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: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
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?


It has to be the lamest excuse of an excuse I've seen on ATS! If a person claims understanding of a particular subject that's deep enough to bash Einstein and the rest of scientific community, sure you would expect a simple argument and a math model of what they are proposing. I'm pretty comfortable with calculus, try me. If you say I need to drill beyond the first layer of links in the OP, that speaks volumes. You have no idea what you are talking about and, in short, are an ignoramus.


You full well know what I mean. How many asteroids do you see forming a new planet in our solar system? None.


The history of science is barely a few thousand years old, and that part of it that can yield that info is roughly 200 years old. If you don't have a grasp of time scales in cosmology, you might as well keep your mouth shut.




posted on May, 22 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



It has to be the lamest excuse of an excuse I've seen on ATS! If a person claims understanding of a particular subject that's deep enough to bash Einstein and the rest of scientific community, sure you would expect a simple argument and a math model of what they are proposing. I'm pretty comfortable with calculus, try me. If you say I need to drill beyond the first layer of links in the OP, that speaks volumes. You have no idea what you are talking about and, in short, are an ignoramus.


I'm sorry... I must have missed it myself, but can you please point out where the OP claimed full complete knowledge of the subject? I know he's more knowledgeable than I am, but I haven't seen any mention of complete knowledge myself. If your going to go so far as to claim that he does, then surely you can back up that BS statement?


The history of science is barely a few thousand years old, and that part of it that can yield that info is roughly 200 years old. If you don't have a grasp of time scales in cosmology, you might as well keep your mouth shut.


You call that an answer to my question and have the audacity to call me an ignoramus? Interesting... I did say I don't know everything about this subject, but did I insult you? I don't think I did. I just don't see why your bashing the OP and not the information. Talk about being an ignoramus!



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
I'm sorry... I must have missed it myself, but can you please point out where the OP claimed full complete knowledge of the subject?


You see, but to maintain that Einstein screwed up with his theories in such a definitive and frankly arrogant manner requires a modicum of qualification in the field that's being discussed. Or, just about enough to draft a couple of formulas that support the theories being proposed. If one can't do that, they have no business whatsoever passing judgment on this matters.

I don't insist on tensor calculus because my knowledge of same is rather rusty (but can be refreshed if needed). However, a simple sophomore level exposition would do nicely. Of course, the ignorami aren't capable of that either. They are just lots of hot air with no substance.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



You see, but to maintain that Einstein screwed up with his theories in such a definitive and frankly arrogant manner requires a modicum of qualification in the field that's being discussed. Or, just about enough to draft a couple of formulas that support the theories being proposed. If one can't do that, they have no business whatsoever passing judgment on this matters.


He's a person just like you and I. Saying he has no right to form an opinion based on evidences put forth by anyone just shows you to be a hypocritical nitpicker.

Are you a scientists yourself? A theoretical physicist? Someone who performs experiments in the field day in and day out? If your answer is no, then your a whiny little bitch personally attacking someone else' opinion on a personal basis instead of the information that person used to formulate their own opinion.

I mean, Jesus Christ, that's just god damned common sense there buddy. Use it or loose it, right?


I don't insist on tensor calculus because my knowledge of same is rather rusty (but can be refreshed if needed). However, a simple sophomore level exposition would do nicely. Of course, the ignorami aren't capable of that either. They are just lots of hot air with no substance.


I can't stress this enough, it's not the job of anyone to hold anyone's hand here. The OP went out if his way to provide a plethora of links for ANYONE to start researching from. Your first response in this thread was nothing but a personal attack against the OP. So I'm sorry if I'm defending him. You give no choice because your too caught up on the OP on a personal level and not the information provided. He gave more than an adequate amount of information to start from and that information should be the *sole* basis of your argument, not this bull crap need to defend your attack against him personally. He is not required as a person to hold your hand like a little girl. If you want to know more about it, do as I am doing and read the material to a point of full understanding and go from there. If all you can do is bitch and whine that your hand is not being held by the OP, then please refrain from calling anyone an ignoramus., Makes you look like a whiny bitch that can't be bothered to do anything on their own.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by sirnex]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
He's a person just like you and I. Saying he has no right to form an opinion based on evidences put forth by anyone just shows you to be a hypocritical nitpicker.


