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: 7
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   
You know, I have to give Einstein some credit.

He was a slick cookie.

Its absolutely stunning that he was able to formulate a principle based on Lorentz's model of relativity that tied geodesic space, matter, and energy together.

Where he f*cked up though is thinking that it was space which was "bending" and not matter itself.

Lorentz was right. He just didn't understand standing waves at the time he wrote his theory. Had he fully appreciated that, we would probably be light years ahead of our current progress right now.




posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
What about quantized spacetime bits?

I am looking for the article and will post it when I find it. The paper talks about a fundemental limit of a spacetime unit. If it turns out that space time is granular bits wouldn't that make it a something and not a nothing?

Heres a video that talks a bit about it. It's a little layman but as i can't yet find the paper it will have to do.

The part ot watch starts at 4:10




posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


I keep going back to occam's razor.

Lorentz's work was thrown out because, at the time, Einstein had shown it was possible to achieve the same results without the need for an aether.

However, its now clear that the aether is a NECESSARY part of the equation in order to fundamentally tie relativity to reality.

Any other such theory proposed has to explain not only why its better than what was put forward by Lorentz, but why its also simpler.

Theoretical physicists HATE Lorentz's work because it puts handcuffs on them and prevents them from creating all manner of nonsense. It takes away all their toys and forces them to confront reality.

Similarly, they ignore the brilliant work of Schwarzschild which also fundamentally limits what they can do.


[edit on 14-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Wouldnt quantized spacetime be almost like an aether?

I wouldn't be a continuum but would still allow for wave propagation. Like water is not a continuum but can still maintain waves.

The more we discuss this, the more it seems that the ultimate answer or TOE whatever you want to call it will be a compilation of these theories.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


The theory of everything is resolved the minute one adds the aether.

Lorentz's work does not require two separate theories.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

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]


Space-time is only bent infinitely at THE CENTER OF A BLACK HOLE, SINGULARITY, as I have previously stated. OUTSIDE the event horizon there is not an infinite space-time bend for a black hole.

NOW you are saying space-time doesn't exist. You do know Einstein's theory has already been validated on a large scale?

Just click on Constantwonder's profile and look for that thread.

Unfortunately for you Einstein was right, black holes exist, and so does space-time.

Science and logic are in my favor. You called someone out on black holes and I answered it. Thank you and good night.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


I'm well aware of this.

I also think its a joke.

Here's some more light reading for you:

McVittie showing how a universe with more than one black hole is impossible, even if one rejects Schwarzschild's fundamental limits on spacetime.

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com...


oh, in case you didn't read the OP. Einstein's theories have not been validated on a large scale.

The only parts of his theory that have been validated are those that agree with Lorentz relativity.

Frame dragging, gravitational lensing, black holes, and other such nonsense have not been proven - and in many cases refuted - by the hard evidence.



[edit on 14-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   
What about Einsteins Cross? It clearly shows strong lensing effects.



I am unfamiliar with an alternative explanation on this one.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


explained in OP.

Q2237

I could go into more detail if you like.

That image actually destroys the notion of gravitational lensing. The Einstein Cross has turned out to be a major thorn in the side of statist cosmologists.




[edit on 14-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


I'm well aware of this.

I also think its a joke.

Here's some more light reading for you:

McVittie showing how a universe with more than one black hole is impossible, even if one rejects Schwarzschild's fundamental limits on spacetime.

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com...


oh, in case you didn't read the OP. Einstein's theories have not been validated on a large scale.

The only parts of his theory that have been validated are those that agree with Lorentz relativity.

Frame dragging, gravitational lensing, black holes, and other such nonsense have not been proven - and in many cases refuted - by the hard evidence.



[edit on 14-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

The article was specific to the theory of gravity and dark matter.

"The nice thing about going to the cosmological scale is that we can test any full, alternative theory of gravity, because it should predict the things we observe," said co-author Uros Seljak, a professor of physics and of astronomy at UC Berkeley, a faculty scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and a professor of physics at the Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of Zurich. "Those alternative theories that do not require dark matter fail these tests."

As I said there are multiple methods to get the correct answer. But the truly correct method is the one that also helps you get the other correct answers.

If you look at the Wiki article then you can plainly see that there were, and still are, tests that are trying to prove relativity.It's on the previous page.

