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.

 

Here's The Real Science

page: 1
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I'm sure I've upset a great number of statist proponents of the so-called "standard model" of mainstream cosmology with my previous threads.

Now I am here to lay out my Magnum Opus refuting the obtuse and ridiculous notions of Einstein's version of reality.

First I shall lay out a series of thought provoking documentaries and videos that detail my case for the layman.

Thunderbolts of the Gods
Universe The Cosmology Quest Part 1
Universe The Cosmology Quest Part 2
Stephen Crothers: Why Black Holes Don’t Exist
Einstein’s Idiots (18 video series)
A New Energy Source – Blacklight Power

Now, let us move on to the so-called "Big Bang."

My thread of power detailing a plethora of evidence against so-called "expanding space."

1. Quasars brightness does not correlate to their observed red shift as it does with galaxies. This refutes the notion of "expanding space" and the big bang. High red shift quasars can be well accounted for with known properties of light acting in the plasma vacuum of space. Paper proving this here.

2. Quasars with low red shift have been found to more often than not match their host galaxy. This proves Halton Arp's ejection model of quasar formation. Paper proving quasars match their host galaxies red shifts, with the odds of correlation 1.5 in a million, can be found here.

3. Quasars with low red shift along with galactic red shift can be explained by the CREI L effect, a property of light acting in the plasma vacuum of space interacting with diffuse hydrogen. This effect can account for all the effects of galactic red shift cause by "expanding space" - further refuting the notion of a big bang.

4. Quasar red shift is observed to be quantized, as is shown in my previous thread. This means the earth must be at the center of the universe in order for the big bang model to be true - this is a complete joke. These findings throughly refute the notion of a big bang ever occurring.

5. The M87 galactic jet has been observed to eject matter at speeds faster than the speed of light. The notion that a black hole is shooting out matter to make this jet is a joke. Los Alamos plasma physicist Anthony Peratt has shown how charged plasma can account for all observations of the M87 galactic jet without the need to invoke ludicrous 'black holes'. Indeed, Peratt's theory, which is based on Alfven's work, can account for the double jets we observe in some AGNs - totally unexplained by the standard model. Double radio sources were PREDICTED by Alfven before their discovery. Paper showing this to be true can be found here.

6. Physicist Stephen Crothers has demonstrated the physics behind black holes to be a fallacy. Black hole physics violates SR, which means it also violates GR. Even by the mainstreams own standards, black holes are an impossibility. SR forbids infinite point mass particles such as a black hole singularity. Further, Schwarzschild's original paper that proposed the solution to the Mercury orbit problem, from which the black hole is supposedly derived, is regular in all of space-time. This absolutely refutes the notion of black holes. Schwarzschild's original paper in English can be found here.

7. The LIGO has never detected a gravitational wave. This non-detection directly refutes previous theory and stand in direct contradiction to predictions made by the theory of general relativity.

8. A recent study of Quasars show them to be devoid of all effects of time dilation. This directly refutes the notion of "expanding space" and the big bang. This is a primary FALSIFYING observation of Einstein's crackpot theories. This on its face means the big bang and Einstein's whack-job theories must be rejected. Article on the subject here.

9. All observational evidence of the Sun refutes the notion that the Sun is a gravitationally collapsing gas cloud that is powered by a hydrogen to helium fusion reaction. The surface of the Sun is only observed to reach around 6000 degrees, while the corona high above it can get into the millions of degrees. Sun spots are the deepest place we can see into the Sun, yet they are the coldest places we can measure. These observations directly refute the notion that heat energy is being released from the core of the Sun. There's an epic boat load more as well. Here's a video of some plasma physicists detailing all the problems with the standard model of the Sun. They are too numerous to list here in detail.

10. All comet nuclei that have been directly observed have proven to be rocky with no visible water present on the surface. This flies in the face of the standard theory of comets, yet this observation was PREDICTED by plasma cosmologists. Comets are also observed to emit x-rays and have filamented tails. This is unexplained by the standard model, yet these observations were PREDICTED by plasma cosmologists. Comets are not dirty balls of ice, they are rock. A site of my research with numerous images and articles on the subject.

11. All comets observed falling into the Sun or passing very near the Sun have subsequently been followed by coronal mass ejections. This is not explained at all by the idea a comet is a dirty snowball, yet this is well explained by plasma cosmology's view of comets. Also, comets have observed to brighten at distances too far from the Sun to possibly be attributed to sublimating ice. This too is explained well by plasma cosmologies view of comets.

