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: 6
30
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
While I do not think infinite density black holes exist I do think massive stars that go supernova and can no longer be seen are still there but their electromagnetic radiation is being completely converted to gravitational energy.

Extended Heim Theory explains how this could be possible. Under EHT it is possible to convert electromagnetic radiation into gravitational energy by rotating matter in the presence of a powerful magnetic field.

When a supernova occurs, conservation of angular momentum results in the stars increasing their speeds of rotation. This combined with the moving charges in these stars results in rotating matter interacting with the magnetic fields of these stars.

The more massive the original star, the faster it will spin after the supernova, and the more likely it will be able to transform more if not all of its EM radiation into gravitational energy.




posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by -PLB-
 


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.

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.
[edit on 14-4-2010 by mnemeth1]


Wheres the cathode?

The reason it is attacked so fiercly is because it is a key component to the theory and it has absolutely no basis in observation. The sun is not net positive and there is no current flowing into the sun.

We are going in circles here. There is no evidence from observation that suggests the sun is an anode. . . There is no cathode and no measurable flow. . . This "imaginary flow" seems to be analogous to the "imaginary matter" you like to bash so much.

Double standard working here Mnemeth?



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


If you're trying to get at where the ultimate source of electrons originate from, it can only be speculated at. What we see is clear evidence of an electric discharge taking place. Given that electrons could be generated any distance from the source since magnetic fields are infinite, the ultimate source could be out of our visible range.

There's also the possibility that electrons are created within the inter-galactic medium of deep space by processes we haven't fully determined yet. For example, we know electrons can be created and accelerated by processes such as triboluminescence which are poorly understood.

As far as the discharge itself goes, you can actually build a mini-sun in a lab with a device called a terella.



If you assume the Sun's rotation through the medium of inter-stellar plasma imparts a magnetic field, you get what amounts to a terella. Which is nothing more than magnetized ball floating in vacuum within a sea of electrons.

Birkeland was able to replicate all the major features of the Sun using such a device. Sun spots, equatorial plasma torus, etc.. etc...

Given enough current, I suppose one could induce fusion in such a device. Of course, that would probably blow the vacuum chamber up though haha.

As to the Sun not being net-positive, explain why we see concentrations of ions flowing away from it?

Where is this proof that the Sun is not net-positive?

We see solar wind accelerating away from the sun with increasing distance. That is impossible unless an electric field is in play.







[edit on 14-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1


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]


O.k. I will. First of all a black hole is NOT an infinite mass point particle. A black hole is a region of space in which gravity is so strong that not even light can escape. Black holes do NOT have INFINITE MASS. Black Holes have INFINITE ENERGY DENSITY.

This energy density is the effect of the massive compression forces that happen when a star dies. The gravity implodes the star causing enough compression to make an increased density.

Let's think like this....

Mass =the amount of matter in an object.
Gravity =the effect of mass and energy bending space and time.
Density = Mass per unit volume

The more dense something is the more it's gravitational pull increases.

Until you have reached infinite energy density.
So the closer you get to the center of a black hole, singularity, the more gravity there is.

I hope that helps you with that.

[edit on 14-4-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


en.wikipedia.org...

Under such circumstances the invariant mass is equal to the relativistic mass (discussed below), which is the total energy of the system divided by c (the speed of light) squared.

So if you say infinite energy density, aren't you really saying

infinite energy = infinite mass * c^2

I believe this violates special relativity.

"In special relativity, an object that has a mass cannot travel at the speed of light. As the object approaches the speed of light, the object's energy and momentum increase without bound."

Hence, real mass, such as material from a star that's collapsing, could never achieve infinite energy density according to special relativity.

That mass energy equivalence thing is a real bitch when trying formulate black holes. That's probably why wiki is so obtuse about explaining it.

They don't want the serfs catching on to the man behind the curtain.




