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.

 

Quasars - Why Einstein Was Wrong

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I just wish people would stop kissing his ass so much. The model is just wrong and outdated. It's like still believe the Earth is the center of the universe. I never could understand how scientists can invent invisible things and call it science but bash on the religious folks for doing the same thing.




posted on May, 13 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   
So light is unaffected by Einstein's theories and yet there
is red shift explained by the gaseous ether that officially
does not exist.
Nice list of non compliance with Einstein.
Yet how easy is that job.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I just wish people would stop kissing his ass so much. The model is just wrong and outdated. It's like still believe the Earth is the center of the universe. I never could understand how scientists can invent invisible things and call it science but bash on the religious folks for doing the same thing.


What bothers me is the way science reporters regurgitate the nonsense given to them by the physicists without question.

"Our mathematical models show the universe is really a gigantic hologram with 11 different dimensions and approximately 10^4th black holes made out of 95% dark matter and energy"

-And the science reporters simply take this total nonsense as gospel without question.

It's a total sham.

It's an outrage.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


Yeah, it's a joke.

If gravity actually bent light, the entire night sky should look like a fun-house mirror.



[edit on 14-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
What is actually bending the light then?

If it isn't gravity, as proposed by Einstein, how do you explain being able to see stars behind the Sun from Earth's viewpoint?

This stuff is very interesting. I learned some things about Quasars that I wasn't aware of. I was always taught that most physical laws and current theories aren't 100 percent, but they can account for many things which happen in the Universe. It is when we're dealing with black holes specifically that our current models,theories and equations break down. Black holes basically spoiled the current Physics milk, so to speak.

I am curious about your explanation though. If it isn't gravity bending the light, then what is bending the light? If the light isn't being bent, then how can you explain seeing stars behind the Sun from our viewpoint?
Thx mnemeth1



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


The refraction of light around the Sun, I believe, is due to plasma self-focusing.

Gravity does not bend light - period.

en.wikipedia.org...


Self-focusing in plasma can occur through thermal, relativistic and ponderomotive effects.[19] Thermal self-focusing is due to collisional heating of a plasma exposed to electromagnetic radiation: the rise in temperature induces a hydrodynamic expansion which leads to an increase of the index of refraction and further heating.[20] Relativistic self-focusing is caused by the mass increase of electrons travelling at speed approaching the speed of light, which modifies the plasma refractive index



[edit on 14-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Ok. I think I understand what you're proposing.

So if our Sun was hypothetically burned out, you're saying this effect would cease to happen? For arguments sake, let us say that the Sun's mass and gravity are the same, but it is no longer going through fusion reactions and has no magnetic radiation. You're saying that we would not be able to see the images behind it any longer?



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


So, three threads in a row saying Einstein was wrong.
What's with the "sudden" flurry in your Anti-Einstein threads?
Just curious.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


So, three threads in a row saying Einstein was wrong.
What's with the "sudden" flurry in your Anti-Einstein threads?
Just curious.



I don't like being lied to.

I don't like having my tax dollars wasted.

I don't like bad theories that hinder scientific progress.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


If Einstein was wrong then how do you explain gravity?

I am really curious. This is interesting stuff.

Einstein's theory seems to make sense to me in that mass and gravity are related because the more an object bends space, the more gravity there is. That gravity wasn't necessarily a force, but a result in the space being bent around the object. An object like the Sun is fairly large and bends much more space than the Earth and the gravity is much stronger, which is why we see stars behind it.

You're throwing it all away and we're all going to have to re learn everything if you're correct



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Gravity might be the lack of free ether but I'm not a ether scientist.
We sort of know what anti gravity is when we see all the lifter technology
demonstrations on youtube.
There is a high voltage connection.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Gravity might be the lack of free ether but I'm not a ether scientist.
We sort of know what anti gravity is when we see all the lifter technology
demonstrations on youtube.
There is a high voltage connection.


Just toying with the idea here, not saying I support it completely.

In a way, it kind of makes sense. Perhaps matter displaces ether in such a way that, as you describe, creates a "lack of free ether".

The more mass there is, then the more ether is displaced out of a given region of space. This could possibly account for the correlation of mass and gravity. How this would work completely is beyond me, maybe there is some sort of pressure differential?

Interesting idea.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I felt the need to step in here again.

I applaud that you are questioning science and physics. I wish more people around the world took as much interest in learning what is going on around them.

That being said; You are not the first person to try and "bring down Einsteinian Physics", nor will you be the last. Many in the past have tried, and the thing that they lacked, and until now I see you lacking, is the mathematics behind all of this.

Theories are theories because the math behind it can back it up. You cannot prove or disprove any theory of everything without having the mathematics that prove it.

Where is the mathematics to prove your statements to be true? Einstein's mathematics and theories fit our mathematics almost perfectly. Almost as if Mathematics was somehow Omniscient and All Knowing as to how the world works, and can predict how things will work, even before we know about those things!

Mathematics is the key to holding together physics. Without the mathematics, you can conjecture and "what if" to your hearts content. But in the end, there is just no way of testing or quantifying this new theory without the math behind it all.

