It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Moon - Why Einstein Was Wrong

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:24 PM
S&F mnemeth1,

I always enjoy reading your threads and reading the replies. I do think some are going to be a little to fixed in regurgitating what they have been taught over many years and not open to the possibility that there might be an alternative force at work.

Real science requires theories to be challenged and intelligently and respectfully debated.

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:40 PM

Originally posted by ararisq
Real science requires theories to be challenged and intelligently and respectfully debated.

Real science requires theories based on mathematical models that are verified against observables. Nothing of that sort can be found in this putrid bunch of threads bashing Einstein. Where is the math for the "electric" model that explains how the Solar system is held together by some sort of charges?

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:39 PM
Einstein strongly embraced Socialism and agreed with many of its ideas so the "Anarcho Capitalist" has a deep resentment towards him, it's obvious!

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 10:51 PM

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ararisq
Real science requires theories to be challenged and intelligently and respectfully debated.

Real science requires theories based on mathematical models that are verified against observables.

Epic LOLZ coming from someone that believes in dark matter, dark energy, dark flows, black holes, neutronium, strange matter, and other works of fiction.

Verified against observables?

Its clear that everything I have presented is based on lab proven physics, while everything the standard theory preaches is based on total nonsense.

How's that search for dark matter going anyways?

Oh, that's right....

They didn't find JACK SQUAT!

Oh, and you wanted the math on electric galaxies?

Sure, here you go:

scroll down to the bottom for links to the following sources.

Do local analogs of Lyman Break Galaxies exist?
Scarpa R., Falomo R., Lerner E. ,arXiv:0706.2948v1 [astro-ph]
Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos
Scott D. E., IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., Vol. 35, No. 4, August 2007
On the Concept of Moving Magnetic Field Lines
Falthammar C. ,Eos, Vol. 88, No. 15, pp.169–170, 10 April 2007
Cosmic Plasma
Alfven H. ,Cosmic Plasma ,ISBN 90-277-1151-8
On Frozen-In Field Lines And Field-Line Reconnnection
Alfven H. ,Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 81, No 22, August 1st 1976, 4019-4021
Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies
Peratt A. L. ,IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.763-778, December 1986
Hubble Witnesses Spectacular Flaring in Gas Jet from M87's Black Hole
PhysOrg, 14 April 2009
Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets
Peratt A .L. , IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.639-660, December 1986
The Role of Particle Beams and Electrical Currents in the Plasma Universe
Peratt A .L. , Laser and Particle Beams, vol.6, part.3, pp.471-491, 1988
Superluminal Radio Features in the M87 Jet and the Site of Flaring TeV Gamma-ray Emission
Cheung C. C., et al. ,arXiv:0705.2448v2 [astro-ph]

[edit on 21-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 11:10 PM
Supposedly, the electromagnetic force "overrides" gravity(force) at the atomic level, and is responsible for most interactions. If the universe is a fractal, then perhaps this idea that some kind of electrical forces, as opposed to gravity, is holding us together does have some merit.

Interestingly, while searching about electric universe, I came across this article:

It reminded me of this video:

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 11:47 PM
Electricity is just another form of energy, so in the end, the "fundamentals" still shouldn't change much. The fact that a body is charged merely indicates that it can either repel or attract.

How about this? Matter distorts space(creating Einstein's gravity), however, the force(and there is a force, in the Newtonian sense, as our invention of the rockets indicate) that we measure between the bodies is really the electromagnetic force. Would that contradict anything? Or am I just "way off" here?

[edit on 21-5-2010 by np6888]

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 11:57 PM
reply to post by np6888

I do not believe space can be "distorted"

Space is nothing.

It takes "something" to be "distorted" in the first place.

Believing that nothing can do something is what gives us nonsense like black holes, dark matter, and the rest of the kookiness.

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:05 AM
what a load of twaddle..

back to minesweeper..

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:09 AM
reply to post by mnemeth1

Then how do you explain gravitational lensing?

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:19 AM

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Maybe we can observe planetary systems forming someday. Or perhaps we already have. What are your thoughts on these? :

Planet in Progress? Evidence Of A Huge Planet Forming In Star System

Radio telescope images reveal planet-forming disk orbiting twin suns


I substituted question marks when I trimmed your quote because I didn't see any response to the question about the protoplanetary disks observed, so I asked again.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Thanks for the reply but the links I posted at the end of my post i thought were pretty good evidence of planets forming as the mainstream suggests and not a z-pinch, did you see those? I was really hoping you'd respond to those.

