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.

 

More Evidence Einstein Was Wrong

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
From my personal blog Fascist Soup:

The unending enigmas of the standard model of cosmology.

Recently scientists have discovered a planet-like object about eight times the size of Jupiter locked in orbit around very young star. However, there is a problem. The planet is too far away from the star for the standard model of planetary formation to account for it.

Discovery reports:

There is no theory for how a true planet can form at 300 AU (astronomical units, with one unit equal to 93 million miles, the mean distance between Earth and the sun). It’s not really a lack of imagination. It’s a lack of physics,” California Institute of Technology astronomer John Johnson told Discovery News.

Damn right it’s a lack of physics. It’s a lack of physics because the scientists are leaving out half of what man knows about the universe, namely electricity, from the equations.

“This is a puzzle right now,” Lafreniere said.

There is only one solution to this problem that agrees with all the known laws of physics and makes rational sense, that solution being an electric solar model of stars. First postulated by Hannes Alfven, a Nobel prize winning plasma physicist, the electric model of stars assumes stars are not self-consuming bodies powered by a nuclear core but are powered externally by galactic streams of charged plasma. Think of plasma as an electrically conductive gas.

Scientists can replicate all the major features of the Sun in a lab using a fairly simple device called a terella. This device works by placing a magnetized sphere in a plasma vacuum. The plasma pinches down on the sphere and it lights up in glow mode discharge, which is what the electric model of the Sun basically says the Sun is. The Sun is nothing more than an electric plasma discharge in a vacuum. The glowing plasma ball in the terella is lit up by a flowing current of electricity flowing through the plasma in the vacuum chamber. A smaller scale example of this are the novelty plasma balls you can find in gift shops.

In an electric model of stars, one of the types of stars that can exist is a cathode discharge star. This is what constitutes a dwarf star. Dwarf stars are nothing more than gas giant planets that are located outside the influence of a primary (anode discharge) star’s heliosphere. If we could take Saturn or Jupiter and place it far enough away from the Sun, its magnetosphere would light up in a glow mode discharge. Because they are so close to the Sun, the Sun is basically hogging all the free electrons in space and sheilding the magnetospheres of the gas giants. So instead of their entire magnetospheres lighting up in a discharge, we only see glowing auroras over the poles. If Jupiter’s magnetosphere were lit up it would appear the size of the full Moon.

Thornhill and Scott comment on the electric model of stars in this video and explain why the electric model provides a superior explanation for what we observe on the Sun:

and
www.youtube.com...

It is important we understand the electric model of stars in order to properly describe how and why this mystery planet came into existence at its present location.

When scientists try to model dust in space, they find that dust WILL NOT ACCUMULATE INTO PLANETS because turbulence prevents the dust from aggregating. Kilometer sized building blocks or larger are necessary for such “accumulation” models to work based on gravity alone.

Further, most dust in space is not electrically neutral. When dust becomes charged due to its environment, it will act in much the same way a plasma reacts. Industrial cleaning systems often use electricity as a method to ionize dust so it can be sucked up using magnetic fields. Charged bodies in an electric field are strongly influenced by the electromagnetic force rather than gravity.

Given that we know dust in space will not accumulate into planets due to gravity alone, this begs the question of how a planet can form. Obviously we know they can because they exist.

The clear solution to this problem becomes evident once one accepts the electric model of stars. Gas giants are born from primary stars. They are electrically ejected. The Sun is observed to spew tremendous amounts of matter out into space during a cronal mass ejection. These ejections are due to breakdowns or “overloads” in the star’s electrical circuit. If a big enough overload occurs, it will cause the star to fission as the plasma attempts to spread its discharge over a larger surface area.

Since the electric model of stars assumes stars are actually semi-solid bodies, they can eject fully formed gas giant planets in much the same way they blast coronal mass ejections from their surface.

This also explains why we see so many super huge gas giant exo-planets orbiting so closely to their parent star. Standard models of planetary formation say it is impossible for a gas giant to form so close to its parent star because the parent star should have sucked up all the nearby dust and gas during its formation, leaving nothing left for the gas giant to form from.

The electric “birthing” of these planets solves all of these observed oddities in a clear, logical and consistent way. It also solves the problem of why dwarf stars appear to be too cold to host nuclear fusion, yet they are still glowing. Common sense tell us that if its impossible for their to be fusion because the star is too cold, there should be no discharge. In an electric model, the brown dwarf is nothing more than a gas giant recieving its energy from the galaxy instead of from a fusion reaction. Just as the aurora light up in the night sky here on earth.

