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: 5
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Thank you mnemeth1 for all the work. There is a lot of material to digest.

For me, the theories of Einstein are wrong because they don't allow faster-than-light communication. They draw a bunch of lines and say that FTL communication will result in paradoxes.

But reality is different. Can anyone refuse the fact that, for example, as we speak, a star far away has gone supernova? isn't this event happening now (hypothetically)? well, it does happen now, but Einstein says it doesn't happen now, which is absurd and goes against reality.

It seems to me that all the latest theories that make the universe really complicated are just a bunch of BS (dark matter, dark energy, etc).




posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
For me, the theories of Einstein are wrong because they don't allow faster-than-light communication.


This is brilliant! I implore you to work on this novel science approach and dispel other myths perpetrated on us by the ignorant scientists. For example, all of classical mechanics must be wrong because it says you can't levitate at will. At the same time, most people experienced flying in their dreams when sleeping! Certainly modern physics can't adequately explain reality.


It seems to me that all the latest theories that make the universe really complicated are just a bunch of BS (dark matter, dark energy, etc).


Yes! I support you in your desire to provide simple explanations for everything! Have you tried New Age crystals? I hear they do miracles!



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I don't understand what your beef is.

Do you have some kind of stake in this game?

Are you paid to support Einstein's bogus theories in some way?



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I don't understand what your beef is.

Do you have some kind of stake in this game?

Are you paid to support Einstein's bogus theories in some way?


are you paid to dispel einstein's theories?

i'd also like to remind eveyone that mr meth said:




But since you want to attack the person and not his arguments


also, you contradict yourself. you start a thread that states ALL of science is a lie, but you also start a thread that says you have the real science, which according to you, is a lie

[edit on 13/4/2010 by Paladin327]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
In all honesty, I'm a UAW worker who's never set foot into a physics class. My knowledge of physics comes from reading a few books and watching/reading whatever piques my interest on the internet. Just so you understand where I'm coming from...

Sitting through that Thunderbolts video was kind of irritating. They accuse the standard model of denying various other branches of science (neutron stars), but at the same time only use one branch of science to explain the whole universe. What sense does that make (eh, I suppose it could be justified if you look at all of science as a tree and EM as the trunk an every other branch as a branch of it)? My understanding of any Unified Theory which will (may) eventually be formulated is that it will include ALL branches of science to produce a complete picture of the universe. And really, this is the only thing that can make sense, how can something exist in the universe if there aren't laws governing it?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the standard model, in fact, I dislike much of it because it's overly complex and seems to be built around ever increasingly complex ideas... like telling one lie leads you to making more and more lies. At the same time, I believe there are credible parts to the Standard model, just as I believe there are credible parts to some of the things in that video.


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.


If spacetime did not bend, time measured at our feet would be equal to the time measured at our heads (or at the top of a watertower in 1962). When you talk about "space" do you mean spacetime or just plain ol' space? The difference is a whole dimension
I will agree that matter does not bend 3 dimensional space, but I will vehemently disagree if you're talking about 4 dimensional spacetime.

I support SR and GR as valid theories, though, how I understand them, how I visualize them, how I apply them to various things are different than the scientific norm. If you're looking for me to explain what "established science" believes, I can't help ya


[edit on 4/13/10 by Angry Danish]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Angry Danish
 


actually what they are proposing is a "unified" theory of everything.

You see, Einstein's theories are not "unified." Einstein says different physics apply to subatomic particles than applies to the rest of the universe.

Plasma cosmology says this is unnecessary and the cause of much confusion. When you start from a basis of Lorentz relativity and Maxwell's equations, it no longer becomes necessary to separate the two.

There is no SR and GR - only LR.

From this perspective they discard any notion of bending space and look at everything using purely classical physics.

They aren't inventing any new physics, in fact, they are discarding the invented physics in favor of what can be physically proven in a lab.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   
By the way, Arp is coming out with a new mind blowing paper as usual.

www.haltonarp.com...


another death blow to the mainstream by the almighty Arp.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Yeah with his variable mass electron Thomson -- Lord Kelvin -- would be rolling in his grave! haha.

Still I totally agree since the mass of the electron was based on the logic of induction from a technological construct -- proof by contradiction by frequency.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 05:43 AM
link   
I have watched the video "Thunderbolts of the Gods" and its quite interesting. I am very much a layman on the subject, but what I was wondering is where the electric current comes from. The sun is supposed to be "fueled" by electric current. Plasmas conduct so could be a carrier for this current, like lightning. But where are these plasmas? I would expect the sun to look like a ball completely surrounded by lightning, which reach at least as far as nearby stars. Or are we talking about a new kind of electric current that is not detectable and is carried by an invisible medium?

