It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# More Evidence Einstein Was Wrong

page: 6
9
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla

We mean the CONTINUUM SPACE-TIME.

Did you even bother to look at the thread I showed to you?

This is a mathematical construct, not a tangible material object that can impart force on something.

I want to know how the tangible force of gravity is imparted on a solid object.

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:15 PM

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla

nothing can't bend and impart force on something.

space is nothing, therefore it can't bend.

Well just see my reasoning on why a 4-d tesseract would not be detectable to our universe.

It's in my thread that I showed earlier.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]

So you want me to believe in non-detectable things?

So you DON'T want me to believe in logic.

Look at a wall.

A drawing on the wall would be 2 dimensional.(Or even better picture a shadow of yourself.)

Your shadow could only see things in 2 d(If it could see.)

But since spacetime is four dimensional it would not be visible to us do to it not being able to be shown by light.

Only by it's effect, gravity.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:19 PM

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla

We mean the CONTINUUM SPACE-TIME.

Did you even bother to look at the thread I showed to you?

This is a mathematical construct, not a tangible material object that can impart force on something.

I want to know how the tangible force of gravity is imparted on a solid object.

It's created by the warping of mass and energy on the 4-d continuum spacetime.

It's not imparted on the object but created by the objects mass and energy,

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:26 PM

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla

We mean the CONTINUUM SPACE-TIME.

Did you even bother to look at the thread I showed to you?

This is a mathematical construct, not a tangible material object that can impart force on something.

I want to know how the tangible force of gravity is imparted on a solid object.

It's created by the warping of mass and energy on the 4-d continuum spacetime.

It's not imparted on the object but created by the objects mass and energy,

Math does not a real object make.

Physical force requires a physical object.

You're claiming that nothing can impart force on something.

The fact of the matter is, how gravity imparts force on an object can not be explained. GR is an example of reification. Space is nothing, nothing can not impart force on something. As you're saying, GR is essentially a 4D modeling tool, but what it is modeling isn't real.

Its a way of describing interactions based on the assumption that nothing can actually do something.

Reification:

-Reification generally refers to bringing into being or turning concrete.

-Reification (fallacy), fallacy of treating an abstraction as if it were a real thing

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:34 PM

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Math does not a real object make.

Physical force requires a physical object.

You're claiming that nothing can impart force on something.

The fact of the matter is, how gravity imparts force on an object can not be explained. GR is an example of reification. Space is nothing, nothing can not impart force on something. As you're saying, GR is essentially a 4D modeling tool, but what it is modeling isn't real.

Its a way of describing interactions based on the assumption that nothing can actually do something.

Reification:

-Reification generally refers to bringing into being or turning concrete.

-Reification (fallacy), fallacy of treating an abstraction as if it were a real thing

It's PHYSICALLY REAL just not visible in this dimension other than it's effects. Gravity.

No you are not understanding the concept.

It is what you describe as "Nothing" actually being warped by the mass and energy.

BUT you keep saying space.

You have something against time I take it?

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:35 PM

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla

If you want to believe there are stars made of hypothetical matter that spin around on their axis 67,000 times per minute, be my guest.

The theory is totally absurd.

If you want to believe that saturn is a brown dwarf from another star AND say it's a planet then be my guest.

Electric universe theory is totally absurd.

I never said it was both at the same time.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

No, you never specifically stated that Saturn was both a planet and a brown dwarf at the same time. you also have yet to answer any question I've asked relating to how this happens in your magically delicious version of the multiverse. Soooooooooooooooo how does a stellar object get to have multiple personality disorder? inquiring minds want to know.

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:35 PM
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla

Space is real alright.

Its a real place in which matter resides.

That's all it is.

It doesn't bend, it doesn't break, it doesn't twist itself into infinitely dense holes, and it certainly doesn't impart force on physical objects.

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:38 PM

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla

Space is real alright.

Its a real place in which matter resides.

That's all it is.

