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.

 

ESO Findings Falsify Standard Model Of Stars

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The astrophysicist/cosmologist side of me wants to say "I kinda do know what I'm talking about." But, I've said all I care to say. I've tried to be fair and allow for the possibility of other theories, including the Standard Model -- I always do, as long as there is nothing to falsify a theory, because that's the only way to honestly get to the truth. As far as I can tell, the Standard Model has not been falsified, but you think otherwise, and I guess that's fine, as long as, in the end, the Standard Model turns out to be wrong. Though, in that case, both of our methods would get to the truth, yours would just have taken a lucky-guess shortcut. On the other hand, if the Standard Model turns out to be an important step in the search for truth, I guess people like me will be the ones to find it.
So, for your sake, I hope you're right.
edit on 1-3-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by CLPrime
 


No, actually it doesn't.

It can't even fully describe our own Sun without postulating all manner of insanity.


You want insanity? I'll show you insanity!

If the standard model of our Sun is so bad, what are the alternatives? The electric Sun doesn't hold up, IMO, as I can not make the figures for its power output ad up. When you get up to Quasars, supposed Black Holes, and other energetic phenomena, the shortfall is even worse. My solution?
www.thunderbolts.info...
I haven't updated it for a while, but I have some further ideas brewing!
(Haven't seen you on TB for a good while, mnemeth1, too many crazies for you there?
)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 


You don't know what you are talking about either.

You do realize that the guy who came up with the electric theory won the Nobel Prize in physics right?



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by GaryN
 


You do realize that the guy who came up with the electric theory won the Nobel Prize in physics right?


Yes, and Muhammad Yunus won the Nobel Peace Prize 4 years ago. Today, he was fired from his Grameen Bank, which had earned him the Nobel Prize.
Nobel laureates are infallible, are they?



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Certainly not.

They are clearly fallible, as is evidenced by the number of physicists who have won the prize that believe in make-believe things like black holes. However, we do know that in order to win the prize, one must have solved a major physics problem while staying within the tiny box prescribed by mainstream physics.

In the case of EU theory, we can clearly see that the man who won the prize was a brilliant electrical engineer, on the scale of Tesla in his accomplishments. You can not pick up a plasma physics book without running into Alfvén's name. In fact many features of plasma and plasma modeling are named directly after him, such as :

Kinetic Alfvén mode
Shear Alfvén mode
Alfvén waves
Inertial Alfvén resonance cones
Helical Alfvén mode
Alfvén current
etc.. etc.. etc..

Alfvén literally wrote the book on astrophysical plasma modeling. In fact, that is what he won the Nobel Prize for. So when the guy who WROTE THE BOOK on plasma modeling tells the scientific community that their models are wrong, it is certainly worth noting.

I also might add that the guy who WROTE THE BOOK on Einsteinian Relativity says there are no such things as black holes.

Einstein never believed in black holes.




edit on 2-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Alfvén literally wrote the book on astrophysical plasma modeling. In fact, that is what he won the Nobel Prize for. So when the guy who WROTE THE BOOK on plasma modeling tells the scientific community that their models are wrong, it is certainly worth noting.

edit on 2-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


I'll agree with that...it most certainly is worth noting. My defense of a not-quite-yet-dead theory is in no way a denial of other theories. Admittedly, I don't know enough (if anything at all) about alternate theories to speak of them. I just want everyone to be fair, because that's the only way we can honestly figure out what's right and what's wrong.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Lookie lookie! www.abovetopsecret.com...
I haven't read much about the electric universe model, but then I tend to dismiss a model that says that our Sun is a glow discharge.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by GaryN
 


You don't know what you are talking about either.

You do realize that the guy who came up with the electric theory won the Nobel Prize in physics right?

You obviously misunderstand my position. I do not deny Alfven knows all about plasma, and I agree that plasma is everywhere, and moving charges and magnetic fields are the dominant forces. What Alfven doesn't say is where the plasma that forms the flux tubes comes from, how all the energies of the Sun are produced, not just the visible energies, bit all the other frequencies. The Sun puts out as much, if not more energy in the radio frequencies, all the way down to LF, VLF, ELF. Alfvens picture is correct, but incomplete.