[edit on 14-4-2010 by -PLB-]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 06:47 AM
link   




Electromagnetic forces better explain observations than gravity.



ok, here's something that will make you think and it will be simified:

1. Observation: planets are big
Observation: moons are smaller than planets
Conclusion: less massive bodies like to orbit more massive bodies

2. Observation: the sun is bigger than the planets
Conclusion: the sun is massive

3. Observation: planets orbit the sun
Conclusion: see conclusion 1

4. Observation: no bolts of plasma or lightning comming from the sun
Conclusion: some other force is causing this observation

5. Observation: an apple falls on Isaac Newton's head
Observation: newton was not electrically charged at the time (no more than a normal person)
Conclusion: gravity

6. Observation: stars at the center of the galaxy are orbiting a point of observable nothingness
Inference based on other observations: there must be an object of extreme mass at the center of the galaxy
Observation: no source of radio light from this object
Conclusion A: Black hole which does not emit light
Conclusion B: a highly massive object whose emmited light is either absorbed or scattered by dust
Conclusion C: Dark Matter
Theory: dark matter is believed to be at the outside of our galaxy

Conclusion based upon observation: There is a black hole at the center of the galaxy



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 06:52 AM
link   




Electromagnetic forces better explain observations than gravity.



ok, here's something that will make you think and it will be simified:

1. Observation: planets are big
Observation: moons are smaller than planets
Conclusion: less massive bodies like to orbit more massive bodies

2. Observation: the sun is bigger than the planets
Conclusion: the sun is massive

3. Observation: planets orbit the sun
Conclusion: see conclusion 1

4. Observation: no bolts of plasma or lightning comming from the sun
Conclusion: some other force is causing this observation

5. Observation: an apple falls on Isaac Newton's head
Observation: newton was not electrically charged at the time (no more than a normal person)
Conclusion: gravity

6. Observation: stars at the center of the galaxy are orbiting a point of observable nothingness
Inference based on other observations: there must be an object of extreme mass at the center of the galaxy
Observation: no source of radio light from this object
Conclusion A: Black hole which does not emit light
Conclusion B: a highly massive object whose emmited light is either absorbed or scattered by dust
Conclusion C: Dark Matter
Theory: dark matter is believed to be at the outside of our galaxy

Conclusion based upon observation: There is a black hole at the center of the galaxy

when you inevitably refute this, please provide more substance to your post than "read this." your links are full of technical infomation you need a ph.d in physics to understand, which I highly doubt many atsers have.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
I have watched the video "Thunderbolts of the Gods" and its quite interesting. I am very much a layman on the subject, but what I was wondering is where the electric current comes from. The sun is supposed to be "fueled" by electric current. Plasmas conduct so could be a carrier for this current, like lightning. But where are these plasmas? I would expect the sun to look like a ball completely surrounded by lightning, which reach at least as far as nearby stars. Or are we talking about a new kind of electric current that is not detectable and is carried by an invisible medium?

[edit on 14-4-2010 by -PLB-]


There not there. We've looked and found nothing. I posted about that a page or two back. There is no current and the sun has no net charge. . . seems like a problem for those plasmologists huh!?



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by constantwonder
There not there. We've looked and found nothing. I posted about that a page or two back. There is no current and the sun has no net ch
arge. . . seems like a problem for those plasmologists huh!?


You keep making this claim even though this is not settled.

We see magnetic fields and "flux ropes" strung all over the place in space. Because there is no such thing as a "frozen in" magnetic field, all magnetic fields MUST have power input or they would quickly dissipate.

Plasma is not a perfect conductor, this is a well known fact. Cosmologists ignore this fact.

As to the Sun, its all covered here:
sites.google.com...

[edit on 14-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paladin327
1. Observation: planets are big
Observation: moons are smaller than planets
Conclusion: less massive bodies like to orbit more massive bodies


Celestial bodies don't have likings or dislikings. In fact, two bodies rotate not around either one or another, but around the common center of mass.

Something that all that "electric" BS cannot account for, by the way.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Got something I can read that represents your model of the universe? I have a hard time watching videos to gain one persons conjecture on an issue.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


In that link it sais:

Those who demand that ES proponents state exactly how, where, and by what paths electrons get to the Sun seem not to be even more outraged by the claim that invisible "missing matter" exists and is responsible for dozens of otherwise inexplicable observations. Am I the only one to see the irony in that?

But isnt this the crucial point of the whole theory? If you can't prove that these currents exist, the theory has no basis. The flux of electrons going into the sun has equal energy as the flux of radiation comming out, which is 1336W/m^2 around earth. Should this not be easily measurable? And through what medium is this current flowing?



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Paladin327
1. Observation: planets are big
Observation: moons are smaller than planets
Conclusion: less massive bodies like to orbit more massive bodies


Celestial bodies don't have likings or dislikings. In fact, two bodies rotate not around either one or another, but around the common center of mass.