It doesn't bend, it doesn't break, it doesn't twist itself into infinitely dense holes, and it certainly doesn't impart force on physical objects.

Wow you actually need this video.

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:38 PM

Originally posted by peter vlar

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla

If you want to believe there are stars made of hypothetical matter that spin around on their axis 67,000 times per minute, be my guest.

The theory is totally absurd.

If you want to believe that saturn is a brown dwarf from another star AND say it's a planet then be my guest.

Electric universe theory is totally absurd.

I never said it was both at the same time.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

No, you never specifically stated that Saturn was both a planet and a brown dwarf at the same time. you also have yet to answer any question I've asked relating to how this happens in your magically delicious version of the multiverse. Soooooooooooooooo how does a stellar object get to have multiple personality disorder? inquiring minds want to know.

I gave you links to the published papers on several electric star models.

I gave you links to a professor's web site that breaks it down piece by piece.

I've presented videos.

I've explained it in layman's terms.

If you don't want to read, then there's not much more I can do here.

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:41 PM
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla

I already have a good grasp on GR.

I'm saying its wrong.

A professor explaining the mathematical construct of GR is useless to me.

I want to know how the physical force of gravity is imparted to real matter.

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:46 PM

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla

I already have a good grasp on GR.

I'm saying its wrong.

A professor explaining the mathematical construct of GR is useless to me.

I want to know how the physical force of gravity is imparted to real matter.

Again it is created by the bending of spacetime by matter and energy.

All matter and energy bends spacetime.

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla

I already have a good grasp on GR.

I'm saying its wrong.

A professor explaining the mathematical construct of GR is useless to me.

I want to know how the physical force of gravity is imparted to real matter.

Again it is created by the bending of spacetime by matter and energy.

All matter and energy bends spacetime.

Space has never been demonstrated to be anything other than a place in which matter resides.

In fact, Newton's laws are explicit in the requirement that force be imparted by "something" or else nothing changes.

Thus, space must be something to impart force on something.

Claiming that nothing can actually impart force on something violates the known laws of physics.

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:57 PM

The reason I showed the video was that I didn't think you actually understood that gravity is just the effect of spacetime being warped by matter.

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 06:02 PM
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla

nothing can't warp.

If scientists want to claim space bends, then they must demonstrate how this is possible.

Creating a mathematical construct in which it is claimed that space has physical properties must first be physically demonstrable, or else its all just academics.

Every attempt to prove space has physical properties has resulted in failure.

LIGO - fail

CDMS - fail

Xenon100 - fail

GPB - fail

Etc.. etc.. etc..

Space has no physical properties, thus it can not impart force on something.

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 06:45 PM

Gravity does exist, if you jump out a building, you obviously do not float. Electricity, magnetism and gravity are all main forces in the universe.

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 07:11 PM

Gravity does exist, if you jump out a building, you obviously do not float.

Many times I have invited the likes of mnemeth to stage that experiment and report the results here on ATS. Strangely enough, nobody of this kind of geniuses follows through.

Electricity, magnetism and gravity are all main forces in the universe.

OK, we can count E&M as one, essentially. I posit that there are two other interactions, weak and strong, that play an equally important role in what we observe in the Universe.

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 09:27 PM

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I believe in gravity.

You don't believe in electricity.

The whole problem with the mainstream view versus plasma cosmology view is that it presents a false dichotomy. Mainstreamers believe in plasma too, they don't deny it, they just attribute a more limited range of effects to it than some people who call themselves "plasma cosmologists".

For example, here's a mainstream article on plasma in our solar system:

Io's Atmosphere and the Io Plasma Torus

Originally posted by buddhasystem
OK, we can count E&M as one, essentially. I posit that there are two other interactions, weak and strong, that play an equally important role in what we observe in the Universe.
You and 99% of mainstreamers, except for the 1% like Elizabeth Rauscher and her "nuclear decay force".