Not to mention your article that you gave me says there can never be more than one black hole in the universe but says there can be many neutron stars!You do know neutron stars also have a limit. Objects bigger than 9 solar masses before they go supernovae will always become a black hole. Whereas objects less than 9 solar masses will become either neutron stars or white dwarfs. But there are many more possibilities other than those 2.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   


This video is wrong on many, many levels... Do you believe that spacetime is 4 dimensions of space? Do you believe that Einstein said the universe is a rubber sheet?

I am still curious about the cause of time dilation due to Gravity // Relative Motion in the EM model, if you could address that as well.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


now we are on to neutron stars hey?

So explain how a pulsar can rotate at 1800 hz for me without flying apart.

Explain why neutrons should violate the Island of Stability in nuclear chemistry.

Then explain how pulsars that do those things are somehow more realistic than the model proposed by Peratt, which doesn't involve any strange matter or hypothetical physics.


As to the "dark matter" nonsense, I have prepared a suitable response here.

fascistsoup.com...



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angry Danish


This video is wrong on many, many levels... Do you believe that spacetime is 4 dimensions of space? Do you believe that Einstein said the universe is a rubber sheet?

I am still curious about the cause of time dilation due to Gravity // Relative Motion in the EM model, if you could address that as well.


3 dimensions + time is all that is required.

Einstein has in effect transformed the universe into a rubber sheet. I think that's an adequate analogy to his proposed physics. As he says in the video, its basically impossible to conceive how Einstein's mechanics work on paper any other way.

Time dilation explained in steady state:

www.glafreniere.com...

I believe this is the only kind of "time dilation" that exists.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1


fascistsoup.com...


I stopped reading the first time you called one of the smartest men of the last century a retard.

I'm going to give you something to think about meth. One of my professors has a saying, "if you think you have a good idea, find a group of people who disagree with you. If you can convince them, you have a good idea." so far from what I've seen in your three most recent threads is that you are failing miserably



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Paladin327
 


I stopped reading your post after you said you stopped reading mine.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Ok, so you agree with Einstein about the number of dimensions that exist. 3 spacial + 1 time = 4 dimensions. And as cited in Wikipedia:


Spacetime is usually interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort from the spatial dimensions.


Only someone who was deliberately trying to misrepresent Relativity would present this information in such a manner. Which makes me wonder if he even understands the theory in the first place (which I highly doubt).

I'm fairly certain I could spent the next 6 months reading that website and never understand half of it. So let's just play agree or disagree:


In 1962, scientists placed two atomic clocks at the bottom and top of a water tower. The clock at the bottom, the one closer to the massive center of the Earth, was running slower than the clock at the top. Einstein called this phenomenon time dilation.


Source

edit: spellign

[edit on 4/15/10 by Angry Danish]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The flow of electrons would be immense and we exactly now its direction. It should be easily detecteble. Where did you get the idea that a vacuum is filled with diffuse electrons, and that it would be very hard to detect a flow of electrons because of this? Lets take a look at the priciple of a CRT screen. It is a vacuum with an electron cannon. These electrons are fired at a fluorescent screen which lights up. The amount of energy needed to fuel the sun would be much higher than that of an CRT screen. If electrons would be flying through the vacuum of space (powered by whatever force), wouldn't we be able to detect it easily? Just hold up a fluorescent screen in space and it would light up brightly. Why wouldn't that work?

It seems to me that the theory that the sun is fueled by electrons flying through a vacuum is pretty much disproven. So they have to be channeled there by another method. Only thing I can think of is a plasma, which can also be taken off the list, because no plasma is observed.

Your theory does not comply with observation, unless you invent all kind of wild theories into the equation. But then it would no longer pass Occam's razor test, and it would for sure not be any better than the standard model. I don't see how you can call this "real" science then.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The flow of electrons would be immense and we exactly now its direction. It should be easily detecteble. Where did you get the idea that a vacuum is filled with diffuse electrons, and that it would be very hard to detect a flow of electrons because of this? Lets take a look at the priciple of a CRT screen. It is a vacuum with an electron cannon. These electrons are fired at a fluorescent screen which lights up. The amount of energy needed to fuel the sun would be much higher than that of an CRT screen. If electrons would be flying through the vacuum of space (powered by whatever force), wouldn't we be able to detect it easily? Just hold up a fluorescent screen in space and it would light up brightly. Why wouldn't that work?

