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.

 

Magnetic Reconnection – Why Einstein Was Wrong

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by moebius
 



All theories must comply with the known laws of physics, any theory that does not is obviously wrong.


edit on 10-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


Don't forget that all the KNOWN laws of physics are man made and not God made.
I will suscribe to the view that gravity being a consequence of space geometry is totally absurd.
Gravity alters time but i doubt it bends space




posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   

All theories must comply with the known laws of physics, any theory that does not is obviously wrong.
These know laws are just models to describe the reality. They are not reality, they don't have to be. They are called laws because they have shown to be able to describe the phenomena very successfully and serve as the foundation of more advanced models. If you ever make an observation that the violates the "laws" you will also invalidate the models based on them. But these laws are still mathematical constructs. There is nothing that keeps you from ignoring them or derive your own laws as long as they comply with the observed phenomena.


gravity being a consequence of space geometry is totally absurd.
It is a mathematical model. Please don't project it onto the reality.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   


Sixty-two thousand four hundred repetitions make one truth. Idiots!


Black holes



Sixty-two thousand four hundred repetitions make one truth. Idiots!


Dark matter



Sixty-two thousand four hundred repetitions make one truth. Idiots!


Impact Craters



Sixty-two thousand four hundred repetitions make one truth. Idiots!


Water and wind erosion



Sixty-two thousand four hundred repetitions make one truth. Idiots!


Gravity



Sixty-two thousand four hundred repetitions make one truth. Idiots! - A Brave New World, Aldous Huxley



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
As long as science keeps kicking around absolutes, they will never figure it out. We are still using Renaissance era mathematics.

There is no such thing as absolute zero or infinity. One is approximately equal to one. Whether you are taking about one grain of sand, one apple, or one gram of 316 stainless steel, there are always differences. In nature those differences tend to be glaring, in the lab where you might find a calibration standard of 1g 316ss, it takes precision equipment and a skilled technician to tell the difference, but that difference always exists.

Then there is the issue of scale. If you have 1 volt, and 100M R then most would say that there is no current flow, but there is current flow, it is just extremely minute. Just the same, with extremely high currents, there still always exists some resistance to current flow. When you are dealing with 12kv, the physics changes considerably than when you are dealing with 12v.

With plasma it seems that you must have a balance between potential and resistance, with a minimum and maximum current flow.

If you consider that the shape of an electron is like a strand, capable or tangling with other electrons to create threads that tie matter together, then it all makes sense. Then there is no need to believe in force, other then the strength of electrical ties. Then gravity is easily explained.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
If you consider that the shape of an electron is like a strand, capable or tangling with other electrons to create threads that tie matter together, then it all makes sense. Then there is no need to believe in force, other then the strength of electrical ties. Then gravity is easily explained.
How is gravity easily explained? Are you saying there's a strand of electrons keeping the moon in its orbit around the Earth?


Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by moebius
 

All theories must comply with the known laws of physics, any theory that does not is obviously wrong.

Don't forget that all the KNOWN laws of physics are man made and not God made.
I agree with that and as that implies, there are TRUE laws of nature (even if we don't know what they are) and they are never broken. If you say a man-made law of nature is broken all that says is that man doesn't understand the TRUE laws of nature.

The way we know when a theory is wrong, is when it disagrees with observation (like seeing electrons flowing away from the sun instead of toward them as electric sun theory claims), this is how we know the electric sun theory is wrong, it disagrees with observation.


I will suscribe to the view that gravity being a consequence of space geometry is totally absurd.
Gravity alters time but i doubt it bends space
Do you acknowledge that gravity bends light and that this has been confirmed in eclipse observations, etc?

One way of modeling this behavior is that light travels through space in what it sees as a straight line, and when gravity bends light it's because the light is traveling in a straight line through curved space. If you have another way of explaining this that agrees with observation that's fine as long as it does in fact agree with observation. If it doesn't agree with observation, then it's wrong.


Originally posted by BornParadox
Gravity


Sixty-two thousand four hundred repetitions make one truth. Idiots! - A Brave New World, Aldous Huxley

What's your point? Gravity isn't real? Is that why you floated away from your keyboard before you explained your cryptic comment about gravity?



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Strands of thread, strung everywhere. These electron threads are much more concentrated on Earth and of course the sun, other planets and stars, but they also fill space. There is a level of curvature and elasticity that causes electrons to tangle and create these long threads that easily break up and then reform.

