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: 10
30
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Exactly how did scientists come to the conclusion dark matter must exist?


They didn't. If you can't get THAT into your head, I can't help you.


LOL great answer.




posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Dark matter is merely a source of lots of gravity at the outer edges of the galaxy gausing a gravitational influence on the galaxy leading us to believe there is lots of matter out there. We can't see it as it's dark. It's matter that is dark, dark matter



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Paladin327
 


Thanks for that riveting explanation of dark matter.

Now that's settled, lets move on to discussing the existence of unicorns and fairies.

I personally feel fairies can account for galactic mass deficiencies observed, while unicorns on the other hand offer a great solution to the problem of galactic expansion.

Using these two entities, I'm able to construct an accurate unified model of spacetime by the injection of fairy dust and unicorn horns as the primary drivers of warping.

Fairy dust has some appealing properties that lend itself to the physics problem at hand. It is invisible, it passes through normal matter, and it can't be detected other than by its effects. This makes it perfect for my physics modeling. On top of that, because fairies are so elusive, I will be forced to spend quadrillions of tax payer dollars hunting down fairies to prove my point. Thankfully, the government has guns with which I can confiscate my research funding through the tax system - without guns, we might never actually ever be able to prove that fairies exist.

My logic is unimpeachable, my wisdom immense.


[edit on 16-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Do the theories you champion have an explanation for the increased longevity of short lived particles travelling at relativistic speeds?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightFantastic
Do the theories you champion have an explanation for the increased longevity of short lived particles travelling at relativistic speeds?



Common sense will give you an answer to that one.

Short lived particles are "created" in accelerators where they slam bits of matter together.

They aren't "creating" anything. They are destroying bits of wave functions. If they were actually creating stuff, they would be able to take their new matter out of the accelerator chamber and do something with it.

When the wave function of an electron is imploded it sends out EM ripples in all directions that their detectors track. Scientists then stare at the jumble of ripples created like an obsessed person staring at static on a blank TV station claiming they see something in the chaos.

Given this, it makes sense that the more energy you put in, the more crap you'll see flying around the chamber and the longer the tracks will be visible.

Accelerators themselves provide us with no useful information at all. Everything that has been learned about the nature of matter is already known. The continued operation of accelerators is pointless. They do nothing accept waste huge sums of tax payer dollars.

If anyone can provide me just ONE example of something useful (ie. that has improved the lives of humanity) that has come out of accelerator labs in the past 10 years, I'd like to see it.


Oh, and before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm talking about high energy theoretical physics accelerators. Obviously microwaves, xray machines, and medical radiation guns are not included in my "particle accelerator" rant.


[edit on 16-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I didn't mean collisions, I was talking about the life of say, a proton, travelling at .5C compared to one travelling at .999C.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   
I don't know if this article has showed on ATS but I thought it would fit right in this thread.

Einstein's Theory Fights off Challengers


Any thoughts ?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Nice quote from Einstein.

"The universe and human stupidity are infinite, I'm not sure about the universe. Yet.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightFantastic
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I didn't mean collisions, I was talking about the life of say, a proton, travelling at .5C compared to one travelling at .999C.


You'll have to be more specific.

To my knowledge, protons do not decay.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
You'll have to be more specific.

lol I my finger types what it wants - I was thinking about rest to relativistic muons. Proton decay is for another thread.

[edit on 16/4/2010 by LightFantastic]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightFantastic

Originally posted by mnemeth1
You'll have to be more specific.

lol I my finger types what it wants - I was thinking about rest to relativistic muons. Proton decay is for another thread.

[edit on 16/4/2010 by LightFantastic]


We'd have to discuss just exactly what muons are for starters. Which is more than I care to discuss at the moment. I may come back to this later.

For now, here's a page on quarks

www.glafreniere.com...

Since its not stable and there's a lot of hypothetical postulates surrounding just what it exactly is, I would be speculating too much for my tastes.

