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.

 

Questions To The Astronomical Community

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



Conventionally, the entire peculiar velocity ¯eld is assumed to be driven by the peculiar
gravitational potential. For a given cosmological model, the details of the velocity ¯eld also
depend on the window function of the dataset. Constructing the precise window function is
beyond the scope of this paper, but the overall conclusions would be insensitive to its details
because the amplitude and coherence length of the measured °ows are quite unexpected
within the concordance ¤CDM model.

www.nasa.gov...

That only states that the discovery was unexpected, quite a large difference than "proving plasma cosmology". To be honest I have not had a chance to read through the entire paper, as it is somewhat lengthy and technical(we are not talking simple physics here
). But regardless of that the summation says it all. Also the cold spot and other "issues" can be attributed to a current lack of knowledge of cosmology, most likely relating to some type of quantum or hyperdimensional event.




posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



Conventionally, the entire peculiar velocity ¯eld is assumed to be driven by the peculiar
gravitational potential. For a given cosmological model, the details of the velocity ¯eld also
depend on the window function of the dataset. Constructing the precise window function is
beyond the scope of this paper, but the overall conclusions would be insensitive to its details
because the amplitude and coherence length of the measured °ows are quite unexpected
within the concordance ¤CDM model.

www.nasa.gov...

That only states that the discovery was unexpected, quite a large difference than "proving plasma cosmology". To be honest I have not had a chance to read through the entire paper, as it is somewhat lengthy and technical(we are not talking simple physics here
). But regardless of that the summation says it all. Also the cold spot and other "issues" can be attributed to a current lack of knowledge of cosmology, most likely relating to some type of quantum or hyperdimensional event.


I don't need it to prove plasma cosmology, I just need it to disprove standing theory.

By default, that leaves the door wide open for plasma cosmology.

Its not just the cold spot btw.

I posted three papers, you only commented on one.

Taken in totality, I think its clear the LCDM is a bunch of nonsense.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


rocinante.colorado.edu...

That could be a helpful link for you.

Also no one is claiming modern models have all the answers there is MUCH we don't know, but what little "countering evidence" as you would say is nothing enough to make a statement that the entire model of the Universe is wrong. Dark Matter, whatever it is, is likely to solve all remaining issues, as will a better understanding of brane cosmology IMHO.

You are asking me to counter your papers, well I just did...Now can you or anyone discredit the M-Theory postulates? I am not saying the modern view is entirely correct. There is much to be done, but I think it is quite obvious the plasma model is errounious. Either way this little debate is going no where, as your mind is not going to be changed unless I can come with some breakthrough discovery, which I can't at the moment. You can't prove your theory either. The theory I and many subscribe to has much more weight to it however.

There are many theories right now, but the foundation of them all is pretty solid and does not allow for a plasma based universe.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


Your paper doesn't counter my arguments, in fact it supports them.

I'd also comment that the paper in question is not a published paper and it is out of date.

The findings showing the WMAP data to be in error and the falsification of the LCDM model based on that data are far newer.





[edit on 3-8-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Not really, you are simply using the small issues in the standard model to claim that everything else is wrong and thus the Universe is electric. That is a HUGE FALLACY. But like I said, this is a continuing circular debate b/w our field so I am going to end this here on my side. Hopefully we should see soon. I don't care either way to be honest, I just defend what seems most plausible Also you nor anyone else has adequately countered the M-theory cosmology model.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Not really, you are simply using the small issues in the standard model to claim that everything else is wrong and thus the Universe is electric. That is a HUGE FALLACY. But like I said, this is a continuing circular debate b/w our field so I am going to end this here on my side. Hopefully we should see soon. I don't care either way to be honest, I just defend what seems most plausible Also you nor anyone else has adequately countered the M-theory cosmology model.


small issues?

Observational falsification of the following:
The LCMD model
Red Shift as a function of expanding space
Black Holes
Gravitational Waves

Are small issues?



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



Observational falsification of the following:
The LCMD model
Red Shift as a function of expanding space
Black Holes
Gravitational Waves


All easily explainable by hyperdimensional theories, every single one of them.
Just because something is complex does not make it wrong.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
Just because something is complex does not make it wrong.


yeah, actually it does.

