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: 9
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
a) A coronal discharge mimics everything about the Sun; therefore, it has everything to do with space.


It does not. Coronal discharge requires electrically neutral gas to be present for the phenomenon to develop.


No, it does not.



Yes it does. Read carefully:

en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


no, it does not.

more on glow and coronal discharges here.

www.kronos-press.com...


". . . with electric discharges in very high vacuum where the current is carried by particles of one sign only (unipolar discharges) and where the carriers of the electric current pass across the vacuous space from one electrode (emitter) to another electrode (collector) without suffering loss of energy or change in momentum by collisions with gas molecules [it is unnecessary] to consider the generation of ions and electrons by collisions with gas molecules, [or] the recombination of ions and electrons.


also

en.wikipedia.org...

coronal discharges can and do occur in space.



[edit on 15-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Why is this even in Science and Technology?

Shouldn't this be in Skunkworks?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
Why is this even in Science and Technology?

Shouldn't this be in Skunkworks?


Don't be mad that I'm presenting real science while you are peddling science fiction.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
Why is this even in Science and Technology?

Shouldn't this be in Skunkworks?


Don't be mad that I'm presenting real science while you are peddling science fiction.


REAL SCIENCE!!


Weren't you the one claiming ALL SCIENCE IS WRONG, then saying HERE IS THE REAL SCIENCE?

You are presenting sources from people who are, probably, almost as uneducated as you in the subject. If scientist that have spent their whole lives doing something they say is right then who are you to judge.

Yes I know there might be the one mistake that they had but are you really going to say that ALL science is wrong just for that one scrap of evidence.

The thing that actually showed us how smart you are was you criticizing Einstein. I mean it obvious that only an unintelligent person would call a highly intelligent person retarded now is it?

Einstein's theories are one of the most highly tested there are. I think that the only theories that are even tested more than Einstein's are thermodynamics and motion.

Just stop it please it is pointless and, unfortunately for you, shows just how smart you are.

p.s. I will post a thread on this. Unlike you I will post it where it actually belongs.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


I noticed you didn't answer my question.

You're real good at ad homs; however, you suck at science.



[edit on 15-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


I noticed you didn't answer my question.

You're real good at ad homs; however, you suck at science.



[edit on 15-4-2010 by mnemeth1]


I meant for you to read what the link said. I wanted you to gain an understanding, that is completely obvious, but you just don't.

A neutron star is formed from a gravitational collapse. the only thing that keeps it held together is strong nuclear force. A neutron star is able to stay in it's form because the immense crushing force of gravity is still there.

Think of it like this... unless enough speed is there to overpower the relentless form of gravity then gravity will never stop. But the neutron star can stretch at the center, becoming less dense, from the speed. The neutron star will never be able to rotate fast enough for gravity to make it explode.

The neutron star would have to gain back the mass that it had from the beginning and still remain in a collapsed form. But unfortunately that would cause it to become a black hole. UNLESS that it could maintain the same speed for enough time and gain enough hydrogen so that it will be able to become the same star that it was before. Call it star rebirth if you will.

Let me try to explain to you what this looks like. It has to gain enough speed so that it's outer layer, which is originally 2-4km in diameter, all the way past the suns outer layer. You also have to place enough hydrogen that once the star slows down that it will instantly cause a star to be made.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I'm sorry to say; your, and some of the people who propagate EM theory, understanding of Relativity is poor, at best.

1) Einstein never presented time as being a 4th spatial dimension. Though you, and the videos you provided FALSELY claim this.

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


2) If you and the people criticizing Relativity don't fully understand it, you have absolutely no ground to criticize it.

3) My question about the 1962 water tower experiment was still never answered. I'm asking specifically about time dilation in gravity, not in motion. (Unless you're trying to infer that the top of the tower travels in a larger circle around the Earth than the bottom tower - which would still lead to inconsistencies when compared directly to motion outside of gravity)

Yes, Relativity is incomplete. Yes, EM theory has some very valid points. But that does not mean that Relativity is wrong and therefore EM is right. Yes, I believe Science is wrong in at least SOME aspects, but that doesn't mean we should throw out all the work and adopt a completely new system.

If you do not fully understand Relativity, your assessment of its accuracy is irrelevant. I spent around 6 months, roughly 1000 hours, trying to tear apart, disprove and understand relativity. I can't express to you how many times I thought I had it figured out but later discovered my own incompetence had blinded me from realizing why I was the one in err. See this. Or this. After 6 months of diligent study I finally started developing a clear picture of what Relativity really was and the inherent beauty of it.

Please stop spreading inaccurate information about Relativity. If you want to promote your theories, present them in a respectable manner for review and let people decide which system more accurately represents the universe.

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



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Angry Danish
 


I think you will like a thread of mine as it regards that specific problem. It is my most recent thread and I hope you like it.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Angry Danish
 


I answered your question.

You may not like the answer, but I certainly answered it.

I also understand Einstein's relativity enough to know its completely detached from reality.

Claiming I'm simply too dumb to understand is a ridiculous argument akin to "the emperors new clothes."

I fully understand what is going on, and I fully disagree with it.



[edit on 15-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


The Island of Stability in nuclear chemistry forbids that bogus theory from ever occurring.

Further, the observed rotation rates would blow such a star apart even if the Island of Stability didn't prevent such matter from forming.

Further, Peratt's model doesn't rely on ANY hypothetical matter or unproven physics.

Occam's razor is crystal clear.

The electric model is superior.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Angry Danish
 


I answered your question.

You may not like the answer, but I certainly answered it.

I also understand Einstein's relativity enough to know its completely detached from reality.