12. Stars have been observed that are too cold to possibly host nuclear fusion. These stars are called brown dwarf stars and may be the most numerous stars in the galaxy. These stars are not explained at all by the standard model of stars. However, they are well explained and predicted by plasma cosmology.

13. GPS clocks and all other phenomena that supposedly "proves" Einstein's version of relativity can be accounted for BETTER using steady state models of the universe. Einstein basically stole his version of relativity from a man named Lorentz. Physicist Tom Van Flandern lays out the evidence here. An alternative theory based on Lorentz's work that accounts for why the MM experiment failed to detect the aether, as well as all other aberrations, can be found here.

14. The WMAP has show the existence of large scale voids in the supposed "cosmic background" from the big bang. These voids were not predicted and directly refute the notion of the big bang. The standard model has no proper explanation for the existence of these voids - plasma cosmology does.

15. The CDMS project has never detected any observational evidence of dark matter despite years of trying. This directly refutes the notion that dark matter exists and is the supposed cause of galaxies flying apart. This directly falsifies big bang theory along with Einstein's nut job theories.

16. Quasar Q2237 "The Einstein Cross" - this little beauty of a quasar directly refutes the notion of gravitational lensing. This quasar is supposedly ONE quasar being lensed into 4 images. This is a joke. The individual quasars are observed to brighten and dim independently. They are not oblong in shape. They are are visibly connected by a plasma field. They are observed to change position. All of these observations are in direct contradiction to gravitational lens theory. Indeed, this quasar also refutes the notion of expanding space - because if the quasars are not being lensed, they must be in the heart of the galaxy, which blows red shift theory out of the water. - no big bang.

17. All Hubble deep field images show fully formed galaxies at the supposed "edge of the universe." - if we are actually looking back in time to the birth of the cosmos, this should not be so. We should see developing galaxies, not fully formed galaxies.

18. Gravity is not constant. Every attempt to measure gravity has resulted in changes over time. No method of measuring gravity has ever proven gravity to be constant as is mandated by the general theory of relativity. This is direct FALSIFYING observational evidence that GR is wrong, which also means SR must be wrong.




[edit on 11-4-2010 by mnemeth1]




posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
19. "Magnetic reconnection" as it applies to its use in explaining the Sun and the aurora's violates the known laws of physics. Magnetic fields can not merge and snap imparting force. Magnetic field lines are not real objects. A paper by Scott proving this. This was also shown to be unnecessary by Falthammar here. AND Alfven himself rejected this idea in Cosmic Electrodynamics.

OK, lets make it an even 20.
Neutron stars and pulsars violate the known laws of physics. The proposed density of neutrons in these stars by the standard model violates the Island of Stability in nuclear chemistry. Neutrons can not be packed together that densely without having them fly apart instantaneously. Also, in pulsars, rotation rates have been observed on the order of 1200 hz. This also flies in the face of standard theory. It is impossible that a star can rotate that fast. The outer edges of the star would be approaching appreciable speeds of light. Of course, plasma cosmology offers a far simpler explanation that doesn't violate any laws of physics.



And finally, for the coup d'état, an epic pile of papers demonstrating alternatives based on sound physics to all of the anomolies I just described.

Professor Donald Scott lays out the case for plasma cosmology at the NASA Goddard Space Center's Engineering Colloquia in this video.

My 20 Questions video:




[edit on 11-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
oh, by the way.

I stopped at 20, but I'm sure I could rattle of about 20 more observations that directly refute Einstein's retarded theories.

Like galaxies are observed to be moving in "dark flows" or light element abundance.

The evidence against the crackpot theories of Einstein is so overwhelming an entire encyclopedia could be dedicated to it.


[edit on 11-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Here's my 2 cent there are lots we don't know about the universe to get a good picture since our data is limited. Also there's a theoretical physicist who was in ATS's universe minutes ago that you can debate with next time. Her name is BellaMente, here's a link www.abovetopsecret.com... she might give you the challenging argument you want.

[edit on 11-4-2010 by Pillar]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Pillar
 


send her over.

we'll do battle.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   
I suppose I'll bite. Let's start with GR's most famous prediction and vindicating result: the observation of bending starlight during the May 1919 eclipse(This), and many observations of bent starlight since then. How do you account for this without appealing to dynamic spacetime geometry? You should be able to account for this observation directly, and not just provide more reasons you think the notion of spacetime is silly. If spacetime is nonsense, how did the light get bent?

You've mentioned dusty plasma with regard to this problem, but that doesn't really work without further explanation. I can't imagine that it could work, but I'd like to hear what you've got.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Pillar
 


I've just replied her u2u with a link to this thread.


I've noticed her thoughts are in favour of a holographic universe.

