The Moon - Why Einstein Was Wrong

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
The current theory of Earth’s moon:


At the time Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, other smaller planetary bodies were also growing. One of these hit earth late in Earth's growth process, blowing out rocky debris. A fraction of that debris went into orbit around the Earth and aggregated into the moon.

What?

Let us look at some facts here. Before we get into moons, first we must understand planets.

What happens when we model a bunch of dust and debris in space?

Gas-rich planets such as Jupiter and Saturn grew from a disk of dust and gas which eventually crumpled like a piece of paper under its own gravitational instability -- or so one theory goes.

Now a computer simulation suggests that this idea falls apart under the turbulent forces within early protoplanetary systems.

The old, favored theory relies on the protoplanetary dust disk becoming denser and thinner until it reaches a tipping point, where it becomes gravitationally unstable and collapses into kilometer-sized building blocks that form the basis for gas giants. But 3D modeling has shown for the first time that turbulence prevents the dust from settling into the dense disk necessary for gravitational instability to work

Hmmmm....

Some more on planet formation theory.

Six exoplanets out of twenty-seven were found to be orbiting in the opposite direction to the rotation of their host star — the exact reverse of what is seen in our own Solar System. The team announced the discovery of nine new planets orbiting other stars, and combined their results with earlier observations. Besides the surprising abundance of retrograde orbits, the astronomers also found that more than half of all the so-called "hot Jupiters" in their survey have orbits that are misaligned with the rotation axis of their parent stars.
...
Hot Jupiters are planets orbiting other stars that have masses similar to or greater than Jupiter, but which orbit their parent stars much more closely.

Planets are thought to form in the disc of gas and dust encircling a young star, and since this proto-planetary disc rotates in the same direction as the star itself, it was expected that planets that form from the disc would all orbit in more or less the same plane, and that they would move along their orbits in the same direction as the star’s rotation.

Further, space.com notes:

…Like many alien worlds found after it, 51 Pegasi B was a "hot Jupiter," a gas giant as close or closer to its star than Mercury is to our sun, unlike "cold Jupiters" that orbit farther away such as Saturn or, naturally, Jupiter.

Of the 429 exoplanets discovered to date, 89 have been hot Jupiters, likely because their large size and proximity to their stars makes them easier to spot by current techniques.


It is impossible that planets form out of dusty pro-planetary disks for a number of obvious reasons, so let’s go through them.

1. Dust in space does not aggregate into solid bodies; it disburses if it is not ionized.

2. Dust that is ionized acts as a dusty plasma, giving us ring systems such as Saturn's that do not devolve into planets or moons.

3. Of the exoplanets that we can observe around other stars, we find many of them to be orbiting far too close to their star for "proto-disk" theory to account for them. All the dust should have been sucked up in the formation of a star leaving nothing left to create the gas giant.

4. As the article points out, we find planets in retrograde orbits and off axis, a totally unexpected phenomena in "proto-disk" theory.

5. We have an asteroid belt - where did this come from if asteroids supposedly aggregate into planets?

6. Oort cloud? How come those pesky comets decided not to aggregate into planets? Were they just being rebellious?

7. The "roving planet" theory is a flaming joke using Einsteinian gravity only as an explanation. While it is clear that the planets did not magically form in their present locations, it’s also clear that they didn't form elsewhere from proto-disks and magically migrate to their present locations due to gravity. Since planets can't form from proto-disks, they obviously can't migrate from there to their present locations.

I'll get back to the moon in a minute, but first we need to understand how these gas giants can be observed orbiting so closely to their parent stars.

There is one blatantly obvious solution to this problem that even a 10 year old can see.

-Gas giants are born from stars; they are electrically ejected from stars.

This resolves all manner of problems dealing with where gas giant planets come from and is totally consistent with everything we observe about them.

Of course, such a simple solution poses several problems for the criminal looters you call state funded cosmologists. Their precious BS theory of stars would need to be drastically revised. Such a theory would also create all manner of problems dealing with big bang models due element abundance issues (which they already have problems with, but I digress.) However, I have faith they could make the ejection theory work within the mainstream context. I’ll bet they could come up with a way to make a standard theory star squirt out a gas giant, yet still conform to Einstein’s retarded theories.

However, such a theory obviously leads to the next step - where moons and solid body planets come from.

If one were to accept that gas giants were ejected from stars, the obvious next step is that solid body planets are ejected from gas giants (brown dwarf stars.) This is simply too much for the standard theory to deal with. Physicists would have to accept that element creation in brown dwarfs is only possible with an electric model of stars. An electric model of stars is only possible in an electric universe. That element abundance for big bang models is totally wrong.

You want to know where the Earth’s oceans came from? They came from Saturn. That’s right. Saturn was the brown dwarf star that ejected the Earth, and it was within the plasma coma of Saturn that the Earth received its water.

Brown dwarf stars spectra is a freaking ocean of water. In an electric model of stars, gas giants that are placed outside the influence of the Sun’s heliosphere will light up in a glow discharge (a brown dwarf star). At one point Saturn was located outside of our Sun’s influence and was glowing just like the other brown dwarfs we see in space.

It was within this cool diffuse plasma coma of Saturn that Earth acquired its oceans.

Our moon most likely either came from Saturn or Jupiter as Saturn swung into our solar system. The planetary orbits we see today are not a product of gravity; they are a product of charged bodies being aligned with the electrical field of the Sun. Planets do not collide; they electrically interact with each other until stability of orbits is achieved.

It is only with in this context that a rational explanation of Earth’s moon and oceans can be achieved. All other theories of proto-disks, accumulation models, cometary bombardment, etc.. etc.. etc.. have been clearly disproven by the known laws of physics and our observations of exoplanets.

There is only one theory that meets all observations without violating any laws of physics and agrees with all our observations.