I'm not like you. Read further.


Are you a scientists yourself?


Yes.


Someone who performs experiments in the field day in and day out?


Yes.


If your answer is no, then your a whiny little bitch


Well look who's the B word now. Obey your commander.


I can't stress this enough, it's not the job of anyone to hold anyone's hand here.


A hand that's using feces to draw graffiti on ATS is disgusting.


He gave more than an adequate amount of information to start from



This is patently false. Until I see half a dozen formulas which can be admittedly simplified (fine by me), that show the ejection mechanism can exist, I call the whole OP an exercise in mental masturbation at the very best, and certification of one's arrogance and possible mental problems in all likelihood. You don't know science, you don't speak science.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Just curious, but are you the OP's lawyer or guardian/bodyguard? Your responses seem to show a personal stake in this thread for some reason.

Why? Or are you just easily provoked?


[edit on 22/5/2010 by Chamberf=6]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


OK, if you have the balls to make the claim of being someone who's job is to conduct experiments in this field, than I can rightfully ask what papers you have published and links to those papers. If you can't provide those links or at the very least inform us of what publications we can find you in (as that would be public information), then I call your BS bluff.

[quote]This is patently false. Until I see half a dozen formulas which can be admittedly simplified (fine by me), that show the ejection mechanism can exist, I call the whole OP an exercise in mental masturbation at the very best, and certification of one's arrogance and possible mental problems in all likelihood. You don't know science, you don't speak science.

That is patently blatant stupidity. It's not the job of someone to prove mathematically an opinion they formed based on any information that they have gleaned from any source whatsoever.

It's like demanding that the religious community mathematically prove their deity. Come on, you can't be that stupid and claim to be working in this field at the same time!



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by sirnex
 


Just curious, but are you the OP's lawyer or guardian/bodyguard? Your responses seem to show a personal stake in this thread for some reason.

Why? Or are you just easily provoked?


[edit on 22/5/2010 by Chamberf=6]


No, I just can't stand people attacking others on a personal level instead of the information they post. I've personally dealt with such blatant stupidity myself in other threads. I'm currently going over everything the OP has posted in this thread and in others and a lot of it makes sense to me.

I may not be as well versed on this subject as the OP and others who may be in this thread, but a personal attack is a personal attack and to me that says volumes about the person doing the attack. If you can't argue against the information and need to resort to attacks instead, then your an idiot (not singling anyone out specifically). The OP went well above and beyond to provide plenty of material to start researching the topic. He is not required to hold anyone's hand every step of the way. If anyone can't be bothered to read everything and research further to understand his point of view then they have no reason to attack him lest they look like ignorant morons.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
OK, if you have the balls to make the claim of being someone who's job is to conduct experiments in this field, than I can rightfully ask what papers you have published and links to those papers. If you can't provide those links or at the very least inform us of what publications we can find you in (as that would be public information), then I call your BS bluff.


Ever since I got death threats from various nutcases on a few fora, I'm determined to not reveal my identity to people I don't know very well on the Internet. However, if you are curious to know where and what I did for science, please google "ATLAS TRT". You can then form meaningful questions that I'm sure I can answer to your satisfaction, thus addressing your need to ascertain my qualifications. I'm serious, go ahead.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Whilst interesting, I can make such claims myself. I looked it up and I fail to see how that particular thing has anything to do with what the OP has posted in this thread. Nor why it warrants personal attacks.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Sorry to butt in here again but, you realize you have also made personal attacks in this thread, right?



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Whilst interesting, I can make such claims myself. I looked it up and I fail to see how that particular thing has anything to do with what the OP has posted in this thread. Nor why it warrants personal attacks.


Please start being honest with yourself. You expressed doubt in my qualifications, and I believe I found a way to quench that curiosity. I designed the original prototype along with a few friends of mine back in the late 80th. I moved to other projects but sure as hell I know tons of stuff in the area if nuclear instrumentation.

