Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

All Of Science Is A Lie

page: 21
54
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
I guess then that you don't care that when Electric Model was given its chances and large scale work was done on it the results came up NIL. More than once.

Your theory has no evidence other than what a couple engineers say and 1 physicist that shot himself in the foot by acting like a jackass to the rest of the community.

There is not one example of a large scale proof or even a bit of large scale evidence to support the EUM. That is a fact.

Perhaps if the entire EU community got its panties out of a bunch and quit bitching because no one takes them seriously (their own doing I add) then they may be able to work with the mainstream community.

Every time someone challenges the EU model the EU proponents get uppity and in your face with the what do you know attitude. . . . Sounds exactly like the religious zealots you accuse the relativity proponents of behaving like.

Your evidence is does not exist out there in the cosmos. Its been sought but never found. Your major players aren't physicist and your all sour over the fact that GR tends to smash EU at making predictions.




posted on May, 21 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
ORLY?

A total refutation of Einstein can be found here:
knol.google.com...

Electric Sun Verified
www.holoscience.com...

The solar magnetic polarity reversal with every 11 year sunspot cycle has baffled solar physicists since its discovery. Electric current structure in the Electric Sun model provides a simple explanation.
www.thunderbolts.info...

Astronomers have recently discovered a band of energetic neutral atoms around the sky.
www.thunderbolts.info...
part 2
www.thunderbolts.info...

I could go on and on.

More on the electric sun theory, along with published models can be found here.
sites.google.com...






[edit on 21-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


OK, einstein (
) answer this:

I don't have time to read through pseudo-science crap, and since you're the master of it....IF our Sun (and by extension, you must then assume, or claim, that ALl stars are 'constructed' similarly) is 'electric', where does it get its mass from?

Sol accounts for over 98% of ALL the mass in our Solar System.

It's the gazillion-pound gorilla in the room...



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


OK, einstein (
) answer this:

I don't have time to read through pseudo-science crap, and since you're the master of it....IF our Sun (and by extension, you must then assume, or claim, that ALl stars are 'constructed' similarly) is 'electric', where does it get its mass from?

Sol accounts for over 98% of ALL the mass in our Solar System.

It's the gazillion-pound gorilla in the room...


Marklund convection of heavy elements within the fusion taking place in the corona.



>> General form of the magnetic field line pattern in a force-free axisymmetric filamentary structure. The filament is transparent so the temperature decreases toward the axis due to a preferential cooling of the densest regions. So the ionized components of the plasma are convected inwards with a velocity V across a temperature gradient, delta T. Diagram adapted from Marklund, G. T., "Plasma convection in force-free magnetic fields as a mechanism for chemical separation in cosmical plasma", Nature, vol. 277, Feb. 1, 1979, p. 370, 371.


www.holoscience.com...


It is a very efficient mechanism which results in scavenging matter with a long-range 1/r force. Marklund explains, “In my paper in Nature the plasma convects radially inwards, with the normal E x B/B2 velocity, towards the center of a cylindrical flux tube. During this convection inwards, the different chemical constituents of the plasma, each having its specific ionization potential, enter into a progressively cooler region. The plasma constituents will recombine and become neutral, and thus no longer under the influence of the electromagnetic forcing. The ionization potentials will thus determine where the different species will be deposited, or stopped in their motion." Stars formed in this way have an outer envelope of helium and hydrogen. Working inwards, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen will form the atmospheric middle layers, and iron, silicon and magnesium will make up the core, which is cool. There is no thermonuclear engine in stars!



Fusion its taking place in the corona. At this location we have element formation. Heavy elements are convected to the solar core providing accumulation of mass over time.




[edit on 21-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 



I guess then that you don't care that when Electric Model was given its chances and large scale work was done on it the results came up NIL. More than once.


Can you point to any specifics for me? I'm not to well versed in the area as I've only started learning about it, with the big bang model being the only one that was taught when I was in school years ago.

Personally, I think plasma/eu/aether is the way to go.


Your theory has no evidence other than what a couple engineers say and 1 physicist that shot himself in the foot by acting like a jackass to the rest of the community.