Until you can produce the math to support all of these theories and systems, I will continue to trust the mathematically sound and proven theories behind Einstein.

Also, just because we can not yet detect some of the things that Einsteins theory, and moreover the math which predicts it, does not mean it is not there. It simply means we cannot detect it, yet. Remember that lensing was confirmed after it was predicted, because the math was there. There were numerous things that were predicted in mathematics that in the past we were simply not able to detect.


The scientist William Gilbert proposed, in his De Magnete (1600), that electricity and magnetism, while both capable of causing attraction and repulsion of objects, were distinct effects.


He certainly had no way of truly testing all of this though, to him it didn't exist. We certainly can detect it now however.


It is a true fact that as long as your theories are not properly formulated into the language of mathematics, it is impossible to determine its validity.

Einstein's theories are based in the language of mathematics. Einstein spent years doing so, and working with some of the top mathematicians of the day. Until you do the same with these theories, and their originations, I am unable to back any of it.


[edit on 17-5-2010 by xmaddness]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Hmmmmmm my head hurts.........But are you saying that we watch the quasar in "real-time"? wouldn't that mean time is uniform throughout the universe? Maybe the jets the quasars give off are a new (by new I mean undiscovered) form of energy that is faster than the speed of light.

I'm no physicist so I could be way off.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by ALOSTSOUL]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Light goes the speed of light because it has no mass and thus
not subject to Einstein's mass increasing as the velocity of light
is approached.
There also is nothing in space (only gravity and dented space),
but with ether the speed of light in a medium of charges is due
to the density of the medium.
Yet a million mile per hour vehicle was designed by Tesla.
If indeed the ether is controlled the case of object avoidance
may be inherent.
9.3 M mph (50x speed of light) particles were found by Tesla
coming from the Sun. I doubt things have changed.
The voltage on the Sun propelled the particles and voltage propels
Tesla craft and that is why I think he gave such a number.
Tesla 'making any potential possible' thought he could propel
a metal craft with 1/9 th of the voltage on the Sun.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   
A Genuine Mystery, but Einstein is Not Proved Wrong

The discovery that quasar periodicity shows no evidence of redshift is certainly unexpected and disturbing. The phenomenon is very recent; reports about it began appearing in the media only last month or thereabouts. So far, no reputable scientist has been able to explain it satisfactorily. That is because we know hardly anything about it so far. Finding out more will be hard: we are talking about a phenomenon almost unimaginably far away in space and time. It may be a very long time before anyone can explain it - if ever.

It does not, however, prove that Einstein was wrong. That is certainly one possible explanation - the least likely one. General and Special Relativity have been proved right time and again. To say this one phenomenon disproves relativity would be exactly the same as saying that a floating hot-air balloon disproves gravity. It seems to, but only if you don't know enough. And we don't know enough about quasar redshift to be able to tell whether it disproves relativity or not.

Given the odds in favour of Einstein, it is wisest to believe - unless one is a theoretical physicist qualified to speculate on these matters - that there is another explanation for what we see, one that we are as yet unaware of.

The rest of us - including the OP - would be wise to see how this pans out in the real world of science instead of rushing to foolish conclusions.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



General and Special Relativity have been proved right time and again.


What exactly was proven?

Einstein's model of the universe has led to the invention *note:not observation* of many, many, many concepts that have not been proven in an attempt to "prove" what Einstein predicts should be observed. The whole dark matter mess was invented because Einsteins universe calls for more mass than is observed. Since when do we dictate how things should be rather than allow observations dictate how thing's really are?



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 

I know you, sirnex, and I am pretty sure you have had the proofs of relativity explained to you many times before. I am certainly not going to indulge you in your attempt to derail the thread.

If you want to find out what the proofs of relativity are, search for them on the internet.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


How am I attempting to derail the thread? The OP is pointing out that quasars show no time dilation as they should show under Ensteinian physics. There is nothing in Einsteins equations that say everything *but* quasars should abide by his laws of physics.

You then came into the thread making claim that Einsteinian physics is a proven thing, in spite of this one example of many disproving his model. Great, the guy got a few thing's right, but ultimately, observations show that the majority is wrong, hence the requirement to invent things to explain away those observations and hang onto his model of the universe.

The OP has a link in his signature detailing many more examples of problems with Einsteinian physics. If you can care to explain to me what exactly *has been proven that hasn't required the invention of unseen invisible things*, then I would be more than happy to look over that evidence in favor of Einstein.

This is not an attempt to derail at all. You came in the thread completely dismissive of the evidence against one aspect of Einsteinian physics with nothing to show that his model should still be considered a valid description of the universe. I'm simply asking you to back up your claim as I am not aware of anything claimed to be proven that hasn't required invisible inventions to prove those claims.

Invisible explanations belong to religion, not science.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I'm not sure why he's so dead set on upholding a failed model of the universe.

His job must in some way be involved here.

The lack of time dilation is just one aspect of quasars that falsifies Einstein's theories. He also needs to explain the quantized red shift, the lack of observed lensing effects in most galaxies, objects with high and low red shift interacting with each other, and why quasars don't follow the Hubble law of red shift correlating to their magnitude.



[edit on 18-5-2010 by mnemeth1]




top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join