Out from the Earth extends these threads great distances into space, and out from the moon, and the sun, and these threads tangle together and lock in the orbits of these large bodies.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 
If that was true, wouldn't something like a lightning storm between the Earth and the moon affect the moon's orbit? Surely all that electrical disturbance in the atmosphere must be having some kind of effect on these strands of electrons connecting the Earth and the moon?

Same thing with a CME pounding the Earth, and bending the van Allen belts all out of shape with a huge influx of plasma, between the Earth and the moon, how could this not affect the electrons holding the moon in its orbit?

Yet we don't see any disturbance of the Moon's orbit when a large electrical disturbance occurs between the Earth and the moon, as we would expect to see if your theory was true, right?



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
You seem to have something against Einstein.

Please tell us what your qualifications are that gives you right to stand toe to toe with him.

Please provide us with references to your published articles in scientific circles. Or is a conspiracy website the only place that will accept your rantings?


It is a conspiracy website, he doesn't have to provide you anything. He posted a lengthy explanation, if you cannot process it and refute (and stay on topic) then stop spamming the thread. I star and flag all of his posts because he puts a lot of effort in and its always an interesting read. You guys have premature exasperation. You look for his threads, skip over the OP and post the same non-rebuttals every time.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Lightening is vibration, wouldn't break threads. Also, there are a huge number of these threads going everywhere. These threads are what holds everything together, planets, solar system, all mass. The solar wind flows through these threads, they are very tiny, but numerous enough to create the force of gravity.

It is not a complete theory, I am just an amateur physicist. Think of our plasma sphere as a huge tangle of vibrating threads, and solar wind as creme rinse.

Heat and light are vibrations sent out through this huge tangle of electrons and protons. Protons much shorter than electrons, but much thicker, and more curve, and more elastically. The elasticity is what creates what we call the small and strong forces.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
electrons could be flowing into the sun one of two ways.

1. they are arriving in a brownian flow, which is undetectable by current spacecraft measuring techniques.

2. they are flowing in over the poles, which contrary to popular opinion, we have not measured directly.

Of course, you already know this because we have debated this several times.

Therefore your repetition of a false claim is not mere ignorance, but a blatant lie.

You shouldn't lie, its bad karma.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Are you referring to me? I don't believe we have debated this issue.

I see gravity as more of a product or potential than current flow, different than what we see in a circuit. There certainly would have to be some current flow, and most likely a specific shape to the way these thread like electrons form together. Space would be like a giant capacitor.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
electrons could be flowing into the sun one of two ways.

1. they are arriving in a brownian flow, which is undetectable by current spacecraft measuring techniques.
Even if Brownian motion is causing some electrons to move into the sun, it's in insufficient amounts to power the sun because we still measure far more electrons going out than going in, hence the solar wind which has only been measured flowing out.


2. they are flowing in over the poles, which contrary to popular opinion, we have not measured directly.
We came within about 10 degrees of the sun's pole, so while that's not exactly over the pole it's close and really narrows down the window. If your argument was convincing you could get scientists to send a probe the extra 10 degrees to be directly over the pole. However, one reason it's not very plausible is that we can see that the regions of coronal holes, the sun doesn't appear to be trying to suck in electrons as would be the case if the electric sun theory was true and it was sucking in electrons at the poles. Now of you can explain the coronal hole observations, then you might have a shot at getting someone to send a probe the extra 10 degrees to the exact pole:

www.electricuniverse.info...

"Thus, the electric star model originated with an erroneous conception of what turbulence and chaos entail and, despite an impressive argument by analogy with electric discharges, it fails, as will be explained, because of a feature of solar structure discovered through observations from Skylab in 1973, but which was never discussed by either Juergens or Milton - the coronal hole [..]

"Yes, the Sun could theoretically be powered by an influx of relativistic electrons; but if the Sun were fueled by incoming electrons, why are none observed at the places where they would be expected to be most numerous? Until the theory is reconciled with this observation, the electric star model can be given no credence



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by poet1b
If you consider that the shape of an electron is like a strand, capable or tangling with other electrons to create threads that tie matter together, then it all makes sense. Then there is no need to believe in force, other then the strength of electrical ties. Then gravity is easily explained.
How is gravity easily explained? Are you saying there's a strand of electrons keeping the moon in its orbit around the Earth?


Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by moebius
 


[ will suscribe to the view that gravity being a consequence of space geometry is totally absurd.
Gravity alters time but i doubt it bends space

Do you acknowledge that gravity bends light and that this has been confirmed in eclipse observations, etc?

One way of modeling this behavior is that light travels through space in what it sees as a straight line, and when gravity bends light it's because the light is traveling in a straight line through curved space. If you have another way of explaining this that agrees with observation that's fine as long as it does in fact agree with observation. If it doesn't agree with observation, then it's wrong.



Ah, the observed eclipse and gravitational lensing......
Since the speed of light is constant and time speeds up as gravity increases, so when light travels near a massive object, to keep its speed constant it has to ravel a grater dustance to accomodate the increase rate of time, it follows a curved path.
QED



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   

One way of modeling this behavior is that light travels through space in what it sees as a straight line,


This might be an illusion.

I would have to say that my concept is essentially an advanced ether type of concept, except I don't see electrons evenly distributed throughout the universe.

If these threads of electrons tie everything together, it is possible that they are more likely to anchor themselves to energy sources. The energy in our brains attracts electron threads to anchor to us, creating an illusion of even distribution. The same is true of instruments that we use. The crystal structure of glass also creates a similar type of accumulation.

Just throwing out ideas here. I think the whole force theory concept relies essentially in a belief in force magic. It seems that religion has to much influence on science. The idea that electrons create threads that tie everything together just seems to make much more sense. We see structure in magnetism, plasma, and crystal, all of which points to the basic building blocks of matter having a thread like shape, not a ball like shape.

.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Ah, the observed eclipse and gravitational lensing......
Since the speed of light is constant and time speeds up as gravity increases, so when light travels near a massive object, to keep its speed constant it has to ravel a grater dustance to accomodate the increase rate of time, it follows a curved path. QED

First, time doesn't speed up in a gravitational field, it slows down.
Second, you're more or less admitting a distortion of space-time when you say the increasing gravity affects the passage of time. That's very similar to the notion you previously rejected, when you said that


Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
I will suscribe to the view that gravity being a consequence of space geometry is totally absurd.
Gravity alters time but i doubt it bends space

You are trying to separate space and time, but they aren't separate in relativity, that's why we call it space-time. The model of relativity this thread is bashing works pretty well if you do that:


In classical mechanics, the use of Euclidean space instead of spacetime is appropriate, as time is treated as universal and constant, being independent of the state of motion of an observer. In relativistic contexts, however, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer and also on the strength of intense gravitational fields, which can slow the passage of time.
Relativity doesn't allow you to separate space and time, at least not if you want to use a model that makes predictions that agrees with observations. And since you admit gravity is affecting the passage of time you are in fact admitting it's bending space-time. Your only problem seems to be assuming space and time are separate. If you admit gravity slows down time, you have no reason to separate space and time, the math won't work if you try to do that.

If someone doesn't like the model of magnetic reconnection, then don't use it. As I said before, all models are wrong Including that one), some are useful, so let this sink in.

But I don't see how admitting that somehow invalidates gravity and the gravitational observations we make that are consistent with relativity.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I agree, it makes more sense that stars like our sun power the universe, not the other way around.

Force ties everything together. We know this, we just don't know the nature of force.

Where does the concept of an electron being a tiny little ball moving really really fast around the nucleus of the atom come from? I have been taught this all my life, but it doesn't make sense. What evidence exists that this is a correct model of an electron. I have yet to see any evidence.

Take the experiment of the photon going through a slit. It shows that patterns develop, not universal distribution. Oops, slipped back into the other concept. Still, we see energy moving in a structured direction, not universally distributed.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b


One way of modeling this behavior is that light travels through space in what it sees as a straight line,


This might be an illusion.
The light definitely gets bent by gravity. You could actually model this behavior several ways, that's just one of them. I think the illusion would be that any model is a perfect representation of reality, I assume most if not all models are imperfect or "wrong" representations of reality, but some models are nonetheless useful at making predictions even with such limitations.


If these threads of electrons tie everything together, it is possible that they are more likely to anchor themselves to energy sources.
Didn't you say you worked with instrumentation or calibration or something? Te reason I ask is because even though we can't see electrons with our eyes, we can detect them with instruments. Ever heard of the IMAGE spacecraft? It took pictures of the plasma around the Earth (consisting largely of electrons), so if there was a giant tether of electrons holding the moon in place, it probably would have shown up in those electron photos, don't you think?(see the photos at that link).