Yea, he probably shouldn't have been pointing the gun at his foot. Yet, I fail to see how that would invalidate anything else. Geologist have drinking conventions, well.. not centered around drinking, but they do drink when they meet up. Should we not trust geologists now because a good many of them are boozers?


There is not one example of a large scale proof or even a bit of large scale evidence to support the EUM. That is a fact.


Really? link I'm not going to spend all day going through numerous articles, but there is quiet a bit out there. Suppose we have differing definitions of 'fact'.


Perhaps if the entire EU community got its panties out of a bunch and quit bitching because no one takes them seriously (their own doing I add) then they may be able to work with the mainstream community.


I don't personally know anything about that. What would it matter anyways? Are you saying that bitching somehow invalidates things regardless of accuracy? Odd.


Every time someone challenges the EU model the EU proponents get uppity and in your face with the what do you know attitude. . . . Sounds exactly like the religious zealots you accuse the relativity proponents of behaving like.


Well, it is kind of like arguing with religious zealots. I'll get uppity and in your face with a fundamentalist stupidly trying to say the universe is 6,000 years old. When you have people who block their ears, the only means of communication is to shout louder and louder.


Your evidence is does not exist out there in the cosmos. Its been sought but never found. Your major players aren't physicist and your all sour over the fact that GR tends to smash EU at making predictions.


GR does what now? OK... GR predicted more mass than is currently observed. What was the reaction to that? Invent invisible unfalsifiable matter and energy to explain away the observation rather than realizing, the darn thing is just wrong.

Then we have morons who don't get that simple *fact* that inventing unobserved unfalsifiable things to hang onto a theory proved wrong by the observation is *not* called science.

But hey... What do I know?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Uhm. . . The so called "dark anomolies" are not unfalsifiable. They are currently being looked into. Within the next few years an answer to these anomolies will most likely be found.

This isn't string theory we're talking about here. This is macro scale physics and the anomolies will either be resolved or not. There are also solutions to GR floating around out there that do not require the extra "dark" mass.

It all comes down to the next couple years of high level research. Everyone is just kind of holding their collective breath waiting on cern to verify or disprove super symmetry or the higgs feild/boson. We are also waiting on data from GLAST and the highly anticipated launch of the JWST.

Relativity or not EU or not. String theory or holographic universe. . . . All of which may turn out to be horribly wrong are being tested.

No matter the outcome of all the research and man hours, it is a great time to be alive and interested in the science of physics at all scales.

To the future.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 



Uhm. . . The so called "dark anomolies" are not unfalsifiable. They are currently being looked into. Within the next few years an answer to these anomolies will most likely be found.


The "anomalies" only exist because they were invented. Einstein made a wrong prediction on how much mass there should be and observations showed less, so they invented these magical dark things that only interact gravitationally to "fix" or rather dismiss the erroneous prediction.

We don't need to wait a few years, the answer is just that damn obvious.


This isn't string theory we're talking about here. This is macro scale physics and the anomolies will either be resolved or not. There are also solutions to GR floating around out there that do not require the extra "dark" mass.


Yet scientists are still spending millions upon billions of dollars to find this invented unobserved crap. Gotta love modern science!


It all comes down to the next couple years of high level research. Everyone is just kind of holding their collective breath waiting on cern to verify or disprove super symmetry or the higgs feild/boson. We are also waiting on data from GLAST and the highly anticipated launch of the JWST.


I doubt they'll find it, haven't they already tried and "whoops", must exist at a higher energy. Let's build a bigger more expensive machine to find it.


Relativity or not EU or not. String theory or holographic universe. . . . All of which may turn out to be horribly wrong are being tested.


String theory and holographic universe are a joke and then some. Relativity is partially right. Then Einstein got a hold of it and screwed it to high hell and now we invent things to hang onto his version.


No matter the outcome of all the research and man hours, it is a great time to be alive and interested in the science of physics at all scales.


It just seems to be a pointless waste when it's an obvious waste. I can think of better uses that frivolous spending and research could be put towards.


To the future.


Aye, as then Tesla will have his day and rightfully so.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Take an insulated high voltage wire with running current. Cut it somewhere. Does the electricity still transmit once you separate it past the arcing maximum's reach?