Again you responded but not about the protoplanetary disk evidence. OK Maybe the third time is the charm. And I'll include the picture this time, it's an interesting image:

Planet in Progress? Evidence Of A Huge Planet Forming In Star System

Coronagraphic image of the polarized light around the star AB Aurigae, showing the distribution of dust in the inner part of a complex disk of material around this star. The shaded middle region is covered to block out light from the star. The inset at upper right is a blow-up of the depleted region of dust to the NNW of the star. (Credit: Image courtesy of American Museum Of Natural History)

ScienceDaily (Mar. 26, 2008) — Astrophysicists have a new window into the formation of planets. Ben R. Oppenheimer, Assistant Curator in the Department of Astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History, and colleagues have imaged a structure within the disk of material coalescing from the gas and dust cloud surrounding a well-studied star, AB Aurigae. Within that structure, it appears that an object is forming, either a small body currently accreting dust or a brown dwarf (a body intermediate between stars and planets) between 5 and 37 times the mass of Jupiter. The observations, accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal, represent a significant step toward direct imaging and study of exoplanets (planets orbiting stars other than the Sun), and may bear on theories of planet and brown dwarf formation.

Young stars generally have material widely spread around them that organizes itself into a disk over time. Astronomers believe that this is where planets form. The new image, which is sensitive to the dust around the star but not starlight, shows a horseshoe-shaped structure orbiting AB Aurigae with two denser, brighter clumps of material in a ring around the star next to a darker area. This darker area, a structure relatively depleted of widespread material previously predicted in models of planet formation but never seen before, is thought to be the point at which material is coalescing into a planet or brown dwarf.

Further imaging of this area shows a barely visible spot dead center, a spot too bright to be light reflected off a formed planet but consistent with an object in the process of development that is accreting new material. The two brighter clumps, equidistant from the hole and presumably trailing and leading it in its orbit around the star, seem similar to the Trojan objects that orbit the Sun along with Jupiter. Such a structure has been predicted to form in disks where a planet is present, because of the gravitational interaction between the planet and the star it orbits.

“The deficit of material could be due to a planet forming and sucking material onto it, coalescing into a small point in the image and clearing material in the immediate surroundings. This would look like a hole in the disk,” says Oppenheimer. “We are seeing something happening in the disk that seems to be indicative of the formation of a small body, either a planet or a brown dwarf.”

This is way better evidence than a computer simulation. It's an image from the real world.

Radio telescope images reveal planet-forming disk orbiting twin suns

Astronomers are announcing today that a sequence of images collected with the Smithsonian's Submillimeter Array (SMA) clearly reveals the presence of a rotating molecular disk orbiting the young binary star system V4046 Sagittarii. The SMA images provide an unusually vivid snapshot of the process of formation of giant planets, comets, and Pluto-like bodies. The results also confirm that such objects may just as easily form around double stars as around single stars like our Sun.

These findings are being presented by UCLA graduate student David Rodriguez in a press conference at the American Astronomical Society meeting in Pasadena, Calif.

"It's a case of seeing is believing," says Joel Kastner of the Rochester (NY) Institute of Technology, the lead scientist on the study. "We had the first evidence for this rotating disk in radio telescope observations of V4046 Sagittarii that we made last summer. But at that point, all we had were molecular spectra, and there are different ways to interpret the spectra. Once we saw the image data from the SMA, there was no doubt that we have a rotating disk here."

This is an earlier article about GM Aurigae but it has some interesting information so I quoted some of that:

Rapid-Born Planets Present 'Baby Picture' Of Our Early Solar System

ScienceDaily (Sep. 11, 2005) — Using NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, a team of astronomers led by the University of Rochester has detected gaps ringing the dusty disks around two very young stars, which suggests that gas-giant planets have formed there. A year ago, these same researchers found evidence of the first "baby planet" around a young star, challenging most astrophysicists's models of giant-planet formation.

The new findings in the Sept. 10 issue of Astrophysical Journal Letters not only reinforce the idea that giant planets like Jupiter form much faster than scientists have traditionally expected, but one of the gas-enshrouded stars, called GM Aurigae, is analogous to our own solar system. At a mere 1 million years of age, the star gives a unique window into how our own world may have come into being.

"GM Aurigae is essentially a much younger version of our Sun, and the gap in its disk is about the same size as the space occupied by our own giant planets," says Dan Watson, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Rochester and leader of the Spitzer IRS Disks research team. "Looking at it is like looking at baby pictures of our Sun and outer solar system," he says.

"The results pose a challenge to existing theories of giant-planet formation, especially those in which planets build up gradually over millions of years," says Nuria Calvet, professor of astronomy at the University of Michigan and lead author of the paper. "Studies like this one will ultimately help us better understand how our outer planets, as well as others in the universe, form."