Something that all that "electric" BS cannot account for, by the way.


Sure it can.

What can't be accounted for by the standard model is galaxy formation.

Since gravitational models of galaxy formation require massive amounts of additional mass to make them work correctly, scientists had to invent dark matter to make their models work.

Gravitational models of galaxy formation wouldn't work without scientists adding in fake matter.

Unlike plasma cosmology, which has shown how plasma acting in space can form galaxies with the exact same shape and rotational properties of what we observe without making up any fake matter or black holes.




[edit on 14-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Scott lays out the evidence to show that the currents could indeed exist.

It comes down to which theory better accounts for observation.

Plasma cosmology's model FAR better accounts for what we observe on the Sun than the standard model.

Occam's razor applies.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


In order to apply Occam's razor the theory should at least be valid. As far as I know it is wel understood how to detect electrons.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


We detect them all over the place.

The problem comes from detecting the charge imbalances and the resulting current flows that arise from this.

Space is absolutely filled with charged particles.

Standard theory says the charge of these particles sums up to be "net zero." That is to say, the positive and negative charges in space balance each other out perfectly leaving no room for any current to flow.

Current is a function of charge deficiency. If one area of space is net negative, electrons will flow into that positive area of space until the area becomes charge neutral.

Plasma cosmology says that because we detect magnetic fields, there must be net charge imbalance to create these magnetic fields. In order for a magnetic field to form, one must have moving charge. Charge that does not move will not create a magnetic field.

Thus, since we see magnetic fields everywhere, we can conclude there is indeed charge imbalance and flowing electrons.

As I said the problem comes from determining exactly where the electron flow is coming from. Because the flowing electrons are so diffuse (spread out over a huge area), it is extremely difficult to detect the flow of these particles.

You could think of it as a magnetized gas. You can have very dense gas or very diffuse gas. The density of the gas is amps per square meter, the speed of the gas is volts. If you have a very diffuse gas that's moving at 1000 mph, you could stand in the middle of that wind and not feel anything. Its not until the gas becomes dense before you can actually feel the effects of the movement.

Take a river of water for example, a 10 mph current of water is enough to knock a man over, while a 10 mph wind barely does anything.

Plasma cosmology argues we can't "feel" the electron flow because the current is so diffuse. Also, the current flow might be confined to the polar regions of the Sun, which have never been measured at all.

Given that this is entirely possible and has not been disproved, one must consider the electric model of the Sun more reasonable than the standard model simply because it better accounts for observation with far less assumptions.

As Don Scott says:


In this day and age there is no longer any doubt that electrical effects in plasmas play an important role in the phenomena we observe on the Sun. The major properties of the "Electric Sun (ES) model" are as follows:

Most of the space within our galaxy is occupied by plasma (rarefied ionized gas) containing electrons (negative charges) and ionized atoms (positive charges). Every charged particle in the plasma has an electric potential energy (voltage) just as every pebble on a mountain has a mechanical potential energy with respect to sea level. The Sun is surrounded by a plasma cell that stretches far out - many times the radius of Pluto. These are facts not hypotheses.

The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it - probably in the order of 10 billion volts.

Positive ions leave the Sun and electrons enter the Sun. Both of these flows add to form a net positive current leaving the Sun. This constitutes a plasma discharge analogous in every way (except size) to those that have been observed in electrical plasma laboratories for decades. Because of the Sun's positive charge (voltage), it acts as the anode in a plasma discharge. As such, it exhibits many of the phenomena observed in earthbound plasma experiments, such as anode tufting. The granules observed on the surface of the photosphere are anode tufts (plasma in the arc mode).

The Sun may be powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy as they do in all galaxies. This possibility that the Sun may be exernally powered by its galactic environment is the most speculative idea in the ES hypothesis and is always attacked by critics while they ignore all the other explanatory properties of the ES model. In the Plasma Universe model, these cosmic sized, low-density currents create the galaxies and the stars within those galaxies by the electromagnetic z-pinch effect. It is only a small extrapolation to ask whether these currents remain to power those stars. Galactic currents are of low current density, but, because the sizes of the stars are large, the total current (Amperage) is high. The Sun's radiated power at any instant is due to the energy imparted by that amperage. As the Sun moves around the galactic center it may come into regions of higher or lower current density and so its output may vary both periodically and randomly.


Scott further states, in relation to Jurgen's model:


5. Juergens’ model implies that the outer surface of the heliosphere is the collector of the necessary current stream from the nearby region of our galaxy. Inside the heliopause (within the "solar wind" plasma) the movement of electrons would consist of a "drift current" moving inward toward the Sun superimposed on a vastly stronger "Brownian (random) motion" and therefore be difficult to measure. For a summary of Juergens’ computation see Appendix C of The Electric Sky.



[edit on 14-4-2010 by mnemeth1]




top topics



 
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join