It seems to me that the theory that the sun is fueled by electrons flying through a vacuum is pretty much disproven. So they have to be channeled there by another method. Only thing I can think of is a plasma, which can also be taken off the list, because no plasma is observed.

Your theory does not comply with observation, unless you invent all kind of wild theories into the equation. But then it would no longer pass Occam's razor test, and it would for sure not be any better than the standard model. I don't see how you can call this "real" science then.


Dude, we detect electrons all over in space.

They are every where.

Space is a gigantic plasma sea.

Particle detectors light up like crazy when put in space.

You're still not understanding the point.

The point being detecting DRIFT DIRECTION is what is difficult to detect. We can see electrons moving with protons AWAY from the Sun. Standard theorists claim this shows the Sun is not a positive anode because electrons should move toward the Sun. Of course, this is a simpleton argument. The fact is, since positive ions are flowing away from the Sun, they will themselves attract electrons and pull the electrons along with them.

Its the free electron drift against the background of the positive ions that is incredibly diffuse and difficult to detect.

I posted the explanation 3 times already and I'll do it again if you still don't get it.



[edit on 15-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angry Danish
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Ok, so you agree with Einstein about the number of dimensions that exist. 3 spacial + 1 time = 4 dimensions. And as cited in Wikipedia:


Spacetime is usually interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort from the spatial dimensions.


I don't agree with Einstein's version of spacetime.

There are three spatial dimensions.

Einstein mixes and matches time as its own dimension.

This is a fallacy.

Time is not a spatial dimension, it is an abstract concept.



Only someone who was deliberately trying to misrepresent Relativity would present this information in such a manner. Which makes me wonder if he even understands the theory in the first place (which I highly doubt).


I think he understands it well enough to know its a load of bull.

I don't agree with his theories, but they are a hell of a lot more cogent than what Einsteinian relativists put forward.



I'm fairly certain I could spent the next 6 months reading that website and never understand half of it. So let's just play agree or disagree:


In 1962, scientists placed two atomic clocks at the bottom and top of a water tower. The clock at the bottom, the one closer to the massive center of the Earth, was running slower than the clock at the top. Einstein called this phenomenon time dilation.


Source


"Time dilation" will be observed due to the relative speed of each location.


As shown in the above animation, moving clocks indicate different times along the line of motion. This local time was discovered by Lorentz himself, albeit it could be deduced from Voigt's equations. Many successive images produced this way and displayed as a movie clip would reveal that the emitter frequency and the equivalent seconds would be slowed down according to Lorentz's contraction factor g. This was called "time dilation" but actually, moving clocks cannot transform time. They just tick slower.



And because matter consists of waves, the moving observer perceives matter itself according to the same rules. This is why a moving observer sees a material body being contracted, behaving slower, and exhibiting local hours even though it is stationary. As a matter of fact, most probably, both of them are moving with respect to the aether and their line of motion differ. But they can only record the speed difference because of this reciprocity.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
16. Quasar Q2237 "The Einstein Cross" - this little beauty of a quasar directly refutes the notion of gravitational lensing. This quasar is supposedly ONE quasar being lensed into 4 images. This is a joke. The individual quasars are observed to brighten and dim independently. They are not oblong in shape. They are are visibly connected by a plasma field. They are observed to change position. All of these observations are in direct contradiction to gravitational lens theory.


Since you insist on perpetrating these absurd arguments, I feel I need to comment:

a) lots of anti-Einstein armchair physicist argument is that we simply don't know the geometry of the phenomenon (distances and configuration of the lensing source) to make definitive statements. This, however, does not bother you as you just proclaim "they are are visibly connected by a plasma field". You can't have the cake and eat it, too. Of two hypotheses, the "plasma field" wins the race for the BS prize

b) as most simple-minded people do, you somehow would us to accept that the lensing theory predicts perfect, Nikon-quality lensing good enough for National Geographic photos -- then proceed to say that what we observe is nothing like that hence lensing theory is incorrect. This is utter crap of an argument. You have an irregular object in motion that deflects light, leading to weird patterns like the Einstain Cross. Almost similar to a mirage. Mirage images are most often dynamic i.e. they keep fluctuating and drifting. Dimming and brightening of individual components of the Cross are akin to that.


[edit on 15-4-2010 by buddhasystem]



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join