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: 3
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


It's like dealing with the Catholic Church, people who have learned that things are a certain way don't want to give up those beliefs. Yo would figure that after all these years that people would begin to realize that science is not stagnant. New things do pop up and destroy what was once previously thought to be proven fact.

All attempts so far to reconcile QM with Einsteins GR/SR have resulted in time disappearing, which poses a big problem with his notion of time as a fourth dimension, which quiet a bit of his work is heavily based upon.

Come on folks, his work is nearly one hundred years old. New things have been learned and discovered, new observations have been made. We need a model based on that new knowledge and observations. You can't make a dying model fit an observation that defies it completely.

It's like proponents of Einsteinian physics want us to believe the sun still revolves around the Earth and that we're the epiphany of all creation!

They need to learn what humility is.




posted on May, 18 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I can't say if some type of ether filling space is an answer but
although Einstein put together a well established body of work
that is duly noted does not mean everything he proposed without
fact can be made to be true.

If controlling the ether means automatic collision avoidance, that
would be a great boon to space travel at high speeds.

Light being a stress in the ether has not been studied in that regard
as only being related to a source in atoms when electrons jump a
quantum. What happens afterward is just about loss less in nature.
Well such that space is empty and no need for further study.

However high voltage stressing of something by Tesla is an unknown
area of study. I'm not going to feel bad about the bad turn of events
for Einstein as Tesla may have rejected some of Einsteins ideas from
the get go.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


It's like dealing with the Catholic Church, people who have learned that things are a certain way don't want to give up those beliefs.

Do you imagine I have some sort of religious devotion to Einstein?


Matters of faith I leave to god-botherers, cranks and believers in thunder balls. I am a scientific materialist, and there are no sacred cows or golden calves in science. I am also a lover of exploration and adventure who chafes at the limitations imposed upon our scope for interstellar exploration and communication by Special Relativity. I would love to see the Universal Speed Limit overturned.

But relativity is a scientific edifice built on a very firm theoretical foundations and supported by mountains of evidence. It is not so lightly dismissed as uneducated people think.

If you have evidence that indubitably falsifies relativity, then present it and make your case. Until then, Einstein's ideas stand; it will take more than a bunch of cranks with sparks flying out of their beards to destroy them.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



Do you imagine I have some sort of religious devotion to Einstein?


No, not at all. It was a metaphorical statement indicating the similarities in mode of thinking that "What I know to be true *has* to be true regardless of evidence against it being true".

Like I said, he may have gotten a few thing's right, but the majority of his work is pure rubbish. Like Newton for example, not every theory he postulated was correct, but the one's that were are well accepted.


Matters of faith I leave to god-botherers, cranks and believers in thunder balls. I am a scientific materialist, and there are no sacred cows or golden calves in science.


There are quiet a few magical invisible deities in science today. Black holes, dark matter, neutron stars, dimensions, alternate realities, parallel realities, time travel, time. The list goes on. All of these and then some are all invented by the current model to make it fit with observations.

Like I said, you can't dictate to the universe how you want it to behave. It's just silly demanding it to do so. Allow your observations to dictate to you how the universe really is and we'll get much further much faster.


I am also a lover of exploration and adventure who chafes at the limitations imposed upon our scope for interstellar exploration and communication by Special Relativity. I would love to see the Universal Speed Limit overturned.


You know who Nikola Tesla is right? Well, he claims to have done just that. link He has given us pretty much everything we take for granted on a daily basis. He was also the only person at the time to actually scoff at Einstein and his version of relativity.


But relativity is a scientific edifice built on a very firm theoretical foundations and supported by mountains of evidence. It is not so lightly dismissed as uneducated people think.


Mountain of evidence? Again I am begged to wonder, what evidence that hasn't involved the invention of invisible things? I leave invisible explanations to the realm of religion, not science.


If you have evidence that indubitably falsifies relativity, then present it and make your case. Until then, Einstein's ideas stand; it will take more than a bunch of cranks with sparks flying out of their beards to destroy them.


