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.

 

Magnetic Reconnection - Why Einstein Was Wrong

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


So you are saying that most if not all astronomers and astrophysists are wrong/corrupt? You are seriously one strongly delusional man. You couldn't / wouldn't be able to fill their shoes for more than one day. You lack all knowledge even leading up to astronomy/astrophysics. Your weak point is you only reason with words and not mathematics / experimint data. That is not good enough. Astronomy/Astrophysics , just like any other science subject, requires the use of mathematics and experimentation to prove their hypothesis.

Most Einstein theories, whether you like it or not, has been proven to be true (at least mathematically so). You just can't prove certain topics on space unless we have more sophisticated space technology. Theoretical physics is just what it is. Just theory. Big bang, just a theory. Black holes? Too many theories on them. Once we can do some real experimentation is when we can prove/disprove theories.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by fordrew]




posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by fordrew
 


"So you are saying that most if not all astronomers and astrophysists are wrong/corrupt? "

yep.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Well I can not say anything more then. You have such strange gripes with Einstein even though you do not understand half of what he says (1/2 being in words & 1/2 being in math).

I will now leave you as you wallow in your delusional world.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by fordrew]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by fordrew
 


Thanks.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I have more than a basic understanding of physics and I focused on plasma cosmology. I commend your persistence in elucidating the truth.
At times I wish I was still as persistent, but it is now up to the next generation to further the paradigm.

Those that have no understanding of the topic have much to learn. For the beginner, I would suggest reading both of Halton Arps books and Eric Lerners book "Big Bang Never Happened." For the more advanced, Alfvens book "Cosmic Plasma" is essential, and there are numerous journal studies in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science available on the topic. I would also suggest reading Kuhns work 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions' for those that need to learn how scientific paradigms work.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
There are some people in this forum that have more than a basic understanding of physics, yet I don't see them in this thread.


I know a lot of physics but I have to research this one further to comment on it. I saw Don Scott's name in the thread and the problem I have with him is, if I use his logic, water running down my drain and a tornado are probably the same thing because they look similar. I agree they look similar, but I still think they are quite different.

So I don't really buy his claim about similar looking things having the same cause. And just to be fair, here's his rebuttal of that criticism:

www.thunderbolts.info...

IT LOOKS LIKE 'X’ SO IT MUST BE 'X’
TB condemns my pointing out that a similarity in appearance of certain objects might indicate they have a common cause, e.g., the Grand Canyon and Lichtenberg patterns formed in grass by lightning strokes. He then goes on to say that Mark Twain “noted how the [Mississippi] river course would change, with no reports of giant electric arcs.”

There are many morphological characteristics of the Grand Canyon that are enigmatic for 'standard' geologists. Different from the Mississippi (and similar to Lichtenberg patterns), it has no delta, it is narrow at both ends, and its tributaries are as deep at their beginning points as they are when they join the main stream; many such tributaries join at right angles to the central valley. And, of course, it is a mile deep. Also, there is the old saying: "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck……."


So is he trying to imply that the Grand Canyon was formed by lightning or some electrical process? If so, what a kook!

I have another expression for him. "If your tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail." He's an electrical engineer so he sees electrical patterns everywhere, even in the pattern of the Grand Canyon?

I mean I can see that in the same way I can see a cloud shaped like a dog and saying that it looks like a dog, but that doesn't mean I expect to hear the cloud barking. If that's his rebuttal, I'm afraid our friend Don Scott is a few french fries short of a happy meal.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Go ahead and research further.

Don Scott is a bit player in this disaster.

Alfven was the original guy to figure the whole thing out.

Scott is just repeating what we have already known for a century to be true about magnetized plasma.






[edit on 28-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
I thought I would bring this back to the top for some more discussion.

If any of our resident wanna-be physicists wanna take a crack at me, feel free.

The laws of physics are on my side.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join