Initial pictures from NASA's Imager for Magnetopause to Aurora Global Exploration (IMAGE) spacecraft are revealing for the first time the global ebb and flow of hot, electrified gas (plasma) around the Earth in response to the solar wind. Severe disturbances in this region controlled by the Earth's magnetic field (the magnetosphere) are capable of disrupting satellites, telephone and radio communications, and power systems.

"IMAGE is the first weather satellite for space storms," said Dr. James L. Burch, Principal Investigator for IMAGE at Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas. "This revolutionary spacecraft makes these invisible storms visible. In a sense, IMAGE allows us to view the Earth through plasma-colored glasses.


Edit to add:

Originally posted by poet1b
Where does the concept of an electron being a tiny little ball moving really really fast around the nucleus of the atom come from? I have been taught this all my life, but it doesn't make sense. What evidence exists that this is a correct model of an electron. I have yet to see any evidence.
You have some homework to do. Yes we were all shown that picture of an electron orbiting a nucleus the way a planet orbits a star, but that's not really the model, it was just a graphic illustration not intended to demonstrate a correct model.

You really need a good course in quantum mechanics.

Atomic orbital


The atomic orbital model can only be described by quantum mechanics, in which the electrons are most accurately described as standing waves surrounding the nucleus.

Despite the obvious analogy to planets revolving around the Sun, electrons cannot be described as solid particles. In addition, atomic orbitals do not closely resemble a planet's elliptical path in ordinary atoms. A more accurate analogy might be that of a large and often oddly-shaped "atmosphere" (the electron), distributed around a relatively tiny planet (the atomic nucleus).

edit on 12-3-2011 by Arbitrageur because: added text



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yeah, I agree, no model is perfect, while some are useful. I suspect that our current models have outlived their usefulness.

Yes, I have considerable experience in instrumentation, although it is a very broad field.

Those pictures are of electrified plasma, in various spectrum of uv from what I read, and wouldn't show gravitational lines of flux.

I wouldn't think the moon is tethered to the Earth. Tethered would not be the correct model Remember as a kid in science, they had the video of the magnet with a paper over it, and iron shavings thrown on top to show the magnetic lines of flux? Well, the Earths gravitational field is these lines of flux, which are long threads of electrons (and protons which combined create the plasma) that constantly break apart and reform. The moon is embraced by these lines of flux. It is kind of a loving hug.

These long threads of electrons that create lines of flux, gravitational force and magnetic force, would be the medium by which light (vibration) travels. Photography might not be the right medium to capture these lines of flux. Clearly the effect on mass is a very consistent method, but not very revealing of the true nature. You don't always need to know what you are looking for to find it, but it helps to have a good idea.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Honestly, I have read a fair amount on quantum mechanics. I am not impressed. Gravity is easy to measure and predict, so claims that quantum mechanics have done such marvelous things are a bit over exaggerated.

A wave must have a medium to travel through. It is movement of matter, not matter itself. A guitar string, the air, a membrane all carry the wave.

From your link


trapped in the electrical field generated by the positively charged nucleus


So what is the "field generated"? This is where science sounds more like magic. We know something holds the electron to the nucleus, because electrons can be detached and move about. We can measure changes in charge. If the electron is a long thin strand shaped particle that snags onto the nucleus, then the physical attachment is easily explained. The force field concept does not actually explain anything. Looking at force as the elastic nature of electrons and protons does explain force.

Space is not a fabric, matter is a fabric. Energy is the movement of matter.


edit on 12-3-2011 by poet1b because: wrong character for quote



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by moebius
 


There most certainly are "wrong models"

Anything that violates the known laws of physics, which "magnetic reconnection" does, is wrong.

There are LAWS of physics and then there are theories.

All theories must comply with the known laws of physics, any theory that does not is obviously wrong.


I'm going to pop in here late to point out that the "laws" of physics have now and then been revamped and even discarded. They are all based on observation and theory in the end. When they clearly don't work - even in one instance - they can be seen as incomplete or incorrect.

EDIT to add: Ah. I see others have made this same point...

I don't see anywhere a mention that "Maxwell's" Equations are really Heaviside/Briggs truncations of Maxwell's quaternions - that shave off exactly half of what Maxwell put forth in his equations...
edit on 3/12/2011 by Amaterasu because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join