[edit on 14-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Let me say this again. Infinite energy DENSITY is what a black hole has. Infinite energy density IS NOT THE SAME AS INFINITE MASS. The black hole is being COMPRESSED. THE COMPRESSION IS CAUSING THE DENSITY TO INCREASE. THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE MASS OF THE FORMER STAR. That is why black holes are SMALLER than their original stars. It isn't gaining mass it is compressing the mass it already has.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



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 that can be detected anywhere in the solar wind flow. If the sun had a net charge that was large enough, then it should repel one charge and attract the other, depending on the sign of the sun's excess charge. But we don't see that.

Not only are the electrons allegedly responsible for heating the sun at its surface remarkably invisible, but there are very strong reasons for insisting that they could not exist in any case. Those reasons are based on some pretty elementary electromagnetism, and it is again remarkable that the champions of the "electric sun" hypothesis seem to have overlooked a good deal of what "electric" actually means.



If you were an electron, moving through intergalactic space towards the sun, what would you see? What would happen as you approach the sun? The first significant indication of the sun's presence that you would encounter is the sun's gravity. A slow moving electron could get caught up by that gravity, and become part of the "halo" that includes the Oort cloud, and probably extends about 1.5 light years from the sun. But a typical interstellar electron will be moving at about 20 km/sec with respect to the sun, well in excess of escape velocity, unless the electron finds its way to the inner solar system, so it's more likely that you would just cruise by and not notice. Of course, an electric sun hypothesizer would hypothesize that you would feel an attraction from the sun's excess positive charge, but we've already shown that to be unreasonable; if an electron at the orbit of the Earth feels no such force, how could one that is a light year away?



www.tim-thompson.com...



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Let me say this again. Infinite energy DENSITY is what a black hole has. Infinite energy density IS NOT THE SAME AS INFINITE MASS. The black hole is being COMPRESSED. THE COMPRESSION IS CAUSING THE DENSITY TO INCREASE. THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE MASS OF THE FORMER STAR. That is why black holes are SMALLER than their original stars. It isn't gaining mass it is compressing the mass it already has.


So you're claiming Einstein's mass energy equivalence principle is wrong then.

Tell me, exactly how much energy is required to compress something into an infinite density.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


I already posted a refutation to Thompson's arguement:

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.

Also, Thompson completely ignores the effects of double layers, for which we have tons of evidence in support of.

Read that link I posted, it has all the refutations, all the models, everything you need to know about the electric sun.

sites.google.com...

In fact, it even has a rejoinder specifically to all the arguments made by Thompson.

www.electric-cosmos.org...




[edit on 14-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



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

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Let me say this again. Infinite energy DENSITY is what a black hole has. Infinite energy density IS NOT THE SAME AS INFINITE MASS. The black hole is being COMPRESSED. THE COMPRESSION IS CAUSING THE DENSITY TO INCREASE. THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE MASS OF THE FORMER STAR. That is why black holes are SMALLER than their original stars. It isn't gaining mass it is compressing the mass it already has.


So you're claiming Einstein's mass energy equivalence principle is wrong then.

Tell me, exactly how much energy is required to compress something into an infinite density.





A black hole is created when strong nuclear force is overpowered by local gravity. But gravity can only over power to a certain extent. Gravity implodes the star in on itself after the star has cooled down. The gravitational forces have always been present . These forces are the same forces that even made the star. Which is why only massive stars become black holes. If you want to find out how much an object has to be compressed to become a black hole then look up the Schwarzschild equation.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


Oh, you mean this one?

The one that's regular in all of space time?

The one that was corrupted by Hilbert?

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com...


So, throw me a number here. Exactly how much "E" are we talking about? There must be a set amount of energy that's required to compress an object into an infinite point mass, no?



[edit on 14-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


Oh, you mean this one?

The one that's regular in all of space time?

The one that was corrupted by Hilbert?

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com...


So, throw me a number here. Exactly how much "E" are we talking about? There must be a set amount of energy that's required to compress an object into an infinite point mass, no?



