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: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ionized
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


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.


Satellites passing Jupiter in the 1980s detected the plasma around Jupiter, and advances were also made then about the Earth's magnetic field and plasma kinetic effects.

www.nap.edu...

Significant advances in our knowledge of Earth’s bow shock and in our theoretical understanding of collisionless shocks were achieved during the 1980s in particular, with the demonstration of the importance of the magnetic field and plasma kinetic effects in shock dissipation.1 An important development during this period was the discovery of a population of reflected ions at quasi-perpendicular shocks—that is, shocks where the angle between the solar wind magnetic field and the shock normal is greater than 45 degrees (cf. Figure 3.1).

web.mit.edu...

“Satellites that went past Jupiter in the 1980s discovered a relatively high pressure plasma surrounding Jupiter,” said Kesner. Holding the plasma in place is the planet’s strong magnetic field.

So plasma in our solar system is not a new concept and certainly not popularized just "within the last decade".

Maybe you meant to say the astrophysicists don't claim to be experts in plasma, I would believe that, however I do have some personal knowledge of the training that physicists receive, and based on that I think they must have at least a basic understanding of plasma behavior to become any type of physicist including an astrophysicist.

On the other hand, people that are holding their breath waiting for mainstream scientists to have a paradigm shift that stars are powered by electricity and not by nuclear fusion are going to be turning blue waiting for that to happen. Stars may be made of plasma, and surrounded by plasma, but that in no way means that they aren't powered by fusion.




posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Its not a new concept, its a completely misunderstood and abused concept.

There are no such things as frozen in fields.

None.

They don't exist.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
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.



Oh My God didn't I just tell you why this continuum cannot be detected.

I also told you it can only be detected through the effect of gravity.

I mean come on!



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


You know what else can't be detected?

Black holes, WIMPS, MACHOS, dark matter, dark energy, the Higgs, gravitational waves, blah blah blah.

They can't be detected because they don't exist.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:05 AM
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.

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]


ok dude...you need to serioulsy slow down on the Einstein bashing!
in every sentence you assult the guy, who for his day was a true master!
Einstein had his Theory, just as the Electric model is still just a theory. I tend also to agree more and more with the Electric theory, but that is no reason to insult, and abuse one of the greatest minds this planet has ever known.
Einstein was just a man, and all men have flaws, just as his theory, just as the electric theory!
my 2 cents

[edit on 9-7-2010 by GerhardSA]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I was discussing the astrophysical scales (meaning larger than our solar system.) It should be obvious to anyone that plasma is accepted as a real process in our near-space environment. I mean, Alfven did win the Nobel prize for it after all. And plasma was first detected with the introduction of the first artificial satellites into space, mid 20th century, ending an age old debate about space being a vacuum or teaming with particles (there are papers written about this.)

I really don't understand where the argument is coming from. It is clear that ideas of plasma process are rejected outright as valid explanation of large scale phenomena, with many astrophysicists and cosmologists unaware of the nature of plasma on those scales, in fact, denying it.

Ten years ago when I entered into discussions with mainstream cosmologists and astrophysicists, they had absolutely no interest in thinking about plasma on those scales, and their focus was entirely on the gravitational paradigm. I never claimed they did not know of the existence of plasma (ions, electrons, dust, and fields) however I very strongly claim that they had no interest in incorporating its processes into their understanding of large scale phenomena. "Plasma, in relation to galaxy formation? What do you mean? Galaxies are formed by gravity, plasma is not something we discuss." are one prominent professionals words.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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".


The only reason I made any comment at all is because people are confusing scales here again. Space Weather scientists certainly believe in it. Astrophysicists have employed it yes. Mainstream Cosmologists are too busy looking for dark matter to pay attention to it. They in fact, DO deny it, or we would not be having continued debate over what has turned into a century (Birkeland was one of the first to discuss large scale electrical nature of the universe.) Attributing a limited range of effect when evidence suggests otherwise, is denial.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Excellent post, WW.

I just want to quickly add (somebody else did, but it still strikes as a bad case of hypocrisy) -- mnemeth denies any legitimacy to "mainstream" theory of stars, yet keeps pounding on the iridium abundance (as a result of "Saturn going supernova") in certain rocks to try to prove his argument.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Agreed, that there are mainstream theories that I do agree with, there are A LOT of problems modern cosmology has.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


mnemeth does not deny that fusion is taking place on stars.

mnemeth also does not deny Marklund convection is moving heavy elements toward stellar cores.

mnemeth denies that stars are powered by fusion, there is a disinct difference.

The fusion in stars takes place ENTIRELY in the corona, not in the stellar cores. The fusion is a by-product of the charge acceleration across the double layer boundary region of the corona.

Stellar cores should be composed of heavy elements, most likely predominately iron.



[edit on 9-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Oh, my...for any who may be "on the fence", this pretty much seals it for the OP, and his/(her) ridiculous claims:


mnemeth does not deny that fusion is taking place on stars.

mnemeth also does not deny Marklund convection is moving heavy elements toward stellar cores.

mnemeth denies that stars are powered by fusion, there is a disinct difference.

The fusion in stars takes place ENTIRELY in the corona, not in the stellar cores. The fusion is a by-product of the charge acceleration across the double layer boundary region of the corona.

Stellar cores should be composed of heavy elements, most likely predominately iron.


Says it all, right there, methinks.....


Any questions?



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


If you don’t mind, because I am not that experienced with this whole debate, can you please explain to us how this precisely cannot work?



