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: 3
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Don't be mad that Einstein's theories are a joke and the highly intelligent and ever insightful Bella agrees with me.


We all know you have a warm place in your heart for her. It is also reassuring that after the dark age ruled by those despotic morons, Einstein and Feynman, she and her sidekick (that would be you) are here to dispel the clouds of ignorance!




posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


There's a few points I make that she can attack me on, however the responses will be excuses more than a refutation.

You see, its nearly impossible to falsify SR and GR because they can mathematically be made to say anything the physicists dream up.

There are no fundamental falsifying constraints on SR or GR.

There's a handful of things that could definitely prove SR and GR, such as the detection of gravitational waves, clear proof of frame dragging, or clear proof of dark matter - however none of those have been proven.

Every test that has attempted to find them has failed.

She might point to gravity probe B proving frame dragging, but this is bogus science. The initial results showed no evidence of frame dragging at all, nor has any other satellite that attempted to look for it.

Desperate, scientists eventually laid a hypothetical model over top of the data 7 years later and then ran around claiming they proved frame dragging. Nothing could be further from the truth.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Paladin327
 



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.


Magic invisible matter was invented to explain away observations that the current standard model can't explain such as you described, along with the problem of missing mass. The so called 'missing' mass is no longer missing (all 90% of it YAY!!!) and modified versions of gravity that account for its (proven) variability do explain what you described without magic matter.

The standard model is a hundred year old model developed by a man who not only flunked math and dropped out of school, but also stole the idea from Lorentz. No wonder we need magic matter!!!



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Magic invisible matter was invented to explain away observations that the current standard model can't explain


"Magic" neutrinos were invented to explain away missing momentum and energy, and now we know a great deal about this very special kind of matter.


The standard model is a hundred year old model


No it's not


...developed by a man who not only flunked math and dropped out of school, but also stole the idea from Lorentz. No wonder we need magic matter!!!


If you refer to Einstein, you are wrong again... So the effect is two-fold:
a) you demonstrate your consistent ignorance of facts
b) you look pretty pompous with slant against Einstein



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
news.sciencemag.org...


A long time ago, in a universe much larger than our own, a giant star collapsed. Its implosion crammed so much mass and energy together that it created a wormhole to another universe. And inside this wormhole, our own universe was born. It may seem fantastic, but a theoretical physicist claims that such a scenario could help answer some of the most perplexing questions in cosmology.


I love this:


It may seem fantastic


You don't say?

I propose pink elephants eating tuna fish and farting caused a massive dung hole rift in the cosmic space time continuum leading to an apocalyptic explosion that gave birth to super nova gas bomb universes.

These universes then collided with each other like two drunk fat men at a bumper car rally, leading to what then became the dark stain, or turd progress theory.

This explains basically everything.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
OP: S&F! You raise many questions, and many i don't understand. Your post are very interesting.

I think though that the reason science has so many theories and not many proven answers is because we have to assume the science, because most of our technology still limits us and leaves us to what we know so that only leaves us to speculate.

i do think you should submit your questions though to www.universetoday.com


[edit on 12-4-2010 by togetherwestand]



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by togetherwestand
 


submitting anything to mainstream publication is a waste of time.

its better to start your own site to disseminate information, as I have done.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Here's another beautiful question to the statists:

If you agree that gravitational lensing is caused by black holes, it follows that you agree that all super-massive black holes must exhibit gravitational lenses;

If you agree that all super-massive black holes must exhibit gravitational lenses, then explain why we don't see any lensing effects at the center of the Milky Way.

POW BAM BOOM BANG!

I love it.



[edit on 12-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
Yesterday I've watched. Thunderbolts of the Gods
Amazing !



This is really a stupid thing to say, probably. Really. But I found something utterly amazing in the video also. Really weird!

Something really amazing that I caught at exactly 5:03 in the above video….

Isn't the girl at 5:03 in the above video the same EXACT girl in BellaMente's icon? I am pretty sure it is.

I don't know if this observation is really that off-topic. There are several different levels of abstraction working here.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by togetherwestand
 


submitting anything to mainstream publication is a waste of time.

its better to start your own site to disseminate information, as I have done.



