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.

 

The Moon - Why Einstein Was Wrong

page: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
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.


I haven't read the whole thread, I stopped at page three out of disgust of all the attacks against the OP on a personal basis rather than against the information that literally disproves the proto-disk model of planetary formation. Where is his ignorance? He is showing you new discoveries that are continuously disproving Einsteinian physics, and he's ignorant?

Sounds more like those attacking the OP rather than the information that disproves Einstein are the real ignorant ones.


Where is your argument or acceptance of the recent research showing the old model is wrong? Is all you folks can do is waltz into a thread and attack the OP on a personal level rather than the evidence and information given by the OP? You call the OP arrogant and ignorant when the OP has taken immense time to research the hell out of this topic and provide a plethora of links showing the research, the math and the evidence against Einsteinian physics and in favor of a physics model that accounts for what Einstein deemed as "unnecessary".

I'm shocked and saddened at the same time with your reply to me. You honestly think I'm going to think "Oh, OK" with your defense of attacking the OP?

I'm personally sick of seeing everyone attack this man. He puts in so much effort to back up what he posts and everyone jumps on him instead of the information itself. It's disgusting.




posted on May, 22 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

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.


You can't even lay out a very approximate and simplified model of what your are trying to describe, and hence resort to the very "ad hominem" you like to lament so much. You also put words in my mouth. I didn't say I believed "dark energy" or something like that. Real scientists do refer sometimes to our crisis of understanding of how things work. That's why we built and operate the LHC.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by above
Maybe this ancient prophecy thing of switching to the next density/plane/world means earth is ready to give birth to a planet?


I hope that was a sarcastic remark and not a serious opinion of the information.

The information the OP posted says nothing remotely close to what this statement is suggesting.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


the OP provided plenty of links, not only disproving the current model of planetary formation which didn't even have anything to do with plasma cosmology, but also supportive research in favor of plasma cosmology.

Do you have anything constructive to add about the research proving the current planetary formation model is wrong other than personal attacks against the OP?

I personally think it's pretty damning to the model whilst being a common sense conclusion. Cold dust doesn't just adhere to each other to build mass, that much is obvious, so I'm not sure how they even developed that model of planetary formation.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I was reading that Saturnian Cosmology site you linked to. I've only just started reading it, but I was pretty interested when it stated that the Earth entered it's current orbit 250 million years ago. Isn't that the same time period that the Expanding Earth Theory states that the Earth started to expand? Pretty damn interesting material, still reading through it. Thanks for the link!



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 





The electric model explains this in a far superior fashion.

1. "young stars typically have dust rings around them" - in an electric model, young stars are not "young" they are blue because they are incredibly hot and under massive electrical stress.

To quote Thornhill

" The star relieves electrical stress by fissioning or blowing off charged matter. A star also has electromagnetic energy stored in an equatorial current ring. Matter is ejected equatorially by discharges between the current ring and the star. Our own Sun does it regularly on a small scale. However, if the stored energy reaches some critical value it may be released in the form of a bipolar discharge, or ejection of matter, along the rotational axis."

Now as to the depleted area of dust, what evidence is there to suggest this is dust accumulating into a planet?

The dust is not "dust", it is a dusty plasma - it is highly charged dust.

There probably is a planet (brown dwarf) at that location, and the dust is AVOIDING the planetary magnetic field, it is not "accumulating" into a planet.

Does this image look familiar?



Some more "dust avoidance":




Lets think logically about the depleted area for a moment.

If there was a huge planetary body gravitationally sucking in dust, shouldn't we see an inverted gradient of dust around it?

Shouldn't the area around the planet be LOADED with dust as it gets sucked in by gravity?

It seems to me that we should see a dense area of dust around a planet if they form by gravity from a proto-disk.

Don't the proto-disk models all suggest this?

Here's a national geographic rendering of what I'm talking about:




[edit on 22-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


It makes more sense as well. Under Einsteins model of gravity, I don't see how planets should form only along the equatorial plane of their star. Mass, such as in a star shouldn't warp space only along the equatorial region, but in a complete 360 degrees around the mass, which seems to me should allow for planets to form at any arbitrary spot. Then again, that's just my take on it all.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 

Angular momentum of the infalling material of a gravitationally collapsing nebula is conserved. This causes rotation of the infalling dust and gas (like water going down a drain). Material which is perpendicular to the axis of rotation will continue to rotate in the plane of rotation. The rotation inhibits further infalling of this material, the material is orbiting. Material which is not perpendicular to the axis of rotation will continue to collapse toward the core (the forming star). Only a disk of material remains, the material to the "north" and "south" of the star has fallen into the star.



