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: 9
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
If our planet is electrically charged, how come this charge does not affect us in any way? How is it possible for electronics to not be affected? How is it possible for stars to eject plasma, and then this plasma is cooled down and solidified? Why this does not happen with stars? How come Earth's oceans come from Saturn, but Saturn can't have water for obvious reasons? There is nothing in standard cosmology that prohibits retrograde orbits; a body can orbit in any direction around another orbit. One simulation is not enough evidence against the standard model.


Double layers insulate charged bodies in a plasma.

The earth does have inherent charge.

en.wikipedia.org...


Saturn doesn't have water because the water in a brown dwarf coma comes from the same place it does in comet comas - from the discharge.

The surface of comets is known to be completely made out of rock.

The same principles that generate water in a comets coma are responsible for generating the water we see in the coma of brown dwarfs.

In a brown dwarf hydrogen from the star is the source of recombination, in a comet, the Sun's expelled hydrogen is the source of the recombination.

A brown dwarf is a cathode discharge, a standard star is an anode discharge.

The same principles that generate water in a comets tail are also the same principles that generate "water" in Venus's plasma tail.

www.nature.com...

Notice the clear consistency of the theory.

No magic, no made up matter, no fairy dust, just clear consistent explanations for a wide range of observations.


[edit on 23-5-2010 by mnemeth1]




posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE *heck* THEY KNOW MICROLENSING IS REAL TO BEGIN WITH.


Sorry I had to edit your question for language before replying.

The first clue was in 1919:

www.wired.com...


A total solar eclipse on May 29, 1919, would occur just as the sun was crossing the bright Hyades star cluster. Dyson realized that the light from the stars would have to pass through the sun’s gravitational field on its way to Earth, yet would be visible due to the darkness of the eclipse. This would allow accurate measurements of the stars’ gravity-shifted positions in the sky.

Eddington, who led the experiment, first measured the “true” positions of the stars during January and February 1919. Then in May he went to the remote island of Príncipe (in the Gulf of Guinea off the west coast of Africa) to measure the stars’ positions during the eclipse, as viewed through the sun’s gravitational lens.

Eddington also sent a group of astronomers to take measurements from Sobral, Brazil, in case the eclipse was blocked by clouds over Príncipe. Outfitting and transporting the dual expeditions were no small feats in the days before transoceanic airplanes and instantaneous global communication.

Both locations had clear skies, and the astronomers took several pictures during the six minutes of total eclipse. When Eddington returned to England, his data from Príncipe confirmed Einstein’s predictions. Eddington announced his findings on November 6, 1919. The next morning, Einstein, until then a relatively obscure newcomer in theoretical physics, was on the front page of major newspapers around the world.

The bending of light around massive objects is now known as gravitational lensing, and has become an important tool in astrophysics. Physicists now use gravitational lensing to try to understand dark matter and the expansion of the universe.


And this is how Einstein who you love to hate, became a household name literally overnight. And these same experimental results which show light bending when passing the sun also explain how stars can bend light the same way a magnifying glass bends light.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by mnemeth1
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE *heck* THEY KNOW MICROLENSING IS REAL TO BEGIN WITH.


Sorry I had to edit your question for language before replying.

The first clue was in 1919:

www.wired.com...


A total solar eclipse on May 29, 1919, would occur just as the sun was crossing the bright Hyades star cluster. Dyson realized that the light from the stars would have to pass through the sun’s gravitational field on its way to Earth, yet would be visible due to the darkness of the eclipse. This would allow accurate measurements of the stars’ gravity-shifted positions in the sky.

Eddington, who led the experiment, first measured the “true” positions of the stars during January and February 1919. Then in May he went to the remote island of Príncipe (in the Gulf of Guinea off the west coast of Africa) to measure the stars’ positions during the eclipse, as viewed through the sun’s gravitational lens.