Experiment done. proven. I am right. Kthanxbye.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


OMGOSH, cuz like you know, like... magnetic fields that permeate space like totally are capable of like you know, inducing electric charge. Like totally!

Sorry if I had to dumb that down for you.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Science without Tesla has to be a big lie.
Years ago people were saying the government lies.
Perhaps this is what they meant.

www.tesla.hu...
then click Nikola Tesla (Lectures - Articles):


1933-11-02: Tesla 'Harnesses' Cosmic Energy
1933-12-__: Breaking up Tornadoes
1934-03-__: Possibilities of Electro-Static Generators
1934-04-__: Nikola Tesla Writes (Additional comments on electrostatic generators)
1934-04-08: Tesla Sees Evidence Radio and Light Are Sound
1934-07-__: Radio Power Will Revolutionize the World
1934-07-10: Invents Peace Ray - Tesla Describes His Beam of Destructive Energy
1934-07-11: Death-Ray Machine Described
1934-07-11: Tesla, at 78, Bares New 'Death-Beam'
1934-07-11: Beam to Kill Army at 200 Miles, Tesla's Claim on 78th Birthday 1934-07-24: Tesla on Power Development and Future Marvels
1934-10-21: Tribute to King Alexander
1934-10-21: Dr. Tesla Visions the End of Aircraft in war
1935-02-__: A Machine to End War
1935-03-03: German Cosmic Ray Theory Questioned
1935-06-05: Tesla Predicts Ships Powered by Shore Beam
1935-07-09: 3 Tesla Inventions
1935-07-11: Nikola Tesla, at 79, Uses Earth to Transmit Signals; Expects to Have $100,000,000 Within Two Years (Kivonatok a cikkbol)
1935-07-11: Tesla's Controlled Earthquake
1935-07-11: Tesla, 79, Promises to Transmit Force
1935-08-18: Expanding Sun Will Explode Someday Tesla Predicts (Kivonatok a cikkbol)
1935-09-22: Nikola Tesla Tells How He'd Defend Ethiopia Against Italian Invasion
1936-07-11: Tesla, 80, Reveals New Power Device
1937-07-10: Prepared Statement of Tesla (For interview with press on 81st birthday observance)
1937-07-11: Sending of Messages to Planets Predicted by Dr. Tesla on Birthday
1937-07-12: Tesla Has Plan to Signal Mars
1937-07-27: Dr. Tesla's Honors
1937-08-22: In the Realm of Science: Tesla, Who Predicted Radio, Now Looks Forward to Sending Waves to the moon
1938-05-12: Text of Tesla Speech for the Institute of Immigrant Welfare 1938-10-08: Reference to Compass in 13th Century Poem
1939-__-__: Story of Youth Told by Age
1939-07-26: The Soviet Sacrifice of Spain
1940-07-12: Aerial Defense 'Death-Beam' Offered to U. S. By Tesla 1940-09-22: 'Death Ray' for Planes
1940-10-20: Proposing the 'Death Ray' for Defense


To get more technical Tesla's ideas on the electron can be found in
the O Niel biography and the ether in TC Martins copy of a 1892
lecture and things like ether is the transmitter of infinite energy
so I guess there is enough if the Papp engine continues to work.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


Tesla was the foremost biggest genius modern times has ever seen. Damn near everything is thanks to that one man. Tesla says there is an aether, and if he says so, then god dammit, the aether exist!

Makes sense as all examples of things that 'wave' only wave through a medium. Yet Einstein in all his infinite stupidity decided to take away the aether and screwed up physics for the last hundred years.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


What do you mean by aether?

.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull
reply to post by sirnex
 


What do you mean by aether?

.


Tesla describes it as a rarefied gas. The aether would be the medium that electromagnetic waves propagate through. Current science says these are the only waves that don't need a medium. Well, gravity waves too, but they're a myth anyways, so it don't count.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Something can carry electricity. that does not change the distance electricity can go before dispersing.

so yea, you're still wrong.

Stop making yourself look dumb, mmkay?

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Here is what Tesla said and where his published lecture was noted:


"The most probable medium filling all space is one consisting of independent
carriers immersed in an insulating fluid." (1)


the reference being in the following book publication:
1. T. C. Martin, The Inventions, Researches and Writings of Nikola Tesla;
Lecture before the Institution of Electrical Engineers, London (1892).