I had that mistrust problem also before but i learned you will never know until you open up your mind, sounds typical i know but you wont find your answers unless you ask

therefor at least send them your website or a message, they have been pretty credible so i hope that if you do find a fault with their answers, then even better because everyone would know..catch my drift?

also you don't sound very credible by dismissing everything mainstream. just so you should know.

[edit on 12-4-2010 by togetherwestand]



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
If you agree that gravitational lensing is caused by black holes, it follows that you agree that all super-massive black holes must exhibit gravitational lenses;


Gravitational lensing is caused not only by black holes but more often, by conventional objects when the conditions are right (the light source bright and distant).


If you agree that all super-massive black holes must exhibit gravitational lenses, then explain why we don't see any lensing effects at the center of the Milky Way.


It's called the measurement arm. Simply, the distance which is a fraction of the Milky Way radius is not sufficient for the effect to be pronounced. The cases of Chwolson ring (same as Einstein ring) that were discovered are usually caused by whole clusters of galaxies or massive galaxies being the deflector, and having ample distance between the source, the deflector and the observer. Intra-galaxy observations are less likely due to lesser mass and lesser distance.


POW BAM BOOM BANG!


First it was "slam-dunk" and now this new interjection. For a person of rather mediocre faculty in the field of science, you exhibit a rather amusing propensity for self-congratulation, every time you imagine an intellectual "victory" over the dark host of scientists who are liars and morons.


I love it.


Yeah, it must be a sweet feeling to busk in imaginary glory which you convinced yourself you deserve.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Axial Leader
 


Well... You could ask her but I don't think so.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


lol that's the wildest excuse i've heard so far.

black holes cause gravitational lenses, but you have to be outside the galaxy to see them.

yar!

So how about those micro-lenses?

Oh btw, did you come up for an answer to Crother's argument about black holes yet or are you just going to assume they exist in violation of SR and go against your own arguments?




[edit on 12-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


lol that's the wildest excuse i've heard so far.

black holes cause gravitational lenses, but you have to be outside the galaxy to see them.


Yes, I can hear synapses firing in your brain trying to catch the meaning of measurement arm, the concept I introduced to you in my paragraph above. Don't give up, you can master this in due time. Then you'll probably cry out something like BONG, BOOM or YIPEE, as you usually do.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Lol Flag for your thread Mnemeth, most likely stars once i take the time to read the backgrounds and get caught up. I have an indirect way of reaching that, involving an increasing understanding of why the universities were formed & the agendas guiding modern science. Thank you for the educations.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


special relativity says black holes can't exist

sounds like you are proposing new physics to me

who's the radical now?




posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   
First of all, the calculation of path integrals is used in just about every aspect of physics. It has nothing directly to do with virtual particles, and does nothing to provide evidence for the existence of virtual particles.

Yes, virtual particles work in Feynman diagrams. This does not prove the existence of virtual particles either, Feynman diagrams do not detect virtual particles.

Sure, I see your point, and I totally understand why physicists believe in virtual particles. I am not saying it's illogical or people are stupid for believing in these things.

As I said, if a theory works, than it is used. There is nothing wrong with that. For me however, I am not going to succumb to such pressure - I am an unorthodox person and I *refuse* to conform to society - and I am a theoretical physics major because I want to know the *truth* about the Universe and I want to teach others the *truth* about the Universe. So I will learn the theories and the models and I will use them if I have to, but I am not going to accept them just because everyone else does. That's not me and I don't care what people think, I am proud to be unocnventional. I'd rather be hated for my unconventionality or rebellion than be liked for being fake, weak, and ignorant.

Gravitons are a joke - why do I say this? First, it is rather obvious that if you hold to Einstein's paradigm - which states very clearly that the force of gravity is due to curved space - than why resort to making up virtual particles called gravitons? Now if you conform like the rest then you will take the stance "oh well, just because it works doesn't mean it is that way" (which was the exact response to several of my questions I've received many times here in the last couple months) then you will happily go on with your life, using Einstein's equations when you need them, and using quantum mechanics when you need it, and never ever think to question what the truth really is.