How about the blatant requirement to invent invisible things to explain away observations that defy what the theory says should occur? Like quasars not abiding by Einsteinian physics. Or we can utilize common sense, time does not exist and seeing as how Einsteins work is based around a fourth dimension of temporal travel allowing for awesome sci-fi effects, like black holes or time travel, without 'time', there is no fourth dimension.

Not to mention, just such a problem is occurring in physics today with every attempt to reconcile QM with Einsteinian physics, we discover time doesn't exist!

No, I don't personally have all the math myself, but asking that much for me is like me demanding you show me the math that irrefutably proves that heavier than air flight is impossible. Which such paper work does exist, so please don't rely on mathematical work alone. You have two eyes, use them.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Awesome thread. Deep inside myself I always knew that red-shift wasn't applicable for measuring distances in space. The OP has written an excellent article.

Funny yet sad that the scientific community would rather prop up theories that "sound neat" with conflicting data/correlations than go back to the drawing board.

Reality is actually much simpler than they think it is. Some fundamental assumptions could be flat out bogus. Think about that.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Like I said, (Einstein) may have gotten a few thing's right, but the majority of his work is pure rubbish.

Unless you are a theoretical physicist whose knowledge and training are equivalent to Einstein's, you are incompetent to judge this. It is your opinion, not Einstein's work, that is pure rubbish.


There are quiet a few magical invisible deities in science today. Black holes, dark matter, neutron stars, dimensions, alternate realities, parallel realities, time travel, time. The list goes on. All of these and then some are all invented by the current model to make it fit with observations.

A nice demonstration of why you are incompetent to pronounce on the work of Einstein.

Only an idiot believes only in things that can be seen with the naked eye. Other 'invisible deities' include viruses, genes and the EU cultist's favourite form of energy, electromagnetism (except in the case of a narrow band of frequencies). No doubt you think these, too, are rubbish?

Black holes may not be visible to the naked eye but their gravitational effects are, which is how we know they exist.

Dark matter remains theoretical. You seem unaware of the very important distinction between theoretical and experimental physics. The former derives new postulatess out of the analysis of the physical laws, constants and quantities already known. It is then left to experimental physicists to test and falsify these postulates. Dark matter is presently moving from the realm of the theoretical to that of the experimental, but the transition is not yet complete. We have what looks like good evidence. The point is that the dark matter hypothesis fits the data and has not yet been falsified.

Neutron stars may not exist. They are a theoretical consequence of the stellar evolution model and were first postulated in 1934 but their existence is far from inevitable.

Apart from the last, all your other examples are of theoretical ideas, often competing theoretical ideas. None of them are held to be knowledge; they are all unfalsified and in some cases unfalsifiable and there is enormous disagreement about them within the physics community. It is only to laymen that these things are presented - not by scientists but by journalists - as established facts. And they are always presented incorrectly. Trust me: your understanding of all these things, unless you are a physicist, is wrong.

And as for the last thing on your list: may the wrinkles never form around your eyes and may death always escape you. Fat chance.


You know who Nikola Tesla is right?

A gifted engineer and madman who made some early advances in the modern study of electricity. Something of a cult figure to fools and cranks.

[edit on 20/5/10 by Astyanax]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



Unless you are a theoretical physicist whose knowledge and training are equivalent to Einstein's, you are incompetent to judge this. It is your opinion, not Einstein's work, that is pure rubbish.


So an opinion developed from recent research and observations is rubbish? I thought science was a forward moving mode of knowledge? Am I wrong in my understanding of science?


Only an idiot believes only in things that can be seen with the naked eye. Other 'invisible deities' include viruses, genes and the EU cultist's favourite form of energy, electromagnetism (except in the case of a narrow band of frequencies). No doubt you think these, too, are rubbish?


Wow, that's harsh and entirely unnecessary. Case in point, whilst those things are not visible to the direct naked eye, they are still inherently visible to our instruments.