Eddington also sent a group of astronomers to take measurements from Sobral, Brazil, in case the eclipse was blocked by clouds over Príncipe. Outfitting and transporting the dual expeditions were no small feats in the days before transoceanic airplanes and instantaneous global communication.

Both locations had clear skies, and the astronomers took several pictures during the six minutes of total eclipse. When Eddington returned to England, his data from Príncipe confirmed Einstein’s predictions. Eddington announced his findings on November 6, 1919. The next morning, Einstein, until then a relatively obscure newcomer in theoretical physics, was on the front page of major newspapers around the world.

The bending of light around massive objects is now known as gravitational lensing, and has become an important tool in astrophysics. Physicists now use gravitational lensing to try to understand dark matter and the expansion of the universe.


And this is how Einstein who you love to hate, became a household name literally overnight. And these same experimental results which show light bending when passing the sun also explain how stars can bend light the same way a magnifying glass bends light.


'___'JKF'___'KFJSKLDFJ

knol.google.com...#

• Quasar Q2237 “The Einstein Cross” – this quasar directly refutes the notion of gravitational lensing. This quasar is supposedly ONE quasar being lensed into FOUR images. The individual quasars are observed to change in brightness independently. They are not oblong in shape. They are are visibly connected by plasma to the galactic core. They are observed to change position. All of these observations are in direct contradiction to gravitational lens theory. The proposal that this is one quasar being lensed into four images is preposterous! The notion that gravitational micro-lenses are the cause of this effect are at such extreme odds that it is next to impossible for them to properly account for the variations observed over time. Recent papers on lensing read like a science fiction novel with a nearly infinite number of hypothetical postulates propping up the theory.[85][86][87][88]

In conjunction with this argument:

If you agree that gravitational lensing is caused by black holes, it follows that you agree that all super-massive black holes must exhibit gravitational lenses;

If you agree that all super-massive black holes must exhibit gravitational lensing, then explain why we don’t see any lensing effects at the center of the Milky Way. High mass objects bend light according to GR as was supposedly demonstrated in the 1919 eclipse paper here, given that, the measurement arm excuse seems to fly in the face of standing theory. In fact, gravitational lensing theory has so many contradicting theories in support of it, one can not find a single standard view of lensing to even refute. I could attempt to refute one model, only to face conflicting data from another model, and so forth – of course none of the models are backed up by any laboratory experimentation.[89]

Further, if we look strictly at the observational evidence in support of lensing, excluding red shifts, we find that halo structures are all that’s left to explain. If the assumption is made that red shift is caused by some other property beside expanding space, all one needs to do is explain the observed halo effects and light refraction. There exists in our own solar system such a massive halo effect that is not caused by gravitational lensing. The Phoebe ring of Saturn is a great example of a non-gravitational lensing halo. Also on the galactic scale, the Abell 3376 galaxy cluster exhibits a ring system that is not due to “gravitational lensing" as do numerous other galaxies and galaxy clusters such as Hoag's object. Ring formations are a common occurrence in space, the majority of which are totally unrelated to any proposed "lensing."[90][23][91]

Further, given that we know its possible to bend light here on earth without gravity, it stands to reason that there is probably some real property of plasma acting in space that can account for what is observed. Magneto-optical effects such as self-focusing have not been thoroughly reviewed as a possible cause of the observed visual distortions around the Sun. Given the electric model, it seems such effects could possibly account for the observed refraction of light.[92]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
In fact, gravitational lensing theory has so many contradicting theories in support of it, one can not find a single standard view of lensing to even refute. I could attempt to refute one model, only to face conflicting data from another model, and so forth – of course none of the models are backed up by any laboratory experimentation.[89]


Gravity is a weak force so it can't be too easy to measure in a small lab, so I don't know why you find that surprising.

And what's so complicated about lensing?

The OP refers to a computer simulation which you apparently place a great deal of faith in....well here's a computer simulator for gravitational lensing:

G-lens


"The aim of this project was to obtain and use a knowledge of gravitational lensing to develop a computer model to simulate lensing effects on distant sources. Each stage of the computer model development is covered in the report*, from initial ideas, through to testing the model using some of the latest gravitational lens observations.


