends to be the source of it, naughty naughty



www.holoscience.com is Wal Thornhill's personal site, who is a contributing member of the thunderbolts group and speaks in the thunderbolts video. So it is to be expected that his work is mirrored on the thunderbolts site.

the google.sites/cosmology quest is my personal site that contains links to all the peer reviewed papers and supporting documentation. I didn't copy anything beyond quotes, which are all sourced. Most of the stuff is my own research or quotations from scientific journals. Note the disclaimer.

I'm also an active member of the thunderbolts community forums and my site is linked on plasma resources.



[edit on 29-5-2009 by mnemeth1]

[edit on 29-5-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
We have only provisional answers to many of the questions that we have concerning our universe. There is much evidence that support the notion of dark matter.

From what I understand, galaxies don’t seem to have enough mass to create the necessary gravity that is needed to hold it’s clusters together.

If all the sources of gravity that is holding the stars together is coming from the combined mass of the stars in the galaxy, then there just isn’t enough.The planets should be flying apart because there is nothing to hold it in place.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 03:13 AM
link   
I think the more you look into what cosmologists are telling us, the more you realize they are creating vast works of fiction.

Theoretical physicists today have divorced cause and effect. This is something you can not do in science.

Just a small sample of interesting facts:

1. Einstein never believed in black holes. He believed they violated his version of relativity. (I say his version, because Einstein based his theories on a relativity that was created by a man named Lorentz. Lorentz believed the universe was infinite with no begining or end.) Einstein even wrote a paper showing black holes were impossible, its title is "On a Stationary System with Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses." - Physicists ignored it and moved forward using a corrupted version of Schwarzchild's formulas developed by a man named Hilbert. Cosmology has never recovered from this.

2. Hannes Alfven, the founding father of magnetohydrodynamics, never believed in magnetic reconnection. Magnetic reconnection is a supposed property of magnentic fields that theoretical physicists use to explain the auroras, the sun, and virtually everything else we see in space. He argued strenuously against this misuse of his physics and wrote several papers on the subject, one of which is entitled "On Frozen-In Field Lines and Field-Line Reconnection". Without "magnetic reconnection" all of our theories about the aurora, comets, the sun, stars, pulsars, nebula, etc.. are wrong.

3. The equations that we consider "Laws" in electrical engineering are violated by theoretical physicists on a daily basis, as are "Laws" in nuclear chemistry. In order to create explainations for the Sun, stars, and things such as neutron stars, theoretical physicists create explainations in direct violation of known laws of physics.

For example, neutronium, which is a super massive "element" in neutron stars, is supposedly millions of times more dense than steel. However we know such an element can not physically exist and be in agreement with the "Island of Stability" in nuclear chemistry. This supposed element is in direct violation of known laws of nuclear chemistry.




I know of hundereds of examples such as these, where physicists have divorced cause and effect. Where they have thrown reality out the window in favor of make believe hypothesis and theories that can never be tested.

We can't test for a black hole for instance. We can't create a black hole in a lab. We can't see it with a telescope. We can't measure it with a ruler. We can't do anything other than postulate its existence based on what we see "real" matter doing in space. This fundamentally violates the scientific method, where by theories are made "non-falsifiable" and immune from critisim. Asking someone to believe in black holes is akin to asking someone to believe in inteligent design. Possible? sure. Scientific? No.




[edit on 2-6-2009 by mnemeth1]

[edit on 2-6-2009 by mnemeth1]

[edit on 2-6-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Awesome Awesome stuff. Very mind opening and logical.

I do have a question though, I watched the video and have been to a few of the sites, but I couldn't find a certain component.

It has to do with the sun and stars in general. They say that the coronas are hottest because the electricity to power the sun comes from outer space as opposed to a fusion reactor within the core.

Well my question is why do the sun and stars attract this massive amount of electricity, why are they formed balls as opposed to clouds like nebula's?

Also if the electricity is coming from outer space why can we not see its flow or measure its flow, in our solar system as it gets close to the suns location.

Does the idea that the electricity is being created within the suns core hold up?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join