So this should become very interesting.

[edit on 11-4-2010 by Sinter Klaas]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned
I suppose I'll bite. Let's start with GR's most famous prediction and vindicating result: the observation of bending starlight during the May 1919 eclipse(This), and many observations of bent starlight since then. How do you account for this without appealing to dynamic spacetime geometry? You should be able to account for this observation directly, and not just provide more reasons you think the notion of spacetime is silly. If spacetime is nonsense, how did the light get bent?

You've mentioned dusty plasma with regard to this problem, but that doesn't really work without further explanation. I can't imagine that it could work, but I'd like to hear what you've got.



That's a great come back.

I've found an epic amount of data that refutes the notion of bending space and "gravitational lensing." However the exact details of what is causing the observed phenomena you just mentioned is still unknown to me.

Some enterprising researcher may have come up with a solution I am unaware of - BUT - I can demonstrate light can be bent through electromagnetic forces.

Given that we know its possible to bend light here on earth without gravity, it stands to reason that there is probably some real property of plasma acting in space that can account for what is observed.

Berkeley's lab that works on bending light:
xlab.me.berkeley.edu...

[edit on 11-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by Pillar
 


I've just replied her u2u with a link to this thread.


I've noticed her thoughts are in favour of a holographic universe.

So this should become very interesting.

[edit on 11-4-2010 by Sinter Klaas]


Thanks I've also sent a u2u to her inbox too, this should be an interesting debate indeed. Maybe she can explain these phenomena, so yeah I'm looking forward to seeing her side of the argument as well.

[edit on 11-4-2010 by Pillar]

[edit on 11-4-2010 by Pillar]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


This is a really interesting thread and I'm excited to watch it develop. I have to admit my BS alarm tends to go off any time I watch anything related to cosmology's standard model. Not to say I think I know better than those in the field, its just that occasionally the explanations make me feel like I'm about to buy a bad used car...

As for light bending around the sun, I would be interested to know if anyone was able to make a detailed spectrum of the light from the star. It seems to me if some effect from the sun was causing the area immediately around it to have a different index of refraction then the light would be bent, however the amount it was bent would be dependent on the wavelength and the observer would see a color shift.

On a side note, if I might make a suggestion, if you want people to seriously consider your arguments, it might be good to refrain from calling the current theories crackpot, jokes, stupid, etc. It's been my experience that people will completely shut off their minds to any information no matter how good, if they feel they are being attacked. Just a suggestion...



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
I added one more point for good measure.

It was killing me leaving it hanging at 19.

People should email this thread to every astrophysicist and theoretical physicist on the planet demanding explanations.

They are a bunch of lying thieves. The worst part is they KNOW FULL WELL they are lying. This isn't confusion, this is outright fraud.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I'm on the mainstream side of the fence, but I support what you're doing. Pointing out anomalous data - observations which are inconsistent with accepted theories - is how progress is made and paradigms are shifted in science. You raise some challenging points.

I'll accept that we can put bent light observation on hold for now.

Several of your points are based on how to interpret the quasar anomalies; red shift, time dilation, ect. are not what we would expect according to GR/SR/mainstream cosmological theories. However, I don't think we should be so quick to abandon our current ideas. There are explanations which have been put foward to explain the quasar problems in a way that is consistent with relativity and other mainstream theories:



So what's going on? Hawkins classes possible explanations as "wacky" or "not so wacky". The wacky ideas include the possibility that the universe is not expanding, or that quasars are not at the distances indicated by the red shifts of their light - an idea that has previously been discredited.

Among the not-so-wacky theories is the idea that the brightness variations are not caused by the quasars themselves but by the gravitational distortion of bodies about the mass of a star floating between Earth and the quasars.

Full article
Similar article



In this paper we set out to measure time dilation in quasar light curves. In order to detect the effects of time dilation, sets of light curves from two monitoring programmes are used to construct Fourier power spectra covering time-scales from 50 d to 28 yr. Data from high- and low-redshift samples are compared to look for the changes expected from time dilation. The main result of the paper is that quasar light curves do not show the effects of time dilation. Several explanations are discussed, including the possibility that time dilation effects are exactly offset by an increase in time-scale of variation associated with black hole growth, or that the variations are caused by microlensing in which case time dilation would not be expected.

Journal Article



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Yeah I'm very familiar with micro-lensing theory.

Of course, I find this explanation to be a joke.

For starters, the micro-lensing theory stipulates that the objects should look distorted, not perfectly spherical and point like.

I also find it a wild stretch of the imagination to think that compact ultra-mass objects are located all over the place in such perfect positions as to grant us perfect point like views of distant objects through natural lenses.