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


If you don’t mind, because I am not that experienced with this whole debate, can you please explain to us how this precisely cannot work?


It works just fine here on earth.

Electrical acceleration of charged particles is how we create fusion here on earth in the lab.

Its also how nature does it in space.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


If you don’t mind, because I am not that experienced with this whole debate, can you please explain to us how this precisely cannot work?


Let WW to explain it further to you, I'll just toss in my 2 cents:

there are many, many ways why this doesn't work, and one is the density of the corona which is ridiculously small.

The corona is 10**−12 times as dense as the photosphere


...while the photosphere is extremely tenuous to begin with: 2 × 10**−4 kg m**-3

If you assume that you can produce enough energy with this sort of density, than maybe you should also try breathing vacuum.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Density doesn't matter.

The density of matter in the Tokamak is low.

Its the electrical field that counts.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


Do you mean "fusion"?

Well, if you care to look into the troubles and tribulations involving the attempt to create so-called "cold-fusion" as an energy source, you may begin to get some clues.

"FUSION" is the fusing together of nucleii...on the atomic scale. So far, as far as we know, it is accompished only be incredible force....whether that force be the force of gravity, or (in the case of nuclear fusion on earth, in experiments) by other means....usually, if I am correct, involving some sort of magnetic fields to manipulate the plasmas involved...

...don't get me wrong! I am HUGE fan of Science Fiction, (even, yes...Star Trek...OK! .. I admit it....I AM a 'Trekker'!!!)

HOWEVER....since I have been a great 'consumer' of science fiction for many decades (and, as a result, an advocate for REAL science) I tend to have a critical eye on claims that exceed the "norm"....I will consider them, BUT ONLY IF they have some basic, very basic, sense of validity in the first place.

What this OP proposes HAS NO SUCH VALIDITY.

It is a perfect example of "bad science"..."junk science"...or, more correctly, 'pseudo-science'. A "pseudo-science" missive is intended to come in the guise of real science, but uses arcane and "almost-real-sounding" terms to resemble true science. THAT is the basis of very, very good Science Fiction, in many cases.

Though, really, really good SciFi ( As a purist I really hate that abbreviation, BUT it is becoming common, so...so be it...) expands upon known principles of science, and extrapolates. This OP is attempting to overturn centuries of established principles, on an Internet Forum website...a bit different than a real science endeavor, I would think.





[edit on 9 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Do you know what the Tokomak, DPF, and Pollywell fusion devices all have in common?

They all use charged plasma in an electric field to produce fusion.

They don't use gravity.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Electrical acceleration of charged particles is how we create fusion here on earth in the lab.


It's just one way to that. One can use ion beams or lasers to compress the plasma, or just heat the material with X-rays like in thermonuclear weapon -- no electricity involved.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Report
an Analysis by Don Scott

www.electric-cosmos.org...


A thermonuclear reaction of the type assumed to be powering the Sun must emit a flood of electron-neutrinos. Nowhere near the requisite number of these neutrinos have been found after thirty years of searching for them. A series of grandly expensive experiments have failed to find the necessary neutrino flux.

Some solar neutrinos have indeed been observed - but only one-third the number required if the fusion reaction really is the main source of the Sun's energy production. These negative results from the neutrino experiments have resulted not in any re-examination of solar models. Rather, an intense theoretical effort to discover new properties that solar neutrinos 'must have' has occurred. As a result of this effort, it was announced (June 2001) by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) in Canada that neutrinos have mass and can change 'flavor'. This supposedly accounts for why they have not been fully observed previously. However, several important questions remain to be answered about the methodology that was used by the SNO researchers in arriving at their conclusions. Of course, whether neutrinos actually do change type or not has no bearing whatever on the validity of the Electric Sun model. The neutrino problem is a hurdle only for the standard fusion model. In the Electric Sun model there is no energy produced in the core - radiant energy is released at the surface by electric arc discharge. So, there is no 'missing neutrino' problem for the electric Sun model. The electron-nuetrinos that are observed are probably produced by fusion taking place at the solar surface that produces heavy elements (other than hydrogen and helium).

For decades the measured deficiency of electron-neutrinos has been a continuing embarrassment for those who want to believe that the accepted H-He fusion model of how the Sun produces its energy is correct. Because this failure to observe the predicted neutrino flux clearly constitutes falsification of this fusion model, there has been a great effort to explain away the observed deficit.


more at link.


The standard model is a load of crap.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Electrical acceleration of charged particles is how we create fusion here on earth in the lab.


It's just one way to that. One can use ion beams or lasers to compress the plasma, or just heat the material with X-rays like in thermonuclear weapon -- no electricity involved.


Last time I checked the Sun didn't have lasers pointed at it.

And yes, fusion of the type found in thermonuclear weapons is obviously real, but its also obviously not a hydrogen to helium sustained reaction powered by gravity either.

The only fusion taking place in the Sun occurs in the Corona.

The neutrino counts support this and does all the other observational evidence, including the inverse temperature gradient to the surface.

The surface of the Sun is only 6000K while the corona is millions of degrees hot. Just based on our knowledge of coronal temperatures alone we should assume that's where fusion is taking place.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Density doesn't matter.


Are you saying that energy output in a system does not depend on concentration of ingredients for the reaction?


Oh boy, in this case ignorance is not a figure of speech, it's almost pulpable. If you ever finished high school, you didn't even get chemistry right. And you don't seem to have the smarts to compensate for not knowing the basics.

And this guy is calling Einstein a retard.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join