Some bar magnets work through the ether as well as radio and light.
Tesla operated one coil circuit to push the carriers in one direction
which pulls in negative leaving the positive to suspend his craft.
The 'medium' or ether was so defined as Tesla found high voltage
and high frequency transmitted through the ether with electrical and
pressure force effects.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


How do you know this so called ether exists?

What if it is Dark Matter?

What if it is just the magnetic sphere.

How could he possibly get any kind of clear reading of what makes up the universe whilst the mass of the Earth and Sun, and their magnetic fields, are massively blurring anything in the basic fabric of space, be it ether or nothing.

Simply put, how?

No computers, nothing but last century equipment.

I'm suppose to believe that a man in the post-steam era could accurately observe the basic structure of the universe?


that's just silly.




[edit on 21-5-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 



How do you know this so called ether exists?


Tesla Describes the aether as a 'rarefied gas', he didn't have modern knowledge of zero point energy, but his description appears to be just that. We've already detected this ZPE, so that's how we know it exists. Current theories don't account for any interactions with the ZPE by either matter nor electromagnetic waves.


What if it is Dark Matter?


Dark matter doesn't exist.


What if it is just the magnetic sphere.


Wrong properties.


How could he possibly get any kind of clear reading of what makes up the universe whilst the mass of the Earth and Sun, and their magnetic fields, are massively blurring anything in the basic fabric of space, be it ether or nothing.



He (Tesla) talked about experiments that suggested particles with fractional charges of an electron - something that scientists in 1977 finally discovered - quarks!
link


Simply put, how?

No computers, nothing but last century equipment.


At the time, Tesla couldn't directly detect it the way we can today, but the man was a pure electrical genius.


I'm suppose to believe that a man in the post-steam era could accurately observe the basic structure of the universe?


Yet you subscribe to Eisnteinian physics? Can you say hypocrite? Why do you subscribe to one man and not the other from the same era? Einstein dismissed the aether and electrical phenomena having any role in space and left us with a messed up theory that requires us to invent invisible unfalsifiable constructs to hang onto it.


that's just silly.


No, your silly.


Something can carry electricity. that does not change the distance electricity can go before dispersing.


Well before computer technology and simulations, we've had the Planet-Formation Theory. This theory doesn't account for plasma physics at all in the formation of planets, despite a protplanetary disk being a plasma.

Here's what they found when they ran a simulation to test the theory.


Gas-rich planets such as Jupiter and Saturn grew from a disk of dust and gas which eventually crumpled like a piece of paper under its own gravitational instability -- or so one theory goes.

Now a computer simulation suggests that this idea falls apart under the turbulent forces within early protoplanetary systems.
link

Only thing is, when we account for electrical phenomena in plasma's, we don't have this problem. You can pretend these thing's don't matter and I can keep providing you links to every aspect of Einsteinian physics being pure BS. I mean... you just look dumb right now.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by IanC99000310
 


I believe that when it was stated that a (photon I think) had been teleported, what they had in fact done, was to 'teleport' the quantum state of the first photon to the second in essence making the second one identical to the first.

No actual particle had changed locations.

If I am incorrect about this I am SURE I will be quickly schooled HAHAHA!!



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You say that scientists change thier math to conform to observation:
That may indeed be true , but for a theory to be accepted it must not only agree with observation, but be able to make predictions.

That said, I will play the devil's advocate and say that like any human enterprise, science is full of hucksters and charlatans. Scientists are human, and as such are prone to all the human foibles.... pride being a big one, as well as self deception.

To say that all of science is correct, is as wrong as it is to say that all of science is a lie.... after all, what would you call plasma cosmology if not a science?

If you do not think of Plasma Cosmology as a science well.... my bad HAHAHA!!!

[edit on 23-5-2010 by FileZero]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by tektek2012
most science is based on math, math proves so much...is math a lie to you?

because if it is; well...sorry but while the things based on theories could be wrong, not all of it is. its not all completely understood.

now to the real stuff...you like jesus don't you?


I bet you will not tell an evolutionist that science is based on math. They will call you a liar.





new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join