Also, the objects in question must be black holes or extremely dim since we can't see anything that would be causing such micro-lensing effects. Since Crothers proves that black holes are impossible according to SR, this explanation must be rejected.

ALSO, as to the large scale halos observed in the galaxy, we have one RIGHT HERE IN OUR OWN SOLAR SYSTEM! - except its in the infrared.



[edit on 11-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Good work Mnemeth..

I've always followed Einstein's theories, mostly because they don't teach anything else in the mainstream.

I do remember reading a great thread last year that was for the "Electric Universe" model of things, which made a lot of sense to me.

I will certainly be researching your links and making my own opinion, but for now at least you've come to the table with questions AND answers from reputable and peer reviewed work.

Kudos to you
. S&F

~Keeper



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Wow that's a cool picture.

But I don't see what it has to do with lensing.

The article says it is all about tiny spics of dust. But is that true.

For anything to be vissible in infrared it has to radiate heat right ?
How do tiny pieces of dust totaly exposed to the cold of space. ?
I assume their could be no way for dust particles to retain heat. Just like sand on Earth quickly cools.

So an infrared photo should be impossible.
Or am I tataly missing something here. ?



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Wow that's a cool picture.

But I don't see what it has to do with lensing.

The article says it is all about tiny spics of dust. But is that true.

For anything to be vissible in infrared it has to radiate heat right ?
How do tiny pieces of dust totaly exposed to the cold of space. ?
I assume their could be no way for dust particles to retain heat. Just like sand on Earth quickly cools.

So an infrared photo should be impossible.
Or am I tataly missing something here. ?


It has to do with lensing because it shows large scale halos can form in space from other effects besides gravitational lensing.

The heat isn't really from dust, its from plasma. That's not a ring of hot dust, its a ring of charged particles that are being accelerated, which is what's causing the heat signature.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Right the electric universe.

I 'don't understand how a full halo can exist.

Electricity and magnetism are bi polar right ?

Or are all the particles positive. ?



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   


7. The LIGO has never detected a gravitational wave. This non-detection directly refutes previous theory and stand in direct contradiction to predictions made by the theory of general relativity.


yet, give it time, Rome wast built in a day



... Sun spots are the deepest place we can see into the Sun, yet they are the coldest places we can measure. ...


relative to the places around them, giving them their dark appearance. look at the center of a sunspot, it will look like the normal surface of the sun. the video posted also tends to ignore the magnetic field lines around the perimeter of the sunspots, similar to iron filings around a magnet. also, when it comes to anything natural in space, i tend not to give credence to an electrical engineer. if you were going to get brain surgery and the doctors were discussing it, do you want the janitor's opinion?



12. Stars have been observed that are too cold to possibly host nuclear fusion. These stars are called brown dwarf stars and may be the most numerous stars in the galaxy. These stars are not explained at all by the standard model of stars. However, they are well explained and predicted by plasma cosmology.


it is explained in the standard model of stars. these stars dont have the mass (.008 solar masses) for to compress the core enough to reach the 10 million kelvin temperature required for fusion. some scientists believe that jupiter could be a brown dwarf, as there is no clear, accepted distinction between giant planet and really really really small failed star



14. The WMAP has show the existence of large scale voids in the supposed "cosmic background" from the big bang. These voids were not predicted and directly refute the notion of the big bang. The standard model has no proper explanation for the existence of these voids - plasma cosmology does.


the CMB just shows temperature differences. it shows that where the background cools first is where matter collected after it was cool enough to form



15. The CDMS project has never detected any observational evidence of dark matter despite years of trying. This directly refutes the notion that dark matter exists and is the supposed cause of galaxies flying apart.


there is observational evidence. the out parts of galaxies are spinning faster than the inside, despite the center having more visible mass. this means that the outer regions must have a source of mass, which could possibly be less dense than visible matter. we cant see. my astronomy professor a few semesters ago believes that matter and dark matter are like salad dressing, the denser material flows to the center with the least dense floating on top. this could be why we cant detect ark matter from our point in the galaxy as it congregates on the outside.



17. All Hubble deep field images show fully formed galaxies at the supposed "edge of the universe." - if we are actually looking back in time to the birth of the cosmos, this should not be so. We should see developing galaxies, not fully formed galaxies.


edge of the visible universe, theres more to it than we can see.



Neutron stars and pulsars violate the known laws of physics


Known known laws of physics. we dont know everything about physics. i doubt humanity ever will.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Double post.

My bad


[edit on 11-4-2010 by Sinter Klaas]



new topics

top topics



 
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join