Well that computer simulation software is as close to a laboratory as the computer simulation your OP is built around. But I'm not really sure how good either one is.

However from what I know, gravitational lensing should be far easier to model in software than fluid mechanics, which is apparently similar to the type of model referenced in the OP. And compared to the simulation you mention in the OP, this one has actually been validated with real-world observations, "using some of the latest gravitational lens observations".

Edit to add: Here's an animation of gravitational lensing made from another simulator:
Gravitational Lens & the Einstein Ring


[edit on 23-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
• Quasar Q2237 “The Einstein Cross” – this quasar directly refutes the notion of gravitational lensing. This quasar is supposedly ONE quasar being lensed into FOUR images. The individual quasars are observed to change in brightness independently. They are not oblong in shape. They are are visibly connected by plasma to the galactic core. They are observed to change position. All of these observations are in direct contradiction to gravitational lens theory. The proposal that this is one quasar being lensed into four images is preposterous!


It is quite ridiculous that you cut/paste same (false) argument across the many clone threads of yours (bashing Albert). You really expect Minolta quality lensing from an agglomeration of mass with complex density distribution? In the same breath, you don't doubt for a second you see plasma. Just "wow".



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 05:24 AM
link   
And also let us not forget the moon is hollow!!! How did that happen??!



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The basis of every one of your posts is that gas and dust don't clump together and create their own gravity when of sufficient size because 'models' don't show that. Everything after that is based on this supposition. Nevermind that models do show that...if I were to take your line of thought; every theory you propose after that is false based on your one shaky argument.

Do me a favor, harness the energy of our electric universe and make a million dollars. Until then I'll treat your theories with the respect that you show everyone else, none.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


Hi and welcome to the thread! I was wondering, do you have any thoughts about the information in particular, or you just a general troll? Just curious!


I personally find the simulation to be interesting as it appears to show the current model of planetary formations may not work as once thought. Although someone else did provide another link giving it a slight chance of possibility.

I personally am interested in this new theory of planetary formation, and given that the sun is a giant ball of plasma, I'm somewhat inclined by logic and reason to suspect plasma to behave as plasma, which again, the sun being plasma, I see no reason it wouldn't discharge giant balls of gas in it's early chaotic birth.


Do you have any insight as to why a giant ball of plasma wouldn't behave as a plasma?



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



It is quite ridiculous that you cut/paste same (false) argument across the many clone threads of yours (bashing Albert). You really expect Minolta quality lensing from an agglomeration of mass with complex density distribution? In the same breath, you don't doubt for a second you see plasma. Just "wow".


I've seen the animated gifs of the Einstein cross, I believe the OP has posted links to them before. They do indeed behave literally independently of on another. Some brightening while others dim at the same time. The animated gifs also show the quasars rotating differently from one another, which to me would seem odd if they were all the same object.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
I've seen the animated gifs of the Einstein cross, I believe the OP has posted links to them before. They do indeed behave literally independently of on another. Some brightening while others dim at the same time. The animated gifs also show the quasars rotating differently from one another, which to me would seem odd if they were all the same object.


The crosses are a little harder to understand.

So what do you think of the rings (and partial rings) like these?

Actual photos:


Ring predicted in animated simulation:
Gravitational Lens & the Einstein Ring



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


"a little harder to understand"

More like:

"the crosses totally destroy gravitational lensing theory"

Ring systems? You mean like these?








etc.. etc.. etc...

There is nothing special about those rings at all. Ring systems of galaxies are a very common occurrence in space.

I particularly like the third image because it shows how, from far away, distortions in a galaxy ring can look like an object being lensed.



[edit on 24-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
There is nothing special about those rings at all. Ring systems of galaxies are a very common occurrence in space.