Planets are born, just like everything else.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by mnemeth1]




posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
The headline is "More Evidence Einstein Was Wrong," yet I see absolutely no reference to Einstein or even to General Relativity in the OP.

I do, however, seeing "Common Sense" being called upon, which can also be used to show that the Sun revolves around Earth.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Great thread as always, but one thing. In your model, Earth was ejected from Saturn? How would this be possible? Why is it in the position it is in now? Wouldn’t earth get pulled in by Saturn’s gravitational pull, like its moons? Also how do we have water on earth? From Saturn?



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


Einstein's universe is gravity centric.

All of our cosmological theories basically exclude electricity.

Cosmologists explain everything in terms of gravity being the primary driver. If it can be demonstrated that gravity is not the primary driver, we can throw Einstein's nonsense in the trashcan where it belongs.



[edit on 7-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


If you want a full working theory of earth's history from this perspective read this:
saturniancosmology.org...

It might not be perfect, but its close to what I think really happened.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


So the theory predicts that gas giants are birthed from stars, but what about small rocky planets like Earth? Your thread didn't seem to make it that far. Or if it was implied that these also come from the sun, I guess I missed that.

This has always fascinated me. I am quite convinced that dark matter, dark energy, inflation, and red shift are all grand embarrassments to physics, being completely ad hoc modifications to existing flawed theories.

There was one particular astronomical body that seemed to prove that red shift has nothing to do with distance. Maybe you can help me out with this. It was a galaxy with what appeared to be one or more quasars located along the spiral arms of the galaxy. They are clearly in the same vicinity, but calculations show that their red shifts are completely different. Which is impossible, assuming GR is correct about light. But I can't find that particular galaxy - do you know what I'm referring to?

Cheers



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Son of Will
 


Rocky planets are ejected from dwarf stars (gas giants outside of a primary star's heliosphere).

Cathode discharging stars do not have the same self-regulating systems to deal with current overloads so they can violently outburst.

It should be clear that solid body planets come from gas giants since they have so many moons around them.

It makes logical sense.

I suppose a solid body planet could be ejected from a primary star as well since they have semi-solid cores, but everything in our solar system seems to suggest the solid body planets came from either Jupiter or Saturn.


As to red shift, there is an epic amount of evidence disproving the Standard theory.

Look here for more science:
fascistsoup.com...



[edit on 7-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mothershipzeta
The headline is "More Evidence Einstein Was Wrong," yet I see absolutely no reference to Einstein or even to General Relativity in the OP.


I know you are just being facetious... and I support you in that


Just one of many threads from this author, which appear with certainty of tides and sunrise.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
I had a long drawn out mathematical proof of this being false, but it was lost in posting. So, meh. I'm not bothering to even get started with you again. Maybe the next time you come out of hiding in a new effort to push traffic to your blog.
[edit on 7-7-2010 by xmaddness]

[edit on 7-7-2010 by xmaddness]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Son of Will
 


Rocky planets are ejected from dwarf stars (gas giants outside of a primary star's heliosphere).


It's impossible to launch a body into an almost circular orbit like that, much less likely is the fact that planets rotate more or less in ecliptic plane.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Its only impossible if you assume gravity is the primary force holding the planets in their orbits.

Of course, we find many stars with impossible planetary orbits according to Einstein's retarded theories of warping nothing.

arxiv.org...
“We point out that the nominal circular, face-on orbits of the planets lead to a dynamical instability in ~1e5 yr, a factor of at least 100 shorter than the estimated age of the star.”


hmmmm..

That's a bit of a problem no?





[edit on 7-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I'm not trying to be a smart ass with this question, but...
Has any of your research been published and peer reviewed anywhere other than your blog?



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by peter vlar
I'm not trying to be a smart ass with this question, but...
Has any of your research been published and peer reviewed anywhere other than your blog?


You can click the links through to the published papers.

You can find dozens of published papers supporting my position here:
knol.google.com...



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


WHAT?!?
???



Rocky planets are ejected from dwarf stars (gas giants outside of a primary star's heliosphere).


You have the craziest, most out-of-this-world beliefs, but this one is so "out there", and demonstrably WRONG, it boggles the minds.....


WHERE, pray tell, IS this "dwarf star" that is 'responsible' for the rocky planets of OUR Solar System??

You know....Mercury --- Venus --- Mars --- oh, and EARTH! (We don't know, Pluto may have a rocky core...but it's been demoted, anyway...)

Planets....'ejected'....(
)....from....stars? (oh, and not just any star, it HAS to be a dwarf??)

Wow. Just....wow.