We know its not a stable fundamental particle of matter, its a byproduct of a high energy impact, and as such I put it in the same realm of damaged goods that accelerators produce - "broken" real matter.

Also, there's hypotheticals surrounding its generation and lifetime, so right from the start we don't have a fundamental proven base to work from.

Remember, from my perspective, all matter is a function of standing wave mechanisms, so if that wave becomes destabilized in some way it may produce all sorts of weird effects.






[edit on 16-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
Nice quote from Einstein.

"The universe and human stupidity are infinite, I'm not sure about the universe. Yet.


yhe only commodity in the universe that is greater than stpidity is hydrogen



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Ok so ive been doing a lot of research which leads me to conclude that our solar system is stuck in a 4D time "bubble". The voyager 1 and 2 only reached the Heliopause which is one of the outer shells of our solarsystems magnetic field, I believe that beyond the "bow shock" which is believed to be the final endpoint of the magnetic field, we would find exponential growth in the amount of cosmic radiation, I believe that these travel way beyond the speed of light, like super energy, or what the human aura can consist of. Anyways everything we are measuring from outside this bubble seems to slow down because for some reason this region we are in is highly dense. So relating it to the vatican and all of their lies and sun worshipping i believe that they are intentionally modifying the suns frequency to that of something very dense in order to inhibit the growth of our human dna. So basically all research states that our dna is highly influenced by cosmic radation, the kind of code that reprograms our dna. When these cosmic rays are blocked out we experience Charles Darwins theory of evolution, dna starts mutating by itself, and a lotttttt slower. Every few thousand millenia evolution leaps forward due to increases of of cosmic radiation. It is now proven that cosmic rays have the most influence on plant growth!!!!! So when analyzing time lines of human activity and evolution it seems that there is an indirect corrolation between the suns solar activity and the amount of cosmic rays reaching our planet. Whenever the sun goes through a solar maximum it blocks out the most cosmic radiation, really? Why does this happen? Notice that in the 60s and 70s when everyone turned into hippies and there was a conscious awakening that the sun was in a solar minimum?

www.edgeblog.net...

So therefor whatever dark rituals they are doing they want to hault humans from discovering their ancient potential in their dna, along with poisoning our air, food, and water. Explanation in chemtrails they are probably blocking out the radation from reaching us. Ever wonder why the sun destroys your skin so much now when it didnt before, wtf is happening to it? Is our sun connected with the dark sun and niburu? When 2012 comes along it will probably override w/e frequency our sun is emmiting and break through the magnetic field, therefor we will instantly be showered with cosmic rays like the fantastic 4. Thats what the pyramids were for, they connected to the earth grid to help our planet receive the signals. I strongly encourage others to research the topic as i think this is the dark secret that has been kept from humanity for so long. People need to realize that we dont know anything and that thinking outside of the box and the
planet is a good thing for the benefit of mankind.

www.suntrek.org...

www.space.com...

Funny thing is, I figured this out all by myself with the help of being in trance like states



[edit on 17-4-2010 by triplehelix888]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Personally I am fond of the theory of relativity and I see no reason to throw all of it out yet. The problems I see that are being discussed here have to do with the explanations of warped time-space and point particles. The more I learn about the wave structure of matter the more fault I see in particle physics. It appears your presentation states that there are no such things as particles, just waves. I agree with you but I also think this will be a hard sell to particle physicists.

Is it true that an electric current generates a magnetic field and inversely a magnetic field is present around an electric current? Or, more to the point, the two are one of the same? In other words you cannot have one without the other. If this is true than the nature of the electric Sun theory seems to be a no brainer. The Sun creates a magnetic field therefore, there must be an electric current creating this field. The question is where is the source of this electricity. This same phenomena is present within the Earth, since the Earth has a magnetic field where is the electric current?

[edit on 4/17/2010 by Devino]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 


I'm not saying we should throw out relativity. I'm saying we should throw out Einstein's version of relativity.

