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: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


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


Oh, it's secondary? I know! For primary, there is a bunch of invisible spaghetti monsters pushing the planets to follow their orbits! And it can't be refuted! We also launch complex missions into Solar system based on totally flawed theories, but the invisible monsters make it appear that our incorrect calculations actually work to an impressive degree of accuracy! These diabolical beings...


according to Einstein's retarded theories



Calling Einstein a retard has a certain effect on most of ATS audience, and it's not the effect that you anticipated or would find flattering.




posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


invisible monsters?

You must be talking about black holes, dark matter, dark energy, strange matter, WIMPS, MACHOS, and god knows what other nonsense the general theory requires these days.

By the way, how's that search for gravitational waves coming along?

I'm simply referring to electromagnetic properties of matter.




[edit on 7-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

The object in the OP did not necessarily form in its current orbit. It's not even certain it's a planet.

Circling 300 times farther from the star than Earth orbits the sun, the object could be a planet, perhaps one that was catapulted out into the nether regions after a collision or close encounter with an as-yet undetected sibling planet.


Another option is that the object, designated as 1RXS J160929.1-210524 b and located about 500 light-years away in the constellation Scorpius, is a new type of failed star -- something akin to a brown dwarf, though about half the size -- which formed along with the primary star about 5 million years ago.

news.discovery.com...





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

Models of dust and gas in space say it can happen.

Vortices as Nurseries for Planetesimal Formation in Protoplanetary Discs


arxiv.org...

Turbulence Key to Planet Formation, New Study Suggests


news.nationalgeographic.com...



[edit on 7/7/2010 by Phage]

[edit on 7/7/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


From the Nat Geo article:


Although researchers haven't figured out for sure what might cause such turbulence


Because there is no turbulence.

Saturn's rings demonstrate that dust does not form into boulders over the course of a few obits.

The theory is ridiculous on its face.

The article also highlights the point I made in the first article I presented that aggregation models don't work unless they start out with kilometer sized rocks to begin with. - Which I also find ridiculous considering we have an asteroid belt and those rocks haven't accumulated into a planet yet.

By the way, speaking of Saturn's rings, KTH has come out with some interesting findings:

We present several independent in-situ measurements, which provide evidence that charged dust in the E-ring interacts collectively with the dense surrounding plasma disk of Saturn, i.e., form a system of dust-plasma interaction.




[edit on 7-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Phage
 


From the Nat Geo article:


Although researchers haven't figured out for sure what might cause such turbulence


Because there is no turbulence.


Didn't someone say this just recently?


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.

Now who was that? Oh, it was you. Which is it? Turbulence, or none?



[edit on 7/7/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Phage
 


From the Nat Geo article:


Although researchers haven't figured out for sure what might cause such turbulence


Because there is no turbulence.


Didn't someone say this just recently?


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.

Now who was that? Oh, it was you. Which is it? Turbulence, or none?



[edit on 7/7/2010 by Phage]


Touche

So which one of the standard models is right?

The one that says turbulence prevents dust from turning into boulders or the one that says it does turn them into boulders?

You tell me.

Considering Saturn's rings are not turbulent and have not accumulated into a planet, I going to say that:

1. there is no turbulence

2. thus they are both wrong.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


OK fair enough, these are not your models. Granted, I'm an anthropologist not a physicist so I'm not an expert in this field but I think I have a firm enough grasp on the scientific method along with a good dose of critical thinking and the ability to read and I am just not buying it. We'll have to agree to disagree and call it a day. Some of the papers sited in the abstract you linked were written by legitimate physicists and cosmologists so the science behind it may not be completely bull#. However, my uncle taught Eric Lerner at Columbia so I can say with some certainty that he is considered to be on the fringe of "real" science and most of his work is quickly discounted. Does that discount the legitimacy of the science? No. Personally I'd be thrilled for conventional theories to be wrong. If that were the case then faster than light travel becomes more likely. I would just need a LOT more convincing at the end of the day. I'm not arrogant enough to say none of this is possible, i just see it as highly improbable at this stage of the game.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


You know what, I have a better idea.

Lets look at dates:

Nat Geo
September 4, 2007

Space.com
27 January 2009

I see what's going on here.

The later article I posted is refuting the Nat Geo article you posted.


Gas-rich planets such as Jupiter and Saturn grew from a disk of dust and gas which eventually crumpled like a piece of paper under its own gravitational instability -- or so one theory goes.

Now a computer simulation suggests that this idea falls apart under the turbulent forces within early protoplanetary systems.

The old, favored theory relies on the protoplanetary dust disk becoming denser and thinner until it reaches a tipping point, where it becomes gravitationally unstable and collapses into kilometer-sized building blocks that form the basis for gas giants. But 3D modeling has shown for the first time that turbulence prevents the dust from settling into the dense disk necessary for gravitational instability to work




Thus your article is wrong.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by peter vlar
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


OK fair enough, these are not your models. Granted, I'm an anthropologist not a physicist so I'm not an expert in this field but I think I have a firm enough grasp on the scientific method along with a good dose of critical thinking and the ability to read and I am just not buying it. We'll have to agree to disagree and call it a day. Some of the papers sited in the abstract you linked were written by legitimate physicists and cosmologists so the science behind it may not be completely bull#. However, my uncle taught Eric Lerner at Columbia so I can say with some certainty that he is considered to be on the fringe of "real" science and most of his work is quickly discounted. Does that discount the legitimacy of the science? No. Personally I'd be thrilled for conventional theories to be wrong. If that were the case then faster than light travel becomes more likely. I would just need a LOT more convincing at the end of the day. I'm not arrogant enough to say none of this is possible, i just see it as highly improbable at this stage of the game.