So, once more...this "dwarf star" that is the 'source' of at least FOUR rocky planets that we are quite familiar with....where is it???

Did it vanish? Did aliens cart it off? What?


You see why this entire concept, and every post (Oh, gawd! You are doing this to adveritse your blog??? Oh, crap!)...every post on this topic, where you have such a 'thing' for Einstein, is the result of the most incredibly arrogant self-indulgent attitude yet encountered here on ATS...

IF you wish to claim some extraordinary "new" fact, something so revolutionary that it will turn conventional wisdom "on its head"...well, better luck next time.

Starting with such an obvious flaw in your claim, before it's even a valid "theory"? Words fail me....

REAL science has existed, and been built, by people who stand on the shoulders of those who came before --- building upon their work, and expanding it, refining it, completing it sometimes, when new technology or observations allow....BUT, no one has simply made such a devastaing out-of-left-field claim, such as this one, that has been proven valid....EVER!



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


The Einstein part I agree with, but if you do not think our current mainstream model of cosmology does not have enough problems, think again. Everything is our cosmology model is theoretical. Like neutron stars, common now... that has already been debunked and the cosmologists are still trying to think of alternatives.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by peter vlar
I'm not trying to be a smart ass with this question, but...
Has any of your research been published and peer reviewed anywhere other than your blog?


You can click the links through to the published papers.

You can find dozens of published papers supporting my position here:
knol.google.com...


I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt despite the lack of real science I've seen thus far. However when I ask for peer reviewed and published work of yours you referred me to a link of an abstract that was labeled quite clearly at the top "A Work in Progress" making it neither published nor peer reviewed. Published on a website is not the same thing. Now I'll step down from my high horse for a moment. Even IF your model had some degree of realism to it, because I can certainly get behind the idea that scientists do not have all the answers and that our knowledge of the universe is constantly expanding and evolving, but it still does not explain how rocky planets were ejected by Saturn and not held in orbit around Saturn by her gravity. I know, its a dirty word for you but just because you don't believe that the model of the universe predicated on gravity and its inherent superglue like hold on everything does not mean gravity itself does not exist. I fail to see how a rock the size of any of the 4 inner planets could be ejected from Saturn when Titan is larger than Mercury. maybe I'm missing something though. nah...



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


You do know that, even though this theory might not be right, there are a lot of physics and math and observation behind plasma cosmology, physics. They should update the computer simulation made in the 80s, but it does show that plasma can form galaxies perfectly. Just look at the simulation. The person who brought up plasma physics was no dummy, in fact he was a Nobel Prize winner because of the brilliant idea he proposed. If you do the research you will find out that observation is better than math in my opinion. There are people with PHD’s (if you want credentials) in physics who have basically talked about how Einstein’s ideas are not perfect like how everyone thinks it is. The only thing SR and GR theorists have to back up there model, is GPS. And there has been people even showing there that because certain scientists used the time framed that SR and GR used that does not mean it works. There is a lot of work out there by people with a lot of credentials that discredit the mainstream model. It is not crazy that everything that does fit into your world view is crazy. Of course there are people that know about this much more then, me but there are people out there that know what they are talking about.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


They aren't my models.

So stop calling them "my models"

I didn't come up with them.

Nobel laureates in physics came up with them.

Professors of Electrical Engineering came up with them.

Nuclear physicists came up with them.

Not me.

If you want to dish out ad hom attacks, you need to direct them at the people publishing the papers.


As for this "it still does not explain how rocky planets were ejected by Saturn and not held in orbit around Saturn by her gravity." - yes it does.

Saturn was an extra-solar planet that was ejected from its parent star god knows how long ago. It was flung out of that solar system and was sent wandering the galaxy as a brown dwarf until it was electrically captured by the Sun.

In this context of capture we have a mechanism by which the larger body planets of Saturn can be stripped off and placed in an electrically stable orbit around the Sun.

I'm of the firm belief that the Earth, Mars, Saturn, and Venus were all one solar system.



[edit on 7-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
For me, planet formation is easy: matter accumulates around a star and slowly forms a planet. We don't know what kind of matter is, so we can't really tell if it is dust or not and if it has problems. Our simulations are limited to what we know so far.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
For me, planet formation is easy: matter accumulates around a star and slowly forms a planet. We don't know what kind of matter is, so we can't really tell if it is dust or not and if it has problems. Our simulations are limited to what we know so far.



models of dust in space say that can't happen.

the closeness of exo-planets to their parent stars says that can't happen

the planet in the OP article says that can't happen.

the orbital stability of the exo-planet solar system in the paper I presented says that can't happen.

so you are believing in a myth




top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join