[edit on 14-4-2010 by mnemeth1]


NO I mean the actual Schwarzschild equation. This equation tells how much an object needs to be compressed to have it's own gravity collapse the star into an infinite energy density. Or as it's more commonly known as an objects Schwarzschild Radius. Which is 2GRM divided by c2.
So now you just have to find out how much energy is needed to compress the object that much. Now with massive stars gravity wins and has that power over them because of the stars original mass. Now if you wanted to know how much energy is needed to compress an object that much I think you should put in all factors that are in play.
Here are just a few...

1. Objects beginning density
2. Objects overall mass
3. Distance object needs to be compressed
4. Whether or not this is being done in a vacuum
5. What material this object is made out of
6. If it is magnetic or not
7. If it is magnetic the strength of the magnet
8. If it is magnetic the size of the magnet
9. Where the object is being compressed
10. If it is magnetic which method are you using to compress it (Compression by repulsion or by attraction)

And I would also like to point out that you are taking way longer than me to post your answers while I post them as soon as I see a new reply.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


Oh, you mean this one?

The one that's regular in all of space time?

The one that was corrupted by Hilbert?

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com...


So, throw me a number here. Exactly how much "E" are we talking about? There must be a set amount of energy that's required to compress an object into an infinite point mass, no?



[edit on 14-4-2010 by mnemeth1]


Not to nitpick Mnemeth but, Wouldn't E in this case be proportional to P? Surely an object with less P would require less E to be collapsed. . . With E increasing exponentialy as P reaches a critical point and the schwarzschild radius is neared. . . .

Just a lil funnin on this otherwise excellent thread ^^

[edit on 14-4-2010 by constantwonder]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


I see.

So you disagree with Schwarzschild's solution to the Mercury orbit problem then?

You're really hard to follow here.

Just give me some simple answers here.

Do you agree or disagree with Schwarzschild's solution to the Mercury orbit problem?

Do you agree or disagree with E=mc2?

Because if you agree with both of those, then there's no way in hell you can believe in black holes.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by constantwonder

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


Oh, you mean this one?

The one that's regular in all of space time?

The one that was corrupted by Hilbert?

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com...


So, throw me a number here. Exactly how much "E" are we talking about? There must be a set amount of energy that's required to compress an object into an infinite point mass, no?



[edit on 14-4-2010 by mnemeth1]


Not to nitpick Mnemeth but, Wouldn't E in this case be proportional to P? Surely an object with less P would require less E to be collapsed. . . With E increasing exponentialy as P reaches a critical point and the schwarzschild radius is neared. . . .

Just a lil funnin on this otherwise excellent thread ^^

[edit on 14-4-2010 by constantwonder]


I guess you don't believe Schwarzschild solved the Mercury orbit problem either.

Quite the conundrum here.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


I see.

So you disagree with Schwarzschild's solution to the Mercury orbit problem then?

You're really hard to follow here.

Just give me some simple answers here.

Do you agree or disagree with Schwarzschild's solution to the Mercury orbit problem?

Do you agree or disagree with E=mc2?

Because if you agree with both of those, then there's no way in hell you can believe in black holes.



Ok I'm trying to make this as simple as possible.

YES I agree with E=mc2
YES I agree with the solution. Which was Einstein's I believe

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 14-4-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   
sorry dp


my bad


[edit on 14-4-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


I just gave you the original paper.

Click linky.

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com...



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I don't agree with that answer. I don't agree with that specific answer because there are a lot of other ways to get to one answer. BUT only one way that goes with all the other answers that we have. SO I DISAGREE.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I don't agree with that answer. I don't agree with that specific answer because there are a lot of other ways to get to one answer. BUT only one way that goes with all the other answers that we have. SO I DISAGREE.


Of course you disagree.

You don't believe in reality.

Schwarzschild wasn't so stupid as to think that the spacetime manifold could bend to infinity. I have to assume he understood that such a derivation was intrinsically impossible because it would have violated Einstein's own field equations, and hence the mass energy equivalence principle.

This is also the reason Einstein didn't believe in black holes.

However, this is not the reason I don't believe in black holes. I don't believe in black holes because I don't believe you can bend nothing.




[edit on 14-4-2010 by mnemeth1]




top topics



 
30
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join