Claiming I'm simply too dumb to understand is a ridiculous argument akin to "the emperors new clothes."

I fully understand what is going on, and I fully disagree with it.



[edit on 15-4-2010 by mnemeth1]


I am not, and have NEVER, called you dumb, although you have been MORE THAN WILLING to openly and assertively place this judgment on other people, repeatedly.

You did not answer my question and now seem to be refusing to enlighten me as to how EM explains time dilation in gravity. I'm asking for clarification and you're not giving any.

I've pointed at evidence you have provided against relativity and tried to explain to you how it is incorrect. Your only response has been that you and the presenters of the evidence "know it well enough". I will assert again, no, you do not.

I am asking you to consider the possibility that you do not understand Relativity as much as you believe you do. If you do not wish to increase your knowledge of Relativity and if your only responses are to come back with insults and slander against everyone else, this is little more than an exercise in futility and I will gracefully bow out.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Angry Danish
 


The evidence I've provided against Einstein's relativity is perfectly correct.

You read the link I provided, it explains time dilation clearly in terms of lortenz relativity.

If you don't understand it, I'm not sure what else I can do here.

If you have a specific question about what is presented on the page, ask me, and I'll try and clarify it for you.

What is presented on that page is the ONLY kind of time dilation that I believe occurs, and it answers your question. Because of the differences in relative motion between the two points, some "time dilation" would be observed.

Gravity does not bend space, hence, it does not cause "time dilation".

And no, I will not consider the possiblity that Einstein's version of relativity is correct. It is NOT BASED IN REALITY. It has no ties what-so-ever to real testable physics.

It is not falsifiable.

It is not bounded by any constraints.

Its models can be made to say ANYTHING the physicsts dream up.

Got a problem with too little observable mass? NO PROBLEM! Just add some dark matter!

Got a problem with galaxy models not matching what is observed? NO PROBLEM! just add some dark energy!

Its totally bogus science - its a sham - its a lie - its a fraud -

ITS CRIMINAL!


[edit on 15-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   


I noticed you didn't answer my question.


i noticed you have a bad habit of that as well




I asked you to explain why this should be so, and why I should believe a model that uses a ton of hypothetical ON TOP of violating the laws of KNOWN physics over a model that does neither.


as i stated earlier in one of these threads, we don't know EVERYTHING about physics and very well may never know everything about physics. I am happy to think there will be mysteries of the cosmos we can't solve

Also, lets test Occam's Razor to show it does not apply to everyting or every time shall we? what is a simpler explanation?

A: Your brain is a complex organ composed of neurons and synapses that fire off precicly timed electrical charges that travel through te central nervous system composed or tiny cells that control motor control, speech, higher conscous thought, and all involuntary functions of the body

OR

B: Your brain has a gnome inside it pulling strings and talking through a microphone

what answer is simpler?

[edit on 15/4/2010 by Paladin327]

[edit on 15/4/2010 by Paladin327]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Jurgens writes:



On the average, measurements show that most of these detected electrons are moving neither inward nor outward. Parker's model requires that a like number of electrons and ions drift outward, constituting the electrically neutral solar wind. Here, we require that an inward flux of 3000 relativistic electrons per cubic meter pervades the background of 9 to 11 million electrons per cubic meter which occupy, but do not flow through, the space between the planets of the solar system.

On this basis, we are at least partially justified in supposing that the negative glow of the solar discharge cannot be located outside the Sun's atmosphere. Since the negative glow is the first true plasma region to be encountered as we proceed from the cathode of a glow discharge toward the anode, the interplanetary plasma may be tentatively assigned this role without straining the self-consistency in the model.(23)

Thus it would appear that, if but one in about every 3,000 electrons near the Earth turned out to be a current carrier moving at almost the speed of light toward the Sun, the power delivered would be enough to keep the Sun "burning" at its present rate. This seems a rather subtle stream but it would suffice to power the Sun.



Out of 9 to 11 million electrons, only 3000 per cubic meter need to be part of the current.

The rest of the electrons are held in a quasineutral state with the positive ions.

The inter-planetary plasma is a transmission wire, it is not a power source.

Jurgens postulates that these electrons are moving at relativistic speeds. This would further hinder their detection. It wouldn't surprise me if deep space detectors saw these electrons as "cosmic rays."




[edit on 15-4-2010 by mnemeth1]


Lets do some simple maths. If 3000 electrons, traveling close to the speed of light, are in one cubic meter at any given moment. That would mean that a single electron would occupy that cubic meter for 1/300000000 seconds. So for a total of 1 electron to be present in that space continuously, there would have passed 300 million electrons in one second. Multiply that by 3000, and you end up with 9 billion electrons passing that cubic meter every second. A bit more than the ~10 million "stationary" electrons.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


dude.

You can't take a snapshot then compare it to a moving value.

One or the other.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


You're real good at ad homs; however, you suck at science.


Just read carefully what you wrote here. Once again, you bash the kind of behavior in which you yourself indulge. I don't know whether it's hypocrisy or schizophrenia, but it doesn't look right. (Another example of that is when you say you are certain that this or that is a plasma field, or a coronal discharge, or any other weird hypothesis you came up with -- while you were certain that all other hypothesis were wrong).



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


The only weird hypothesis in here are claims of dark matter and dark energy.

Please, indulge me since you are so educated on this subject.

Exactly how did scientists come to the conclusion dark matter must exist?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Thats all? And you call that real science? Well you havn't convinced me, sorry.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Exactly how did scientists come to the conclusion dark matter must exist?


They didn't. If you can't get THAT into your head, I can't help you.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join