[edit on 5/22/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


yes, i know how the standard model works.

Thanks for the nice graphic of it though.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

Sirnex seems to have asked for an explanation. I'm glad you understand.


[edit on 5/22/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


The graphic looks more like what we see with z-pinch. I still don't see how mass would cause a gravitational field to look like the rubber sheet and bowling ball analogy. Mass would be pulling space equally from all directions, wouldn't it? How does rotation effect the polar regions ability to curve space?

I'm asking because I really don't get it. Doesn't make sense to me.

What would cause cold dust to come together in the first place under such a model, and more importantly, what's your opinion on the simulation that shows such a model as not working?



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by np6888
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Then how do you explain gravitational lensing?


I think your question got missed, so I'll take a stab at it.

Gravitational lensing seems to be another one of those theories that seem to have not been observed or replicated in the real universe(ie gravity has not been demonstrated to have the ability to bend light). In the case of observed light bending(such as around our sun), it's more likely the light is traveling through some media such as gases that are know and can be proven to bend(or rather refract) light.

check this out: www.pr-inside.com...
"Evidence shows that the refracted and scattered light caused by the intergalactic and interstellar media often gives rise to false alarms and an illusion of gravitational lensing as would be suggested by the light bending rule of General Relativity."

Furthermore, if the current model is true, then there should be a black hole at the center of the Milky Way that is 100,000,000 suns and should have obvious gravitational lensing, it's the closest black hole after all. So, either they are wrong about the black holes(which destroys the current model), or they are wrong about gravitational lensing(also destroys model) or wrong about both(most likely).



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


I respond to gravitational lensing baloney here:

knol.google.com...#



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 

The rubber sheet analogy is a 2 dimensional representation of warped space. Barely adequate.

The gravitational field is omnidirectional. It is the same at the poles and the equator. The material in the plane of rotation is prevented from falling into the star because it is revolving around it (orbiting). The material at the poles is not, so it falls into the star.

Do you mean the model in the OP? I've addressed that. It agrees with the formation of an accretion disk. It shows there may be a problem with a purely gravitational effect in the formation of planetesimals. However, vorticity models show that the turbulence can be overcome.


[edit on 5/22/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



The rubber sheet analogy is a 2 dimensional representation of warped space. Barely adequate.


Aye, they should think of something that accurately depicts what's going on instead.


The gravitational field is omnidirectional. It is the same at the poles and the equator. The material in the plane of rotation is prevented from falling into the star because it is revolving around it (orbiting). The material at the poles is not, so it falls into the star.


What would cause the material to favor the equatorial region of a star when the gravitational field is omnidirectional? I get that the star rotates, but I don't see how it's own rotation should affect how the matter is distributed around it. Like, why don't proto-disks and planets form in a pole to pole orbit instead?


Do you mean the model in the OP? I've addressed that. It agrees with the formation of an accretion disk. It shows there may be a problem with a purely gravitational effect in the formation of planetesimals. However, vorticity models show that the turbulence can be overcome.


Aye, that's the one. Can you provide me with a link on the vorticity thing?



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


the OP provided plenty of links, not only disproving the current model of planetary formation which didn't even have anything to do with plasma cosmology, but also supportive research in favor of plasma cosmology.


I asked for a comprehensible simple model of how and why there can be an ejection of a celestial body from another one, that can lead to creation of planets. I also needed math on the mechanism of such proposed ejection. I did follow the links but found nothing of that sort of info. If you did follow the links and are well versed in these theories, I'm asking you to lend a helping hand and explain to me why a star would split like that, and if it does, how come all the planets fall approximately in the ecliptic plane. Math, please. Enough of hand waving.


Do you have anything constructive to add about the research proving the current planetary formation model is wrong other than personal attacks against the OP?