If you are an anthropologist perhaps you can explain this to me.

Electric cosmology can explain this discrepancy easily because planetary mass is not a set constant.




[edit on 7-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

The tidal effects of Saturn prevent the coalescence of the material in the rings. It could be those very effects which destroyed a former moon and created the rings in the first place.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

The tidal effects of Saturn prevent the coalescence of the material in the rings. It could be those very effects which destroyed a former moon and created the rings in the first place.


Sure.

The KTH paper shows the dust is acting as a dusty plasma.

Its safe to say dust around stars acts the same way.

Tidal forces have little to do with it.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


I have some more anthropology questions.

Like why dinosaur were flash fossilized all over the earth around the same periods.

Electric cosmology provides a ready explanation for this as well.

I'm curious to know why fossils are not created all over at the same rate today.

I'm also curious to know why fossil sea records are limited to dry land (again, plasma cosmology to the rescue)

I'm also curious to know why sea floor core samples show the age of the floors to be youngest at the mid ocean rifts.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Okay, so you contradict yourself on issues that you put across as "obvious truth", and then just shrug off that you do so. Yet you obsessively try to disprove Einstein every thread you start.
Why don't you hold yourself to the standards you are trying to hold Einstein to?
Don't you see this as a bit hypocritical? If you are really so dedicated to getting the "truth" out there and correct Einstein every chance you get, shouldn't you be consistent?
It seems it is not Einstein's theories you have a problem with as much the man himself.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

No it's not wrong. It agrees that gravity alone cannot account for planetesimal formation.
And the other article I linked is brand new. Again...

Turbulent, two-dimensional, hydrodynamic flows are characterized by the emergence of coherent, long-lived vortices without a need to invoke special initial conditions. Vortices have the ability to sequester particles, with typical radii from about 1 mm to 10 cm, that are slightly decoupled from the gas.

arxiv.org...



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Yeah but that flies in the face of the planets we have discovered, ie. the planet in OP article. - hence why it is a mystery.

It also blows up when you look at the super close orbiting gas giants.

The whole theory is a joke, it can't explain what we see in all cases.

In order to explain what is observed, planets have to be full formed bodies and a mechanism capable of moving their orbits has to exist.

Nothing else can account for the observations.

Thus any theory that does not start with those presumptions must be wrong.

The ejection model is the only model that starts with the presumption of a fully formed planet AND provides a mechanism for moving them.

It also can't explain those odd ball solar systems that "should have" degraded by now given the supposed age of the star.


[edit on 7-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Hannes Alfven has papers and book that contains information concerning how Cosmogony of planetary systems is naturally derived from a plasma universe. Some of his earliest work was regarding this subject (specifically regarding angular momentum in some places...)

[edit on 7-7-2010 by Ionized]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


And how does the "ejection model" account for angular momentum in both the orbit and rotation of the planet?



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


And how does the "ejection model" account for angular momentum in both the orbit and rotation of the planet?


It has angular momentum on separation.

Rotational momentum is imparted to the star itself during the pinch process, which drives the star similar to a homopolar motor.

Ejected gas giants flung out of the solar system would have rotational momentum imparted the same way through a current pinch.



[edit on 7-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by peter vlar
 


I have some more anthropology questions.

Like why dinosaur were flash fossilized all over the earth around the same periods.


they weren't


I'm curious to know why fossils are not created all over at the same rate today.


at what rate are you referring? fossilization is not a common occurrence. the rate depends on local stratigraphy an environmental conditions. It's currently estimated that we have uncovered roughly 1% of all species that have lived on earth via the fossil record.


I'm also curious to know why fossil sea records are limited to dry land (again, plasma cosmology to the rescue)


fossil sea records are limited to dry land because that is the easiest and also likeliest place to search and find fossils, in ancient sea beds that are no longer oceans/seas/lake beds etc.. underwater archaeology itself is an arduous and difficult task when looking for artifacts that are in the range of mere 10's of thousands of years old. To my knowledge undersea palaeontology does not exist, yet.


I'm also curious to know why sea floor core samples show the age of the floors to be youngest at the mid ocean rifts.

I'm not a geologist, this is a little out of my purview and I'm not going to look it up to pretend like I know something I do not just to be sassy.

I know I'll regret this but, please follow up with plasma cosmologies explanations for the above phenomena.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


invisible monsters?

You must be talking about black holes, dark matter, dark energy, strange matter, WIMPS, MACHOS, and god knows what other nonsense the general theory requires these days.


You are not going to dodge this, pal. Models we use to navigate the Solar system with our spacecraft, and predict the existence of celestial bodies like Pluto by looking at perturbation of orbits of known planets are founded on gravity. Saying that any of these doesn't work is nonsense.

You go as far as to say that the mysterious force you propose is smart enough to align all the planets in the ecliptic plane and covert highly eccentric orbits that would have resulted from the "ejection" mechanism into circular one.

Sorry but you invoke a bazillion "theories" so fantastical that previously exotic notions of "dark matter" etc all of a sudden sound like commonplace to the point of boring compared to what you promote. To make it worse, the strange phenomena that you claim are all happening not in some distant galaxy far, far away, but really in our backyard -- and yet there is not a scrap of evidence that planets are guided in their orbits by anything but gravity - with GR corrections where needed. You are, in fact, saying that there is a white elephant in the room which is visible only to you, and not to "retards" like Einstein. Way to go.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join