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 10:05 PM

OK...found it. Whilst reviewing some of the back-and-forth...."intercourse" ( or is it 'interplay'?
that has gone on, since this quote:

orignially posted by mnemeth1
I previously wrote:

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.

I might just "rock your worlds", right now....

OK, let's begin:

From above ---

Saturn was an extra-solar planet that was ejected from its parent star god knows how long ago.

Allright!!
Something we can sink our teeth into!!

So...the planet we have named "Saturn", in OUR current Solar System ---(BTW, just a minor detour to discuss something....WE call our current home the "Solar System", and that comes from the 'sometimes' generic use of the term "sol" to reference a sun....but, "Sol" is also a proper name for our sun. So, let's be clear: When discussing other systems that orbit a star, let's call them either "star systems", or use the name of the star, as we catalogue it).

Example: More correctly, we live in the "Sol System"....just as, if we evolved somewhere else, it might be the "Deneb System", or the "Acturus System"...etc.)

OK, minor detour over, back to the story....

SO.... this rouge....ooops, misspelled...."ROGUE" planet that you claim originated OUTSIDE our system, and "migrated' here..."god knows how long ago"....THAT is what we're going to examine (now that I've laid a bit of groundwork). Since you admit that only "god knows" where it came from, can we speculate? Would be fun to see how you talk yourself out of this one, too!

Let's take the closest star system we know, to us....the Centauri System.

About 4.3 light years distant. Care to calculate HOW FAST this 'rogue-planet-we-now-call-Saturn" would have to travel, in order to get to OUR neighborhood, in a reasonable amount of time?

(Barring the implausibility that it DID originate there....because we know it didn't; but stay with me here....)

YOU, yourself, have attempted to PIN DOWN the approximate time of "arrival" for Saturn.....because you mention the "KT Boundary Layer" event, and its time frame....remember????

You tried to justify the large amounts of iridium in the KT Boundary Layer by saying it was from the (ahem....) "super-nova" of Saturn ( :shk: ).

Shall I go on?? DO you REALLY want people to examine these statements with any more clarity??

Because....THEY WILL! And, your time frames (not to mention your physics) just do NOT add up to reality.

How's that for the so-called "strawman" argument? Hmmm?

(HINT, for those who haven't looked it up yet....the KT Boundary event dates to about ~65 million years ago. It is widely understood to be the asteroid impact event that largely was responsible for the mass extinction event of the major lifeforms that dominated this planet, at the time....dinosaurs).

Just for some more clarity....in the GRAND scale of cosmological time frames....65 million years is just a small "blip" in the over-all age of the Universe, and of our home Solar System....

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 10:05 PM

Many of the mainstream professionals that I was dealing with in the early to mid part of last decade, professional astronomers and astrophysicists, admitted little to no understanding of plasma, and operated under a different paradigmatic framework entirely. For the most established professionals, any mention of plasma related theories to address ongoing problems would be met with disbelief and extremely prejudiced pseudo-skepticism, including outright denial. I could give two very specific examples but I would not want to tarnish their public reputation. For many post-grads and grad students, their minds appeared much more open to new theory, though most were still of the technician mind-set, working within standard cosmology for their thesis. The undergrads were the most open minded, either entirely disinterested or fascinated.

The only reason plasma related process on the astrophysical scales is being acknowledged at all by these people nowadays is because ten years ago you had me and several others getting the word out both in the academic environments and online, inspired by books written by pioneers, and decades of published papers.

It is not a false dichotomy, it is a paradigmatic framework difference. The old paradigm has for the past two decades been attempting to assimilate as much as it can while taking credit for much of the work done by others. We are in the evolution of a paradigmatic shift.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Ionized]

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 10:25 PM

Yeah they are all taught MHD theory as if it is a real representation of how plasma behaves.

The fundamental ground work of how real plasma behaves is never taught.

You got doctorates in astrophysics walking around publishing papers saying plasma can contain frozen-in magnetic fields.

All the circuit laws are tossed out the window.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

new topics

top topics

9