It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 01:31 AM
reply to post by constantwonder

perhaps you should read my page on electric sun criticism.

By the way, I see you all keep going on with this gravitational lensing from black hole nonsense without ever bothering to answer how a black hole is possible in the first place since SR forbids infinite mass point particles.

Crother's page explicitly lays out why black holes are impossible.

Since black holes are impossible, it stands to reason gravitational lenses created by black holes must also be impossible.

Its a load of crap.

[edit on 13-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 01:55 AM
reply to post by BellaMente

gravitons and point particles ARE a joke - I fully agree.

Its clear the wave properties of matter can account for all observations.

As far as gravity goes, Nils Rognerud has put out some interesting work I tend to agree with. I believe gravity is some form of non-shieldable dielectric effect , so any theory that follows along this path is going to be close to what is really happening.

I think its clear that gravity arises from matter, not from a bending of space.

Space is nothing. It imparts no force. Force can not arise from nothing. Saying space itself imparts force upon an object is a ridiculous notion.

Further, Van Flandern has put out very intriguing work on the speed of gravity.

[edit on 13-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 07:44 AM
Yes. . . Crothers. . .

What is his job exactly? Is he a mathematician or a physicist?

What's that he's neither. . . . So then he must be a Electrical engineer or cosmologist right? No. . . He's nothing. No credentials. Got expelled from college for being a complete arse to staff and fellows.

Yes. I see it now. The credibility of your sources sure is insurmountable

The only people taking Crothers seriously is Crothers.

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 08:21 AM
I don't pretend to know a tenth of a percent of the physics surrounding these issues, but I do know I have enjoyed reading some of the articles mentioned in this thread and even dropped by the library yesterday to pick up a copy of Seeing Red by Halton Arp to dig a little deeper. It's funny that I'm reading cosmology books in my spare time 3 weeks out from my masters thesis defense...

However, this thread truly shows that the human ego is one of, if not the largest barriers to the advancement of science. Stephen Crothers could be the best example of this. I don't know enough about physics to comment on his proposals but I do know enough about people to know his ideas will NEVER be accepted with the attitude he has. I read through his portrayal of the circumstances surrounding him leaving university and it seemed completely petty. That guy would have a Ph.D from his university if he had simply had the personal fortitude to swallow his pride, reserve a conference room on campus with a chalk board and calmly address the criticism those professors had with his work in a level-headed manner. I say this as a grad student, I work with professors every day, they will not be convinced easily, but that does not mean they can't be convinced of a new idea. This statement applies to all sides of this matter and any scientific matter where a person's ego has leaked out of their head and clogged their ears...

Statements on science as a whole aside I have a few questions about the ideas purposed in this thread. First there is some cyclical logic being used that is bugging me:

It is proposed that Stephen Crothers has shown that black holes cannot exist under SR or GR (OK...) but then the validity of SR and GR are called into question as models as a whole. It would seem to me that if SR and GR are not valid theoretical descriptions of the cosmos then they cannot be used to disprove (or prove) the existence of anything. If it is proposed that General Relativity is not a valid theory, can the existence of black holes be disproved with another theory?

And now a question that might seem stupid. I have absolutely NO problem seeing how redshift and velocity are related, that makes perfect sense to me. But I don't see how red shift and distance are currently related. I guess I don't understand how any correlation between an opject's distance and its velocity can be made without some very large assumptions. But this is probably due to my lack of understanding on the current theories on the expansion of the universe. Please refrain from infusing ego into any answer of this question.

Oh and you may have to speak slowly, my degree is in electrical engineering...

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 09:31 AM

Originally posted by constantwonder
Yes. . . Crothers. . .

What is his job exactly? Is he a mathematician or a physicist?

What's that he's neither. . . . So then he must be a Electrical engineer or cosmologist right? No. . . He's nothing. No credentials. Got expelled from college for being a complete arse to staff and fellows.

Yes. I see it now. The credibility of your sources sure is insurmountable

The only people taking Crothers seriously is Crothers.

Crothers is a physicist, you can read all about him on his site, as are the rest of them.

But since you want to attack the person and not his arguments, how about attacking these people instead.

Here is Einstein's paper arguing against black holes.

Here's Schwarzschild's paper showing black holes are impossible.

Here's Brillouin's paper against black holes

Here's McVittie's paper against black holes

[edit on 13-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 10:10 AM

Originally posted by BellaMente
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.