Planets are born – just like everything else in this universe.



--------------------

If you would like to review a full working theory of the Earth's history from this perspective, look here.

More articles in favor of this theory of Earth's history:
www.thunderbolts.info...
www.thunderbolts.info...

More articles detailing electric cosmology:
www.thunderbolts.info...

Technical journal articles on electric stars:
sites.google.com...

A technical article detailing a massive list of Einstein's failures:
fascistsoup.com...



[edit on 21-5-2010 by mnemeth1]




posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
And this has what to do with Albert Einstein?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


Electric stars and birthing planets refute the gravity centric model of the universe.

Einstein's theory of general relativity totally neglects electric forces.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


He just has a beef with Einstein. Don't ask me why. He has a series of threads basically saying everything Einstein said was wrong.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Easy on the Einstein bashing.

Besides everyone knows the moon is made out of green cheese.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
And this has what to do with Albert Einstein?


Absolutely nothing. The OP author has a fetish with manifests itself in numerous threads he penned, with titles like "All science is a Lie" etc. He bashes Einstein in all of these virtually identical threads. Dr.Freud would have had a field day with a patient like that.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Albert Einstein
Easy on the Einstein bashing.

Besides everyone knows the moon is made out of green cheese.


hahaha



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
And this has what to do with Albert Einstein?


Absolutely nothing. The OP author has a fetish with manifests itself in numerous threads he penned, with titles like "All science is a Lie" etc. He bashes Einstein in all of these virtually identical threads. Dr.Freud would have had a field day with a patient like that.


I think the electric universe theory pretty much squashes Einstein.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Einstein's theory of general relativity totally neglects electric forces.


And how do electric forces work? What's the mechanism?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The thing is, the electric universe theory is just that--a theory.
It's not a law. There are thousands of theories, they cannot all be right.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The thing is, the electric universe theory is just that--a theory.
It's not a law. There are thousands of theories, they cannot all be right.


The same can be said of Einstein's nonsense.

One must accept the theory that agrees with all observations with the least amount of hypothetical postulates.

Electric universe theory is a better theory than Einstein's on the basis of these facts.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Einstein's theory of general relativity totally neglects electric forces.


And how do electric forces work? What's the mechanism?


One thing is for certain, Einstein's general relativity isn't going to give you an answer to that question.

If you want to know how electric forces work, there was a guy named Maxwell that pretty much summed up the bulk of what we know about them today.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The thing that interests me the MOST in all your threads isn't the science.

It is your obsession with Einstein. Where does this stem from? Do you then agree with all other mathemeticians, physicists, cosmologists, etc.?
Why only single out ONE?

It says more about you than the theories.

[edit on 21/5/2010 by Chamberf=6]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Einstein's theory of general relativity totally neglects electric forces.


And how do electric forces work? What's the mechanism?


One thing is for certain, Einstein's general relativity isn't going to give you an answer to that question.

If you want to know how electric forces work, there was a guy named Maxwell that pretty much summed up the bulk of what we know about them today.


I'm familiar with works of "that guy". You seem, however, out of your depth when asked that simple question, all the way professing superior knowledge of gravity and works of that "other guy", Einstein.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
What I notice about the threads of mnemeth is that they first in full detail explain why current theories are wrong, and then conclude with a simple line



they are electrically ejected from stars.


No explanation of how the forces work, how the electric fields are generated, where the electric current comes from. I do like questioning popular theories, but any form of theorizing or open debate is immediately destroyed by something I would almost call a religion, and thats a shame.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The thing that interests me the MOST in all your threads isn't the science.

It is your obsession with Einstein. Where does this stem from? Do you then agree with all other mathemeticians, physicists, cosmologists, etc.?
Why only single out ONE?

It says more about you than the theories.

[edit on 21/5/2010 by Chamberf=6]


1. I don't like being lied to. Einstein's theories are the basis of the lies we are being told.

2. I don't like having money taken from me at gun point and spent on worthless projects. Einstein's theories are the basis of those projects.

3. I don't like religious beliefs being rammed down my throat. Einstein's theories are the basis of a scientific religion. The big bang theory itself was created by a Catholic priest.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
What I notice about the threads of mnemeth is that they first in full detail explain why current theories are wrong, and then conclude with a simple line



they are electrically ejected from stars.


No explanation of how the forces work, how the electric fields are generated, where the electric current comes from. I do like questioning popular theories, but any form of theorizing or open debate is immediately destroyed by something I would almost call a religion, and thats a shame.


I provided links to the papers.

If you click through them, you'll find the supporting journal articles.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The thing that interests me the MOST in all your threads isn't the science.

It is your obsession with Einstein. Where does this stem from? Do you then agree with all other mathemeticians, physicists, cosmologists, etc.?
Why only single out ONE?

It says more about you than the theories.


I agree with your observation about mnemeth1. I had similar thoughts when I posted this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
as well as numerous threads about Bob Lazar and John Lear. It's pure psychology, a defensive reaction of somebody who's not equipped to absorb scientific knowledge which is indeed devilishly difficult.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I provided links to the papers.

If you click through them, you'll find the supporting journal articles.


Why don't you explain it in your own words? You say that even a 10 years old understands, so it must be easy to explain.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The thing that interests me the MOST in all your threads isn't the science.

It is your obsession with Einstein. Where does this stem from? Do you then agree with all other mathemeticians, physicists, cosmologists, etc.?
Why only single out ONE?

It says more about you than the theories.


I agree with your observation about mnemeth1. I had similar thoughts when I posted this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
as well as numerous threads about Bob Lazar and John Lear. It's pure psychology, a defensive reaction of somebody who's not equipped to absorb scientific knowledge which is indeed devilishly difficult.



LET THE AD HOMS BEGIN!





new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join