The new "baby planets" live within the clearings they have scoured out in the disks around the stars DM Tauri and GM Aurigae, 420 light years away in the Taurus constellation. These disks have been suspected for several years to have central holes that might be due to planet formation. The new spectra, however, leave no doubt: The gaps are so empty and sharp-edged that planetary formation is by far the most reasonable explanation for their appearance.

So maybe you have alternate explanations for "The gaps are so empty and sharp-edged that planetary formation is by far the most reasonable explanation for their appearance", or "Further imaging of this area shows a barely visible spot dead center, a spot too bright to be light reflected off a formed planet but consistent with an object in the process of development that is accreting new material. The two brighter clumps, equidistant from the hole and presumably trailing and leading it in its orbit around the star, seem similar to the Trojan objects that orbit the Sun along with Jupiter."?

That image sure looks like a planet accreting from a disk to me. And these researchers are challenging the mainstream assumptions in a way, as you like to do, but they do it with evidence. According to mainstream models the star is too young for a planet to be forming already, but there it is, evidence that the mainstream model was wrong. You should like that since you like bashing the mainstream.

This is how mainstream models are revised, with observational or experimental evidence, and I would say this evidence suggesting it's happening is way better evidence than a computer simulation saying it can't happen.

"The two brighter clumps, equidistant from the hole and presumably trailing and leading it in its orbit around the star, seem similar to the Trojan objects that orbit the Sun along with Jupiter". Interestingly it doesn't seem to show the formation of the planet by itself, but suggests leading and trailing objects are also forming (moons?)

So that image may also show the first baby pictures of moons forming in addition to the planet.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 02:32 AM

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Its not a pulse in space.

The pulse only occurs in lab settings because of the use of capacitors to create the pinch.

In space, the electrical flow is constant.

Pulses are not necessary to create the z-pinch instability when a constant power source capable of creating the pinch is used.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

What power source? And how does it happen with a constant supply? I thought you said the plasma intensifies. What causes this?

And after the fission, you will have two positively charged bodies that repel each other. Why are they still attracted? Should they not just fly apart into infinity?

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 04:47 AM
I'm on the side of Tesla:

Einsteins relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.

* New York Times (11 July 1935), p. 23, c.8

There must be electricity in space, and for sure it has some effect. Look at the clouds. Particles - rubbing against each other, creating electric charges. Why wouldn't the same thing happen in space ?

[edit on 22-5-2010 by pai mei]

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 06:51 AM

Originally posted by pai mei
There must be electricity in space, and for sure it has some effect. Look at the clouds. Particles - rubbing against each other, creating electric charges. Why wouldn't the same thing happen in space ?

There's lots of electricity in space, who said there wasn't?

And the sun is made of plasma, so plasma cosmology doesn't have any patent on plasma.

But mainstream physics says the sun is powered by converting matter to energy via e=mc^2, the same way an h-bomb works, more or less, except the fusion on the sun is controlled somewhat by its gravity so that's why it doesn't explode. As a result of this the sun has lots of electrical properties: sunspots and CMEs are electromagnetic effects. There's plasma and electricity all over the universe, there's no question about that.

The claim of electric universe/plasma cosmology theorists is that there's no fusion power source using e=mc^2 to create the sun's power. But they can't say where the power comes from except something like "somewhere outside the sun" Well if that was true, we'd see some evidence of this external power source feeding the sun, and we don't. Even mnemeth1 admits this:

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Obviously the Sun is not manifesting visible inflows at the moment

Well, that's a pretty big problem for this theory, the lack of evidence. Let us know when there IS evidence of inflows but in the meantime without such evidence, it just sounds like incredibly silly fantasy.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 08:48 AM
reply to post by mnemeth1

Squashing a dude who has been dead for decades really isnt such a heroic past time. I have to say that I believe your explanations for the creation of our solar system as it is, are apart from lacking any reasonable basis, are the product of a truck load of willful disregard for truth , or indeed research (which although helpful can be twisted to suit most ends).
Moby, the DJ claims that we are all made of stars, and he based that song and that idea on claims (reasonable, well researched, scientificaly testable claims) that all the matter of which our planet, and therefore our species is made, has its origins in our Sun. We are all made of star stuff. Your assumptions and guesses completely ignore that, as well as making you look a prize chump. Thats two massive failiures in one. Well played.

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Albert Einstein
Easy on the Einstein bashing.

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

How dare you say something so incredibly stupid. green cheese indeed. We spent billions of dollars & heaps of trips to the moon to confirm once & for all it is definately not green cheese. We all damn well know it is green cream cheese.