That's the same point I was making. The "reality" of path diagrams is the same as reality of virtual particles. We can speak of stable shells in the nucleus when it's a convenient tool in our reasoning, even as we know there aren't real "shells". We use a term "cross-section" when we know full well there is nothing to dissect. These are applied mathematics terms. Heck, for most "elementary" particles there is no defined mass, due to uncertainty principle, but we need a tool to express a concept so we say "mass".

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

Again, that's what I said as well.

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

Well, if that is the reason (which I suspected) -- it's fine by me but let's talk about it on a sociology or psychoanalysis thread, but sure not in physics.

- 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.

Be my guest. Please give me call when you finish the grad school, we just might have an interesting conversation. I envy you -- you are on the threshold of an exciting journey! A river I cannot step into twice.

That's not me and I don't care what people think, I am proud to be unconventional. I'd rather be hated for my unconventionality or rebellion than be liked for being fake, weak, and ignorant.

Again, you slide into discussing your rebellious personality rather than giving facts, arguments and math pertaining to the topic of this thread. Sounds like it's vanity we are talking about.

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.

You are missing the point of modern physics 100%. There is a seminar at the lab I work at, this afternoon, titled like "Dark matter crisis" or something like that. Physicists take a very critical look at lots of theories -- even those which work best for us at the moment. That's why we (including yours truly) built the LHC.

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.

If you can't clearly articulate a coherent alternative theory, just saying "nah" is not constructive or even inspiring.

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.

Read the following mainstream article -- no one actually says that virtual particles are the only key to everything, they are in fact but one mathematical tool, the obvious point you keep missing (probably because of your desire to be unconventional):

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 10:21 AM
Of course you should include Dr Mills trashing of Quantum Electro Dynamics.

Turns out its complete unnecessary

Blacklight Power Publications and Papers

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 11:33 AM
reply to post by UMayBRite!

Yeah Mills theory is also very close to what is really happening.

Its based on the same principles of matter as Lafreniere's. I like Lafreniere's better because its simpler.

One thing is for sure though, Mills is systemically proving Einstein's theories are wrong.

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 11:59 AM
So if I get what you're saying, because we don't know bow black holes work with our current understanding, they can not exist, even though we've seen them through indirect o servation? Such as in our very limited looks into the center of the galaxy we've seen multiple stars orbiting, very quickly, around absolutly nothing, at least nothing we can see, which indicates an extremly high-mass object in the center of these orbits.

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 12:07 PM
reply to post by Paladin327

Electromagnetic forces better explain observations than gravity.

See Peratt's paper on galaxy modeling.

Taking only the known properties of charged plasma acting in a vacuum, one can model the formation of a galaxy with the exact same shape and rotational properties of what we observe in space.

The "standard model" of physics requires the use of dark matter and black holes in order to model a galaxy, and even at that, the models don't exactly match what is observed.

Occam's razor says Peratt's theory is correct, since it doesn't need to add multiple fudge factors or invent new physics to explain observation.

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 02:30 PM

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Paladin327

Electromagnetic forces better explain observations than gravity.

See Peratt's paper on galaxy modeling.

User Paladin327 presented you with a concrete example he asked you to analyze, which is binary systems which can be explained by one member of the system being a black hole. Predictably, you dodged the subject and just stated that EM explains everything a lot better.

Unless you go over the phenomena that are candidate signatures of black holes, point out deficiencies and create a much better model using Maxwell's equations only, your proclamations here are nothing but a lot of hot air (but I'm not telling you anything new, I suppose.

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 03:17 PM
reply to post by buddhasystem

He asked me to explain why we see stars orbiting quicky at the center of our galaxy.

I pointed him to Peratt's model which well explains this phenomena.

As I pointed out earlier, the standard model not only fails to explain what is observed, it can't properly account for why we see "young" stars located where they are at the galactic center.

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 03:19 PM
lets throw some more into the mix:

21. Saturn's rings are observed to emit radio waves. This is not well explained at all by gravitational models of ring formation. Further, to quote the KTH annual 2008 report:

The data obtained by the Cassini Radio and Plasma Wave Science instrument (RPWS) during the shallow (2005-02-17) and the steep (2005-07-14) crossings of the E ring revealed a considerable electron depletion in the proximity of the Enceladus orbit. Assuming that this depletion is a signature of the presence of charged dust particles, the main characteristics of dust down to submicron sized particles have been derived. The size distribution is found to be well described by a power law with an index 5.5 to 6...Two papers have been submitted to Planetary and Space Science.

22. Io's "volcanoes" are observed to move around the surface and leave burn marks behind them. Also the "volcanoes" plumes exhibit filamentation. Peratt and Dessler demonstrated how electric forces could account for Io's oddities.