Although, gravitational waves can be thought of as a group of gravitons, I believe in neither. As for the force of gravity itself, I think it may just be something entirely different than what people think it is - not curved space, not gravitational waves, and not gravitons. I am not saying its impossible but I highly doubt it.

I don't believe in virtual particles for several reasons. For one, the simple fact is that there is a lot going on in the quantum world we don't know about. I also side with Bohm here and think that quantum mechanics is incomplete. We don't even know that particles exist, it was only assumed because of Planck's blackbody radiation formula. Quantization is a fact but this does not necessarily imply particles. Quantization looks awfully a lot like simple harmonics on a string and in fact, if you treat the photons in the black box as electromagnetic waves with nodes at the ends and do a summation instead of an integral, you avoid the UV catastrophe... Am I saying now that particles don't exist? No, but I am saying that we can't prove they exist.

Intuitively for me (yes I said it - I use my intuition and it hasn't let me down yet) I don't buy into virtual particle exchanges being what causes forces. Why haven't they detected virtual particles? Um..because they are virtual. Okay, well I have a virtual unicorn. You can't detect it because it's virtual... Sorry, when it comes to particle physics, I have to agree with string theorists here: the standard model is far from perfect and its not as nice, neat, and symmetrical as they think.

Now I will admit that I think it's definitely possible that forces can be related to quanta or even to wave harmonics, but not *caused*

To put it quite simply: there are a lot of things that work in theory, but not in practice. There are many, many different intepretations of what's going on down there on the microscopic scale and the same goes for the macroscopic scale.

I have a right to my opinions, no matter how unconventional they may be to you, and I am in no way claiming to know everything - in fact, just about every year I look back on the previous one and realize just how little I knew then! I love to learn, and I will always love to learn - now if someone can convince me of virtual particle exchanges then I will believe in them! I am not that stubborn as to not change my views inspite of good evidence. However, good is a subjective judgement and so far, no one has been able to show me good enough evidence yet...


And the current paradigm I hold to is that the universe is a giant interactive hologram. This not only corresponds to my own personal and intuitive beliefs but it makes the most sense scientifically and can explain a hell of a lot more than any other paradigm I've come across. Plus, holographic properties are inherent everywhere you look from physics to biology, from nature to anatomy, actually just about everything.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   


Thanks to Predator. Go show m some respect in his thread below.

Hubble Confirms Existence of Dark Matter (VIDEO)



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
first, black holes do not cause gravitational lensing, mass does. lots, and lots of mass
second,


Originally posted by mnemeth1
If you agree that all super-massive black holes must exhibit gravitational lenses, then explain why we don't see any lensing effects at the center of the Milky Way.


i dont think that can be answered until we have the technology to clearly see the SMBH at the center of the galaxy. there is too much crap (dust) between us out here in the orion spur and the galactic bulge, unless you want to argue against that saying something along the lines of "mainstream science made that up to cover themserlves because they didnt want to be proven wrong"



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by togetherwestand
 


submitting anything to mainstream publication is a waste of time.

its better to start your own site to disseminate information, as I have done.



Perhaps if your qualified to review highlevel physics papers. Which unless you have a Phd in Physics Cosmology or in the case of EU a phd in electrical engineering (funny how engineers seem to be solving cosmology problems without looking into the cosmos) you are not qualified to do.

I don't want to harp on something as petty as name calling and insults but. . . Since when did calling Einstein a "retard" become acceptable banter around here?

Perhaps mnemeth people would be more apt to look at your information if you had enough sense to keep your ego in check and your criticisms professional.

You know it's funny you bash all the science done in the mainstream having not found results or that a negative result is touted as a great find. When both results mentioned are progress.

The funny thing is plasma cosmology has had this problem since it became popular enough in the late 80's to garner some attention from the mainstream.

They went and they looked for evidence and wouldn't you know they found NOTHING.


COBE failed to detect any radio or microwave emission from the large-scale electric currents required in plasma cosmology.


homepage.mac.com...