None of the images you posted really look like the top 3 images in the image I posted. They seem to show separate distance stars in the form of partial truncated rings. I don't see the truncated effect of the partial rings on your examples.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
• Quasar Q2237 “The Einstein Cross” – this quasar directly refutes the notion of gravitational lensing. This quasar is supposedly ONE quasar being lensed into FOUR images. The individual quasars are observed to change in brightness independently. They are not oblong in shape. They are are visibly connected by plasma to the galactic core. They are observed to change position. All of these observations are in direct contradiction to gravitational lens theory. The proposal that this is one quasar being lensed into four images is preposterous!


It is quite ridiculous that you cut/paste same (false) argument across the many clone threads of yours (bashing Albert). You really expect Minolta quality lensing from an agglomeration of mass with complex density distribution? In the same breath, you don't doubt for a second you see plasma. Just "wow".


You believe a bunch of black holes all rotating around the center of this galaxy are producing this image of one quasar?

And you are calling me crazy.




Yeah, that's one quasar.

I bet you believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa as well.




[edit on 24-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
You believe a bunch of black holes all rotating around the center of this galaxy are producing this image of one quasar?


I don't know the structure of that galaxy hence never made any pronouncements about black holes etc. What I said was very simple - an object of complex shape will produce a complex image. You can try looking at a point source of light through a shard of broken glass (or a diamond if you have one) and slowly rotate it.


And you are calling me crazy.


There is some of that but what's worse you are being dishonest. Right on this page, you posted irrelevant links to images of ring-like structures, claiming that these explain the rings attributed to gravitational lensing -- except they look nothing like it. The "Einstein rings" in many cases do have a very characteristic partial arc character to them and indeed look like a product of bad optics.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I don't know the structure of that galaxy hence never made any pronouncements about black holes etc. What I said was very simple - an object of complex shape will produce a complex image. You can try looking at a point source of light through a shard of broken glass (or a diamond if you have one) and slowly rotate it.


So you're saying space sometimes decides to act like a giant fun house mirror?

Proof please.

Lab test.

Any lab test.




Originally posted by buddhasystem
There is some of that but what's worse you are being dishonest. Right on this page, you posted irrelevant links to images of ring-like structures, claiming that these explain the rings attributed to gravitational lensing -- except they look nothing like it. The "Einstein rings" in many cases do have a very characteristic partial arc character to them and indeed look like a product of bad optics.


The ring structures I posted are entirely relevant.

They look exactly like "Einstein rings"

They are the freaking spitting image of those rings.

They show what those rings would look like if they were closer to us.

-normal ring galaxies.


[edit on 24-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by mnemeth1
There is nothing special about those rings at all. Ring systems of galaxies are a very common occurrence in space.


None of the images you posted really look like the top 3 images in the image I posted. They seem to show separate distance stars in the form of partial truncated rings. I don't see the truncated effect of the partial rings on your examples.


Look at the third image.





[edit on 24-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
To be honest, I don't see in those pictures the same thing being shown in the youtube video. They do look more like what the OP was showing, but just look like crappier images than what the OP showed. Are there any animated gifs of these rings rather than static still shots showing the gravitational lens effect occurring? I see no reason to believe that the still images show gravitational lensing and not just normal ring systems around galaxies. The so called Einsteins Cross is certainly four separate quasars, that's just self evident when you look at the animated gif of them.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
I see no reason to believe that the still images show gravitational lensing and not just normal ring systems around galaxies.


Take a careful look at this:




posted on May, 24 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


What am I looking for? Which area in the picture? I just see a bunch of galaxies, some near and some far. Or at least they appear near and far based on brightness to me.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


What am I looking for? Which area in the picture? I just see a bunch of galaxies, some near and some far. Or at least they appear near and far based on brightness to me.


There are many areas in the pic that contain distortions and partial arcs. One long one is at 11 o'clock, but there are many others. I assume the cluster of galaxies that is alleged to have caused this is in the middle of the pic.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join