Don't "personal attacks" me. I'm asking, in a constructive manner, concrete questions and get deafening silence as far as material is concerned. Yes, I do think, on a personal level, that the OP author is a close minded and mildly obsessed person.


I personally think it's pretty damning to the model whilst being a common sense conclusion. Cold dust doesn't just adhere to each other to build mass, that much is obvious, so I'm not sure how they even developed that model of planetary formation.


Cold dust under my desk forms a pretty solid layer of material. If you argue that it doesn't adhere, please specify the source of that info or your original calculations. If you can't do that, might as well abstain from posting.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 

The star forms as a result of the infalling material. The protostellar nebula acquires rotation because the material moving inward retains its angular momentum. The disk and the star share the axis of rotation because they form at the same time, as a result of the same forces.

The link regarding vorticity is in one of my posts in this thread.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Interesting thread, OP, once the ad homs subsided.

I can imagine the initial angst upon your journey, hence the distilled, powerful statements throughout your writings.

Ultimately, you may be silenced, most likely through your own decision to...transcend.

It may be possible to form a cult.

"Oh I'd rather be in a Greek tragedy, than a victim in a vacuum, to-night!"

I think you're right. God is with us.

And it is being suppressed. What isn't being exploited, suppressed, lied about..??

Of course they'll do it to the whole thing.

Think about that cult thing. Life is short.

Thanks for the thread!

With a little luck you'll escape any vanities concerning the entire subject. Does it help that others have already found this (I wouldn't know).



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



I asked for a comprehensible simple model of how and why there can be an ejection of a celestial body from another one, that can lead to creation of planets. I also needed math on the mechanism of such proposed ejection. I did follow the links but found nothing of that sort of info. If you did follow the links and are well versed in these theories, I'm asking you to lend a helping hand and explain to me why a star would split like that, and if it does, how come all the planets fall approximately in the ecliptic plane. Math, please. Enough of hand waving.


OK, but I'm sure if you looked there *should* be something out on the internet. We don't always need other to do web searches when we're more than capable of doing them ourselves. The OP already provided a bunch of links to further research this topic. Why should he have to hold hands every single step of the way?


Don't "personal attacks" me. I'm asking, in a constructive manner, concrete questions and get deafening silence as far as material is concerned. Yes, I do think, on a personal level, that the OP author is a close minded and mildly obsessed person.


Your so full of *&^%. Your first post was nothing but a personal attack, so yes.. I will 'personal attack you'.

The OP is far from closed minded. He's posting recent research, discoveries, etc. that fully disprove various aspects of Einsteinian physics. He's forming his opinion, as well as I am, based upon new data collected. I may not be as well versed as the OP, but I am not so stupid that I can put two and two together and notice quiet an obvious pattern emerging.


Cold dust under my desk forms a pretty solid layer of material. If you argue that it doesn't adhere, please specify the source of that info or your original calculations. If you can't do that, might as well abstain from posting.



You full well know what I mean. How many asteroids do you see forming a new planet in our solar system? None. I've yet to see one observable example of cold dust/rock in space forming planets. If you can't point out one example and can only give me a sarcastic remark, then your point is worthless and meaningless to me. Even at that, dust collecting together in an atmosphere is wholly different than the dust and rock in space.

And my wife pointed out there are no cute smileys on this page. SO SMILE DAMNIT!



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by sirnex
 

The star forms as a result of the infalling material. The protostellar nebula acquires rotation because the material moving inward retains its angular momentum. The disk and the star share the axis of rotation because they form at the same time, as a result of the same forces.

The link regarding vorticity is in one of my posts in this thread.


OK, I'll look at that link tomorrow as my wife is telling me it's time to get off the internet. Never get married if you aren't already. JK... "Wife just walked in" LMAO!


Anyways, back to topic. I still don't understand why proto-disks would form only around the equatorial region when the gravitational field omnidirectional. Why wouldn't the material fall inward the opposite way and form planets orbiting a pole to pole direction instead?

[edit]

Sorry, I missed the last sentence (been drinking tonight) But, why does the proto-disk and the star both follow the same rotation if we rule out plasma physics? It doesn't make sense to me. If we're just using gravity, then it shouldn't matter how the star is rotating as gravity around the star is omnidirectional.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by sirnex]



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join