"Yes, the Sun could theoretically be powered by an influx of relativistic electrons; but if the Sun were fueled by incoming electrons, why are none observed at the places where they would be expected to be most numerous? Until the theory is reconciled with this observation, the electric star model can be given no credence; and de Grazia's remark that "Juergens had fully disestablished the thermonuclear theory of the Sun . . ." is painfully premature at the very least. This point about the absence of electrons in coronal holes is neither abstruse nor esoteric; it is fundamental and elementary in any discussion of solar structure




The solar wind is a flow of protons and electrons, away from the sun, in all directions, both at the same speed. Now, if the first "major property" of the electric sun model were true, we would expect the positively charged sun to repel positively charged protons, and attract negatively charged electrons. That's what the third "major property" says is happening, but we see that reality is somewhat different. The observation of electrons & protons both being "repelled" by the sun immediately negates any consideration of the sun having a net electric charge


www.electricuniverse.info...


Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Paladin327
 



Magic invisible matter was invented to explain away observations that the current standard model can't explain such as you described, along with the problem of missing mass. The so called 'missing' mass is no longer missing (all 90% of it YAY!!!) and modified versions of gravity that account for its (proven) variability do explain what you described without magic matter.

The standard model is a hundred year old model developed by a man who not only flunked math and dropped out of school, but also stole the idea from Lorentz. No wonder we need magic matter!!!



Every high energy physics experiment carried out since the mid-20th century has eventually yielded findings consistent with the Standard Model.



The first step towards the Standard Model was Sheldon Glashow's discovery, in 1960, of a way to combine the electromagnetic and weak interactions.[1] In 1967, Steven Weinberg[2] and Abdus Salam[3] incorporated the Higgs mechanism[4][5][6] into Glashow's electroweak theory, giving it its modern form.



Yes 100 years old theory





The first experimental image of lithium atoms from a transmission electron microscope: the image shows the arrangement of lithium ions among cobalt and oxygen atoms in the compound lithium cobalt oxide.


www.lbl.gov...

Here's your "invisible" matter


And just so you will stop harping on old uncle Albert please note that the Standard Model was developed by many scientists. Stay with me if you can



-March 1926 Quantum mechanics is formulated

-1932 James Chadwick announces discovery of neutron

-1956-57 Tsung-Dao Lee and Chen Ning Yang propose parity non-conservation in certain sub-atomic processes, which is confirmed by experimentalist Chien-Shiung Wu

-1962 The first experimental observation of the muon neutrino occurs

-1967 Raymond Davis creates the first solar neutrino detector, finding only half of the predicted solar neutrino flux

-1967 Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow (collaboration) and Abdus Salam (independent) create the electro-weak theory, unifying the electromagnetic and weak nuclear force (they win Nobel prizes in 1979)

-1964 Quarks are proposed by Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig

-1969 Jerome Friedman, Henry Kendall, and Richard Taylor find the first evidence of quarks

-1970-73 Standard model of particle physics is developed

1974 The charmed quark is observed

-1975 Evidence of the tau lepton is found

-1977 Experimenters find proof of the bottom quark

-1983 Carlo Rubbia discovers the W and Z bosons, mediators of the weak-force

-1994 Planning for LHC (Large Hadron Collider) at CERN begins

-1995 Evidence for the top quark, the final undiscovered quark, is found at Fermilab

-2000 The tau neutrino, the last piece to the standard model, (with the exceptopm of the higgs particle) is observed at Fermilab


www-donut.fnal.gov...

So say it with me now. Einstein developed relativity not the standard model. The standard model is not 100 years old.

Since we seem to want to cast a "retarted" shadow on one of the greatest minds of the 20th century perhaps we should include all the idiots (
) that agreed with Einstein. Such as Bohr, Rosen, Godel, Heisenberg, Jordan, Feynman, Dirac, Cantor (who was actually conceptualy ahead of Einstein).

Starts to sound damn rediculous when we start labeling all of these incredible minds as "retards".







[edit on 12-4-2010 by constantwonder]



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join