Dark matter by it's very nature is inherently invisible completely to our instruments with only a means of interaction being that through gravity. It's a pure mathematical deity concocted to dismiss observations that don't abide by Einsteinian physics. Not something like that is what's truly idiotic.


Black holes may not be visible to the naked eye but their gravitational effects are, which is how we know they exist.


What black holes? You mean all those reports of "we think this might be one?"


Dark matter remains theoretical. You seem unaware of the very important distinction between theoretical and experimental physics. The former derives new postulatess out of the analysis of the physical laws, constants and quantities already known. It is then left to experimental physicists to test and falsify these postulates. Dark matter is presently moving from the realm of the theoretical to that of the experimental, but the transition is not yet complete. We have what looks like good evidence. The point is that the dark matter hypothesis fits the data and has not yet been falsified.


Dark matter is an invention of necessity. According to Eisnteinian physics, there simply is not enough mass in the universe, hence the necessity to invent dark matter rather than starting from scratch. Again, Einstein got some things right, but most was rubbish.


Neutron stars may not exist. They are a theoretical consequence of the stellar evolution model and were first postulated in 1934 but their existence is far from inevitable.


They're physically impossible.


Apart from the last, all your other examples are of theoretical ideas, often competing theoretical ideas. None of them are held to be knowledge; they are all unfalsified and in some cases unfalsifiable and there is enormous disagreement about them within the physics community. It is only to laymen that these things are presented - not by scientists but by journalists - as established facts. And they are always presented incorrectly. Trust me: your understanding of all these things, unless you are a physicist, is wrong.


All of those things are derived from Einsteinian physics.


And as for the last thing on your list: may the wrinkles never form around your eyes and may death always escape you. Fat chance.


Time as a fourth dimension of temporal travel is a joke. If you think you can arbitrarily mark a physical process as a measure of some mythical dimension, then your simply deluded.

Do you also think thing's are really *hot* because they're *hot*? I would hope not. Temperature, as well as time are both illusions of the mind. We sense things as hot when really all that is going on is the atoms are moving at a higher rate compared to things we sense as cold. Same thing with time. We sense a forward motion of time due to entropy, hence the arrow of time. According to Einsteinian physics, time should equally and freely move both forwards and backwards, it doesn't. When we attempt to reconcile QM with GR/SR, time disappears, it no longer exists.


A gifted engineer and madman who made some early advances in the modern study of electricity. Something of a cult figure to fools and cranks.


Or rather, a very unappreciated man who we can thank nearly all modern day conveniences for. If you think that's the product of a mad man, then so be it.

Can I ask you this though? What has Einstein given us? Nothing but invisible deities to worship.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by sirnex]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Only an idiot believes only in things that can be seen with the naked eye.


I would argue only an idiot believes in things that can not be observed or proven in any way, shape, or form.

While we may not be able to see electrons with the naked eye, we can demonstrate their existence through controlled experimentation.

Black holes, dark matter, dark energy, dark flows, strange matter, etc.. etc.. etc.. on the other hand, can not be proven.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Well there certainly is a case for pulsing stars drawing in matter.
Thus perhaps the reason planets are electron sinks like the earth.
If detection is sensitive enough even planet signal might be found.

Something has to start the pulsing on, then matter is drawn in
and built up into galaxies.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


Well in exploding stars everything like electrons are blown outward as the heavy
protons from a giant mass.
Not that I suppose some mechanism for pulsing or even a collecting type of
pulse but there seems such a mechanism should exist.

So now that the relativistic nature of things is debunked what is the true nature of things.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Hmmm...the star S2, which is near our galaxy's center, orbits the center of our galaxy every 15.2 years. From this orbit, they calculate that the object that the S2 orbits around must be around 4.1 million solar masses. Only black holes can be that massive.

But, as I have read in other papers, there is no gravitational lensing around the galactic center. Which is really strange, and it counters General Relativity.




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join