You don't know what you are talking about either.

You can't say that unless you offer proof of my errors. You can say "I believe" or "I think" I don't know what I am talking about, fair enough, we are all allowed our opinions. The reason I have not spent much time on ATS is that it seems everyone is here just to knock other people, call them names and throw insults. What is needed is for civil discussion, for co-operative efforts to help weed out the wrong ideas, and build on the correct ones. But, to do that, everyone must come with an open mind, and be willing to reconsider their positions when new evidence is brought to the table.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
there are interesting changes to cephids

Astronomers have turned up the first direct proof that "standard candles" used to illuminate the size of the universe, termed Cepheids, shrink in mass, making them not quite as standard as once thought. The findings, made with NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, will help astronomers make even more precise measurements of the size, age and expansion rate of our universe.

Standard candles are astronomical objects that make up the rungs of the so-called cosmic distance ladder, a tool for measuring the distances to farther and farther galaxies. The ladder's first rung consists of pulsating stars called Cepheid variables, or Cepheids for short. Measurements of the distances to these stars from Earth are critical in making precise measurements of even more distant objects. Each rung on the ladder depends on the previous one, so without accurate Cepheid measurements, the whole cosmic distance ladder would come unhinged.

Now, new observations from Spitzer show that keeping this ladder secure requires even more careful attention to Cepheids. The telescope's infrared observations of one particular Cepheid provide the first direct evidence that these stars can lose mass—or essentially shrink. This could affect measurements of their distances.



source HERE


Everything crumbles in cosmology studies if you don't start up with the most precise measurements of Cepheids possible," said Pauline Barmby of the University of Western Ontario, Canada, lead author of the follow-up Cepheid study published online Jan. 6 in the Astronomical Journal. "This discovery will allow us to better understand these stars, and use them as ever more precise distance indicators."



ats THREAD

the evolution of stars is also under study

magnetic feild polarity studied at radio wave lengths show a "magnetic" evolution of star formation

cant find article but will be looking as arb loves sources to be quoted
ill be back

xploder



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Throughout the Universe, jets of subatomic particles are ejected by three phenomena: the supermassive black holes at the cores of galaxies, smaller black holes or neutron stars consuming material from companion stars, and young stars still in the process of gathering mass from their surroundings. Previously, magnetic fields were detected in the jets of the first two, but until now, magnetic fields had not been confirmed in the jets from young stars.

"Our discovery gives a strong hint that all three types of jets originate through a common process," said Carlos Carrasco-Gonzalez, of the Astrophysical Institute of Andalucia Spanish National Research Council (IAA-CSIC) and the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM).


link to ex content

so if early star formation is constrained by magnetic forces
could the power and energy be provided to the stars by outside forces to provide star bust,
and if so the evolution model does not follow with recent observations of a common source
for jets

please read article before responding

xploder



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
this is a tounge in cheek responce




not ment to offend only to inform

xploder



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


If the standard theorists are to remain true to the physical laws of the universe, then they must acknowledge that the detection of magnetic fields in star formation and galaxies must be accompanied by associated electrical currents.

Any theory that says magnetic fields can exist in space without a constant flow of electrical current violate the known laws of physics.

Any theory that says currents can flow in space plasmas without completing a circuit also violate the known laws of physics.



edit on 2-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Thanks, will check the link out...



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



If the standard theorists are to remain true to the physical laws of the universe, then they must acknowledge that the detection of magnetic fields in star formation and galaxies must be accompanied by associated electrical currents.

Any theory that says magnetic fields can exist in space without a constant flow of electrical current violate the known laws of physics.

Any theory that says currents can flow in space plasmas without completing a circuit also violate the known laws of physics.



well said and i agree totally
the problem is with the fact that an electrical engineer has a better grasp of the electrical forces involved than astonomers (not a dig)

there are no "frozen in magnetic feilds" as you have pointed out, show inconsistenceis from alven
we like this bit
but not that bit
lol

xploder
ps star 4 u



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Yeah I find some humor in how scientists pick and chose which physical laws they want to obey and ignore in their theories.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join