If you can make similar claims, please go ahead and be prepared to be asked specific questions on the details of the apparatus or FEE. Otherwise, desist.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I wouldn't bother attacking her qualifications.

All you have to do is keep throwing this in her face over and over again.

There's nothing she can do about it.

knol.google.com...#

• Frame dragging has never been definitively proven despite numerous attempts to look for it using numerous satellites. The most famous of which is Gravity Probe B. The final report issued by the Gravity Probe B team utilizes a hypothetical model to account for the effects of static build up induced error on the gyros.[1] The raw data showed no signs of any frame dragging at all. Given that a purely hypothetical model was used to massage the data, the reports findings lack any definitive proof of frame dragging.[2]

• The LIGO has never detected a gravitational wave. LIGO (on the fourth science run [S4]) and GEO600 together did not detect any gravitational waves.[3] To date, LIGO's fifth science run [S5], which had all three interferometers running continuously in triple-coincidence for an entire year, has not yielded any gravitational wave candidates.[4] These non-detections directly refute previous theory and stand in direct contradiction to predictions made by the theory of general relativity.[5]

• The CDMS project has never detected any observational evidence of dark matter despite years of trying[6], nor has the much more sensitive Xenon 100 experiment.[7] This directly refutes the notion that dark matter exists and is the supposed “missing mass” of galaxies. This non-detection directly refutes previous theory and stands in direct contradiction to predictions made by the theory of general relativity.

• A recent study of Quasars shows them to be devoid of all effects of time dilation.[8][9] This non-detection directly refutes previous theory and stands in direct contradiction to predictions made by the theory of general relativity. Article on the subject here.




Then demand to know why she believes in a theory that has been falsified dozens of times over, both experimentally and observationally in space.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by sirnex
 


I wouldn't bother attacking her qualifications.


Indeed! Instead, please offer the simplest math possible to explain the ejection mechanism you are proposing, to explain creation of planets. I'm all ears.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Thanks OP!
Interesting little read.

Its funny you posted this, I have been reading a book which theorizes comets and planets being created by the sun and eventually being eaten "recycled".

On of the problems i have with the standard theory is, as far as i know, it doesnt adaquetly explain sunspots,, the giant dark holes in the sun sometimes.

supposedly, when looking at a sunspot, your looking into the sun, which you would assume would be bright, and extremely hot, however Ive read theyve recorded some very low temps in sunspots.

the truth is certainly still out there waiting to be found!



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
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.


I admit that's a possibility to consider. Note the language in the Science Daily article does leave some room for doubt. Or another possibility is, that matter does clump together from the dust, and form a planetary body, up to a point, but at some point, the proto-planet develops a magnetic field which might divert charged dust away from it.

And while you might be right that the dust is a highly charged dust, what does that mean exactly? Are 50% of the particles ionized or charged? I have no idea what the percentage is, but I suspect it's less than 100%. So the magnetic field would tend to divert charged particles but not the uncharged particles, and the percentage of charged particles diverted would likely be something less than 100%.

For example, look at the Earth today. We have both processes going on right now even as we write this thread. We have charged particles trying to reach the Earth, most of which are deflected by the Earth's magnetic field, as you suggest. And we also have 40 tons per day of cosmic dust and debris still accreting to the mass of the Earth. I don't know what percentage of that 40 tons of dust and debris is uncharged, and what percentage is charged matter that manages to slip past the magnetic shield of the Earth, but it probably includes both.


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.


This is a good question. I think it some cases yes and in some cases no, depending on a number of factors. One factor would be for example, the rotational inertia of the planet and the dust being sucked into it.

If the rotational intertia is low, the dust gets sucked in rapidly so there is a small amount of material near the planet still being sucked in, but not much. You may have issues with the rubber sheet analogy of gravity but it's a commonly used model so I'll use it again to illustrate this point. Take a big rubber sheet and pour a lot of bb's onto it representing the dust. Now place a bowling ball on the sheet. All the bbs in the vicinity of the bowling ball will roll downhill to the bowling ball. The reason the bowling ball clears an area of bbs from the rubber sheet is, they roll downhill to the bowling ball.