Yes, it is absolutely true that in order to have a magnetic field one must have constant power input. Magnetic fields are only created by moving charge. Magnetic fields can never be "frozen in" and self sustaining.

Plasma is not a perfect conductor, hence there must be power input constantly in order for a magnetic field in plasma to be maintained for any length of time.

As soon as you shut the power off, the magnetic field dissipates.

See point 19 for more information on this topic.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   


The Sun creates a magnetic field therefore, there must be an electric current creating this field. The question is where is the source of this electricity. This same phenomena is present within the Earth, since the Earth has a magnetic field where is the electric current?


you do not need an electrical current to create a magnetic field. Neodinium magnets create a magnetic field on their own without an electrical current present. Iron also creates a magnetic field with no current. and guess what is at the center of the earth? A crap load of, you guessed it, molton iron. Lots and lots of molton iron. No electrical current, nothing.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Paladin327
 


That's not a valid argument for plasma.

If you had read the papers in point 19 that I linked, you'd know this.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Yes, it is absolutely true that in order to have a magnetic field one must have constant power input. Magnetic fields are only created by moving charge. Magnetic fields can never be "frozen in" and self sustaining.

So maybe I am missing the point or otherwise don't understand the debate about an Electric Sun/Universe theory.

Earth has a magnetic field, along with most of the other planets and at least some moons, so where is the electric current that create these fields?

Our Sun, and perhaps all other stars, have a magnetic field around them so where is the electric current?

I assume that our galaxy as well as other galaxies also have magnetic fields around them so the same question applies. The question is not, "is there an electric current", but, "where is this electric current and what is its source?" If we work off the premise that electricity and magnetism are one of the same then this is a pointless debate in my opinion. How can one claim that the Sun is not an electrical phenomena but at the same time accept that there is a magnetic field around it. Maybe the question is not whether the Sun has an electric current but is it comprised only of an electrical phenomena.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Paladin327
 

OK, I think I get it. The idea is that since we have magnets but cannot measure an electric current associated with these magnetic phenomena then that proves said electric current does not exist. Could it be possible that these currents are actually present but we have yet to measure them?



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Accelerators themselves provide us with no useful information at all. Everything that has been learned about the nature of matter is already known. The continued operation of accelerators is pointless. They do nothing accept waste huge sums of tax payer dollars.

[edit on 16-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



I'm gussing you know this due to all your work at an accelerator? Or is it your seeming omnipotence. You know Mnemeth the longer this goes on the more your thoughts becoming petty ramblings of disagreement.

Offer some evidence that accelerators don't create new exoctic science for us to probe. . . . . I guess they didn't discover the Tau Neutrino just a few years ago.



In a forthcoming Physical Review Letter article, the University of Nevada, Reno physicists are reporting an analysis of an experiment on violation of mirror symmetry in atoms. Their refined analysis sets new limits on a hypothesized particle, the extra Z-boson, carving out the lower-energy part of the discovery reach of the LHC.

Andrei Derevianko, an associate professor in the College of Science's Department of Physics, who has conducted groundbreaking research to improve the time-telling capabilities of the world's most accurate atomic clocks, is one of the principals behind what is believed to be the most accurate to-date low-energy determination of the strength of the electroweak coupling between atomic electrons and quarks of the nucleus.


www.physorg.com...

So we're refining our theories while we search for new physics. . . It would seem both are happening as we speak. Sounds like what there supposed to be doing doesn't it.

My question Mnemeth is what are you going to do if they do find the Higgs, or Gravitons, or Super Symmetric Partners. Or on the far end of the maybe scale extra dimensions. . . . Are you going to continue prattling about all the lies?


How can you or anyone else for that matter say there is no more to discover when we haven't even came close yet to studying events at energy levels the universe itself can create? We've never seen 7 TEV collsions let alone 14 TEV.

How can you even begin to conjecture based on a realm we've never been to. Seems foolish to me.

[edit on 17-4-2010 by constantwonder]



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join