23. Standard galaxy formation models require the use of black holes and dark matter to achieve approximate model fit to observation. These hypothetical entities have never been proven to exist. Peratt has demonstrated super-computer formulations of plasma using standard classical physics to produce a galaxy formation model that does not require any hypothetical entities. His model well agrees with observations.

24. Stars located at the center of the galaxy do not agree with the standard model of galaxy star formation. They are too "young" by the standard model of measuring a star's age to have formed at the locations observed. Theories that attempt to account for this are orders of magnitude improbable.

25. Frame dragging has never been definitively proven despite numerous attempts to look for it using numerous satellites. The most famous of which is Gravity Probe B. The final report issued by the Gravity Probe B team utilizes a hypothetical model to account for the effects of "static build up" induced error on the gyros. The raw data showed no signs of any frame dragging at all. Given that a purely hypothetical model was used to massage the data, the reports findings lack any definitive proof of frame dragging.

26. The Pioneer space probe speed anomaly can not be explained by standard model physics. Plasma cosmology offers a proper explanation.

27. After nearly 100 years, Einstein's theories have not been unified. They are not falsifiable. These two facts alone merit reconsidering their continued use. The lack of unification and lack of fundamental ties to reality demands explanation. The LCDM model of the universe has no less than 5 adjustable parameters that can arbitrarily be adjusted to account for observation. This is no different than Ptolemy's epicycles that were continually adjusted to account for observation without providing any real explanation of the mechanics behind what is being observed.

28. Galaxies have been observed to be moving in "dark flows." This observation stands in contradiction to the standard model of galaxy and universe formation. Such movement can be well accounted for in an electric model.

[edit on 13-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 03:36 PM
reply to post by mnemeth1

Not to post off topic or anything but i think youve nailed it. Even from a young age I have believed einstein to be a Joke, Even he stated his theories weren't to be trusted, Whats the betting he was working on plasma physics and the electric universe on his deathbed? UFT

There may be another dimention where gravity is everything, But it isnt this one.
Mass Creates gravity, all mass, whether tiny or large. Whats the betting its our particles being attracted to the earth much like magnets work.

Plus we have the EM spectrum.... (id like to put something clever here but cant think of anything)

But anyway you get what i mean.. Star and flag for your effort and forward thinking mind (y)

Sorry about my amature wording.

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 03:57 PM
I'm going to maintain a running list in this article here.

If someone has additional nonsense they'd like to point out, I'll update the article with your point.

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:19 PM
The doubters should take the time to read the KTH report linked above.

some fascinating findings in there.

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:23 PM

Originally posted by mnemeth1

But since you want to attack the person and not his arguments, how about attacking these people instead.

for some reason, the words "pot," "kettle," and "black" come to mind

and gravity does not cause the bending of the entity which has become known as "space-time" I will admit that. You were right.

Before you raise your hand triumphantly in victory, mass causes the curvature of space time like putting a bowling ball on a trampoline

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:30 PM
reply to post by Paladin327

Spacetime does not bend.

It does not break.

It does not do anything other than exist as place that matter and light occupy.

Matter is composed of wave functions - only waves. Matter does not bend space. Any theory that says as much must explain why this is so.

No proposal has ever been given to explain why matter should curve space.

No proposal has ever been given to explain how a wave of light can travel through space without a medium for it to move through.

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:43 PM
Oh yes, I almost forgot a massive pile of physical evidence that refutes the notion that earth's gravity has been constant over time.

The earth's gravity field has changed drastically from the past as is evidenced in the fossil record.

David Esker has put together a fantastic site pointing out all the oddities that only make sense if earth's gravity was far less in the ancient past.

This gravity variation can only be accounted for with an electric theory of gravity.

- the largest dinos wouldn't have been able to lift their heads due to the heart not being strong enough to pump blood up to the head.

- the largest dinosaurs bones would have crumbled under the stress of their weight.

- the largest flying dinosaurs would not have been able to propel themselves into the air

are just a few of the highlights.

[edit on 13-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 05:51 PM
Saturns rings don't emit sound on their own. Gravity doesn't need to have anything to do with it. Your trying to imply that GR is wrong here when its not being applied to begin with.

Everyone knows that the radio emissions from saturns rings are produced by interactions between the ring particles and saturns magnetic field coupled with the solar wind.

There are many many radio sources in space. We do not invoke gravity to describe radio waves from other sources why would we start with saturns rings? The gravitational formation theory of rings doesn't try or need to explain phenomina post formation.

Stop using the grey brush. . . .

[edit on 13-4-2010 by constantwonder]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in