Now if for some reason the dust was orbiting the planet (or bbs orbiting the bowling ball), you would have a tendency to see more of it because then it doesn't get sucked straight in (or roll straight downhill to the bowling ball), it can go in circles around it and gradually work its way in. So, it depends.

And I think what we are seeing about exoplanet formation suggests that one model may not explain everything we're seeing. I think we have to allow for a variety of models and effects to see the variety of expolanetary systems we are seeing.

For example, whatever processes formed our solar system, with rocky planets closer to the sun, and gas giants further out, isn't as typical as we once thought, since we are seeing so many large Jupiter-like planets form close to their suns. However I agree with the "pennies in the streetlight" analogy that just because we find more pennies near the streetlight doesn't mean that's where most of the pennies are, those are just the easiest ones to find. So as yet we don't really know how common or uncommon it is for gas giants to form close to the star from our biased set of observations. But we do know enough to see that planetary formation doesn't seem to follow a "cookie-cutter" model where expolanetary systems are all similar reflections of our own, so different processes might be at work to explain the differences we see.

By the way, since your OP seems impressed with the results of a computer simulation, here's another computer simulation (with different parameters I suppose):

www.space.com...


Disk instability: A computer model shows a gravitationally unstable disk forming a clump of material (white dot at 12 o'clock) in about 400 years. The clump contains several times the mass of Jupiter and is orbiting at roughly Saturn's distance from an unseen and still developing star at the center. Black areas represent low density. Trailing spiral arms of medium density of material are seen in purple.


I'm not sure I believe that computer simulation any more than the one you mentioned in the OP. I think they are all a little suspect until we have verified their accuracy in the real world.

Like I said, computer simulations are only as good as their ability to model the real world. Some simulations can be tested versus the real world and refined quite well, others pose challenges to real-world verification. But as we collect better images of proto-planetary disks, we may get better clues about which planetary formation models, and computer simulations, do the best job of representing the real world.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
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.


sounds familiar . . .

"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view." - Tesla

one of my favorite quotes which logically dismantles the pretense that space can "curve".

i'm loving your threads mnemeth1.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnexIt's like demanding that the religious community mathematically prove their deity.


This is indeed the problem, like I wrote in my first post. The hypothesis is based on believes, and manifests almost like a religion, including ridiculing other theories or hypotheses and claiming yours is the holy grail. That isn't science at all, so giving the impression it is isn't sincere.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 06:11 AM
link   
@-PLB- @Chamberf=6

All I'm saying is that perhaps you folk can attack the information and not the OP on a personal basis. I could not even get past the third page without feeling nothing but disgust. The Topic of this thread is not 'gang up on OP'. Simple as that. Hand holding for every tidbit of information is not the job of the OP or anyone else. Say thanks for the damn fie work the OP has done and attack that information.

@buddhasystem

I get that you want the math itself and I can only guess as to why the OP hasn't put it forward, but have you considered the OP doesn't have the math himself? I don't have the math myself either, but from a personal viewpoint myself I'm more inclined to subscribe to this over Einstein archaic gravity model.


@mnemeth1

Duly noted. Just seems pointless to hang onto Einsteinian physics when there are a plethora of examples showing it is wrong. Don't these folks realize it was proved wrong the minute we observed less than predicted mass and had to invent unobserved, invisible, and unfalsifiable things to hold onto the theory? It's like shouting DUH at a brick wall and expecting an intelligent response.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
@-PLB- @Chamberf=6

All I'm saying is that perhaps you folk can attack the information and not the OP on a personal basis. I could not even get past the third page without feeling nothing but disgust. The Topic of this thread is not 'gang up on OP'. Simple as that. Hand holding for every tidbit of information is not the job of the OP or anyone else. Say thanks for the damn fie work the OP has done and attack that information.



Like I said, the attitude of the OP makes an open discussion impossible, it is not the reactions that are the problem. You are bound to get reactions like that when you make claims like the OP makes, he is almost literally asking for it. It tuns out he can't even properly address the most fundamental issues, which totally undermines his whole position. Its almost like discussing ET with a creationist.




top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join