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 10:35 AM
What I find most interesting about this, and many other threads lately, is how the first page of comments is full of nothing but people commenting on the mental state of the OP rather than the compelling ideas brought to the table which could be a lot more fun to discuss. Unless you`re a psychologist and the human mind your playground, then I guess mental states would be more fun for you to talk about.
Speaking of which, I`ve also noticed how about 60% or more of ATS members must all have a PHD in psychology or sociology... well they must be the way they regularly hand out diagnoses to other members, left and right! It turns out we have a pretty high percentage of schizophrenic members, I know... scary, right? But I also discovered another interesting fact about ats members, they can suffer from multiple types of mental disorders and yet still figure out how to not only use a computer but sign up for an ats and an email account, and get through the necessary 20 posts and learn how to start a thread and somehow their spelling and grammer is at par with the average internet user. The only real noticable difference I can tell (and this is just from what our "psychologists" here at ATS have claimed as reasons for why this certain person or that certain person is a "nutjob") is that they may capitalize some words instead of italicizing them, (yeah I kno it sounds "crazy" but these very sane and reasonable people who are looking out for our safety and that of our poor unfortunate members who suffer from these conditions seem rather confident that this is a symptom of schizophrenia) , and while I am not aware of any of these diagnoses being made about me? I`m afraid it`s true... You see, I often post from my phone on ATS MOBILE, and the option to italicize your text is not available, and so I too have fallen to the habit of capitalizing in order to indicate emphasis, but only sparingly, since anything more than 3 or 4 words capitalized just looks obnoxious. But it matters not, for I have witnessed our generous members pass judgement on others for doing the same and so my fate is sealed according to the sacred wisdom of.. . a few ats members who happen to have a stick up their_oops! Wait where was I? Of all the symptoms of a crazy person, the most common here at ATS is to challenge someone`s preconceived notions. According to self proclaimed experts of the human mind here at ATS, these people are not simply wrong, oor lying, or misinformed, no no no... they suffer from some deeply rooted issues far beyond the general state of psychosis the rest of society finds itself in.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 11:04 AM

What i don't get is why everyone obsesses with the points apart instead of looking at the common grounds.

I'm at just my first year in college, Astronomy, and while i was always interested in the ideas put forth by Alfven and others about the possible electrical nature of cosmos, i'm always repelled by the childish attitudes of it's proponents. Why does anyone need to think ALL IS A LIE ALL OF SCIENCE WRONG to be able to study the EU is beyond my understanding.

I like a lot of things about the EU hypothesis (that's what it is btw, no shame on that), because in a cosmological sense it shares some ground with some "out-there" implications of (very modern) "standard" cosmology.

I see a lot of common future ground for both sides because i believe they are exploring different aspects of the Cosmos. I note here that having at least a little understanding of buddhist cosmology helps a lot in visualising this.

Both EU and SC (standard cosmology) point towards a cyclical nature. Whoever believes SC is just a big bang has some catching up to do...

Off course there's a lot of divergences between the two POVs, but i don't see why does that seems to stir everyone so f*cking up.

May the (electrical/gravitational/krypton-based) force be with you.

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 11:10 AM
reply to post by mnemeth1


I just saw this link today before I noticed this thread and used it in a different thread myself.

It's a shame people are attacking you instead of the information, new discoveries and recent research that further disproves Einsteinian physics.

To everyone else. HELLO? They ran a simulation using current Einsteinian physics on prot-planetary disks and found out that this model is *WRONG* and impossible. There is nothing more that can be said. You can't even try to defend it without looking like a complete moron. The model has been disproved, it doesn't work and no matter how much you attack the OP, it won't make the model correct as it has been disproved.

Again, the current model of how planets form is fully disproved. Why are you trying to defend it and hang onto it? It's like you folks are the Catholic church trying to defend that the Earth is the center of the universe still.

This has nothing to do with the OP on a personal basis, this has to do with current research and evidences. All I see are infantile attack and childish rhetoric against the OP and no reasonable intelligent debate of NEW DISCOVERY DISPROVING THE CURRENT MODEL.


I think it's stunningly amazing that what was common sense has finally been disproved through simulating the current physics model. Computers and lab experiments are wonderful tools that can help us model our universe and what is observed rather than blindly believing in invisible explanation. As always, you put out such a wonderfully well written post and I appreciate the effort despite the naysayers trolling the thread and attacking you on a personal basis rather than even trying to refute the information itself.

Besides, it's kind of hard to refute when the research admits and shows the model is wrong. And somehow people like us staying on top of current knowledge are the 'crazy' ones.

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 11:17 AM
reply to post by sirnex

My argument is not with the idea of Einsteins being wrong, but with the OPs display of that heady mix of arrogance and ignorance . Either on thier own would make me sick but both at once is terrible.

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 11:23 AM
Maybe this ancient prophecy thing of switching to the next density/plane/world means earth is ready to give birth to a planet?

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in