Occam's razor ya know.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Those of us who side with Sir William of Ockham are bound to win in the long run as the opposition runs out of rabbits to pull out of their hats.

I am amazed by these atrocious and inane arguments precariously propped up by yet more theory. I say, I can't believe what I am reading at times, not that I don't understand, rather I can't believe such effort to create long winded models for simple processes...

Anyone who has done enough work or study along these lines will readily admit confusion is part of the process, which becomes deeper as one delves deeper. Anyone can throw equations around, as the saying goes, figures don't lie but liars can figure.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Matyas
 


yeah hahaha

Hey, you want a good laff?




posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I know. To me it is more troublesome than funny. When I went to school, long, long ago, they tought us that civilization had grown beyond the mythology of the ancient world. Well, of course, they were wrong about the primitive part, but the idea was that science made superstition disappear in a puff of logic. And all this supposedly came about in the Age of Reason.

Now I fear we have been living in a new Dark Age, one dominated with projecting what we know to be true deep within us onto our most cherished teachings. In other words, that diagram is a reflection of our age, our era, this time.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:48 AM
link   
Interesting thread I also have a bit of scepticism towards a lot of scientific theories mainly for the reason that when evidence appears against one instead of start over they mostly employ sidestepping measures.

My own opinion is black holes do exist although maybe they should be renamed to gravity wells or something but I agree scientists will never be able to study them in a lab even CERN which originally bragged about the idea they could create one a second if large extra dimensions exist admits they have no way to detect them if they are even created.

Source

I tend to agree with the big bang theory being ridiculous but at the same time it's hard to imagine an endless universe one idea that intrigued me is maybe matter actually creates spacetime but that still leaves the problem of where the matter came from.

I think all theory's accepted electrical plasma and aether might have a little truth to them though.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Teknikal
 


The question of where matter comes from I think can be answered if a steady state universe is accepted.

With a steady state universe comes an aether.

While scientists have long held that the fateful Michelson experiment disproved aether, I think there are other explainations for its null result besides Einstein's relativity

That experiment and subsequent null results have sent us on the wrong track in science for the past 100 years.

I personally think Gabriel LaFreniere has figured out the real reason for the null results.

www.glafreniere.com...

- now I have taken off my scientist hat and put on my "hypothetical" hat. If LaFreniere is correct, or is even close to correct, and an aether does exist and its function is the support of electron standing waves, then I think the answer for the creation of matter becomes apparent.

Matter is created in the vacuum of space.

It simply comes into existence one electron at a time in the depths of space derived from wave collisions in the aether.

Once an electron comes into existence in the depths of space, if plasma cosmology is correct, then that electron will eventually migrate toward other electrons and form into streams of charged plasma.

Those streams of charged plasma are what power the universe and create all matter that we see around us and in space.


[edit on 3-8-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   
So, what's the problem (according to you) with Jupiter ?

Did you actually try to look for plausible explanation for radio signals coming from it ?

Lil' advice for the next time ...

Post your questions in written form rather then You Tube video and you gonna have much more replies on your topic(s)



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by 5thElement
So, what's the problem (according to you) with Jupiter ?

Did you actually try to look for plausible explanation for radio signals coming from it ?

Lil' advice for the next time ...

Post your questions in written form rather then You Tube video and you gonna have much more replies on your topic(s)


That doesn't explain the "why", it explains the "how".

All that site says is "natural plasma instablilities".

So what powers those instabilities?

Modern science says something called magnetic reconnection is the driver.

Of course, like all their theories, magnetic reconnection violates a conservation law of physics, so its not happening the way they say its happening. Modern theoretical physicists can't be bothered by things like conservation laws.

The standard scientific explanation for Jupiter's radio emissions is a joke.

As usual, plasma cosmology has the answers.


[edit on 3-8-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Jupiter's magnetosphere - the biggest single object in the Solar system.

What do we know about it? Absolutely nothing.
And scientists who think their theories can encompass and explain the Universe are really imbeciles.

Astrology was aware of influences from planets for thousand of years, and Astronomy only now "discovers America". It's a laugh. A big laugh.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


I saw this video online and I've always been interested in that hubble picture. I am really curious about it.




top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join