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.

 

cold plasma found above earth raises questions of einstiens "gravity is a fundimental force"

page: 2
25
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
wow this is big,
no, it isn't. The amount of stuff up there is pretty small, 1/3 of the distance to the moon.


cold plasma found above earth raises questions of einstiens "gravity is a fundimental force"
What a complete crock and misrepresentation to post this baloney in the science forum. The article you cite doesn't even mention "gravity"!! This is a new low for you Xploder! I am disappointed in you. Just when I thought you were trying to get rational in your posts, too.


ok just so we know this is big i have added a statment from a member,
This happens frequently when some discovery is made in space. The EU proponents come along and claim that this discovery A or discovery B proves their unfounded theory.

It's also a re-iteration of nonsensical straw-man arguments about "E-fields in space". Of course there can be e-fields in space, and to suggest that only EU people believe this is a straw man argument because real physicists believe it too. The question is, what are the measured/observed e-fields and gravitational effects?

This is always there the Eu theory falls apart. It's not supported by evidence, just like the claim in the OP. There's no mention of how much matter exist 1/3 of the way to the moon, what the e-field would be, etc etc etc.

This is just an empty hollow claim with nothing to back it up, no specifics. And the people who fall for this kind of nonsense really should learn to develop some critical thinking skills to tell the difference between science and BS. Heck this isn't even pseudoscience, with the absence of any data presented with this claim.




posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
On Gravity-centric Cosmology and the Implications of a Universe Awash with Plasma
www.benthamscience.com...


So let's see how well the standard model is doing these days. Looking at just a handful of science articles, we can see that it predicts nothing and explains nothing.

www.physorg.com...


"The more you look for low-energy ions, the more you find," said Mats André, a professor of space physics at the Swedish Institute of Space Physics in Uppsala, Sweden, and leader of the research team. “We didn’t know how much was out there. It’s more than even I thought."


science.nasa.gov...


"We were surprised at how shallow sunspots are," said Kosovichev. Below 3,000 miles (4800 km) the observed sound speed was higher, suggesting that the roots of the sunspots were hotter than their surroundings, just the opposite of conditions at the surface.


www.swri.org...


Spacecraft cameras have sent back striking images of the surface of Titan and the bizarre, sponge-like craters of the tiny, chaotically rotating moon Hyperion. The tiny, supposedly dead moon Enceladus was recently caught spewing ice crystals out of cold geysers located near the south pole. While these images hold truly surprising details, SwRI scientists are finding that the invisible plasma worlds of icy Enceladus and hydrocarbon-rich Titan are equally fascinating.
...
A second very surprising result is the finding that Titan’s exotic chemistry also creates negatively charged ions of hydrocarbon compounds at a rate of about 0.1 percent of the total.
...
During approach and departure phases of the flyby, CAPS measured a large deflection in the direction of flow of the high-speed plasma carried by the rotating magnetosphere. In the same way that an obstacle deflects the flow of a liquid around it, some deflection of the plasma flow was expected. However scientists were surprised to find deflection of the flow starting at a disproportionate distance of 30 Enceladus radii (1 Enceladus radius = 270 km) from the tiny moon.


www.solarviews.com...


Although astronomers had studied Jupiter from Earth for several centuries, scientists were surprised by many of Voyager 1 and 2's findings.
...
Discovery of active volcanism on the satellite Io was probably the greatest surprise.


sci.esa.int...


Scientists were surprised when an abrupt shock wave - caused when the supersonic solar wind slammed into plasma around the comet - was detected on Giotto's outbound leg, but not clearly identified on the inward journey.


space.about.com...


Scientists were surprised to discover that Saturn's bow shock was located at a distance of 3 million kilometers (1.9 million miles) from Saturn, much farther out than they had predicted.


www.dailygalaxy.com...


Cuzzi said Cassini scientists were surprised to find such fine-scale structure nearly everywhere in the rings, forcing them to be very careful about generalizing their findings across the entire ring disk.


www.space.com...


"It is the one RHIC observation that deserves the word puzzle or surprise," Platt said.


www.engineerdir.com...


The first surprise is that there is an unexpectedly strong magnetic field in that surrounding interstellar region, generated by currents in that incredibly tenuous gas. This magnetic field is squashing the bubble of
outflowing gas from the sun, distorting it from the uniform spherical shape space physicists had expected to find.

A second surprise also emerged from Voyager 2's passage through the solar system's outer edge: Just outside that boundary the temperature, although hotter than inside, was ten times cooler than expected.


etc.. etc.. etc..

The standard model is junk.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I thought M theory was generally accepted? Doesn't M theory combine superstring theory and quantum physics or something (layman here).



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 

its still only a theory as far as i know!



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
I thought It should be noted since we are on the subject of gravity and better understanding it to overcome it; I should point out this link. www.abovetopsecret.com...

And this video



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by VonDoomen
 


very interseting idea that brains or extra dimetions bleed through to our three dimentional world,
i like string theory but find it hard to use in a real world way,
althought it explains alot i have been unable to "predict" anything from the idea that could then be tested for.

that may just mean someone smarter than me and more read on string theory is required to make an opinion on your theoy.

but stars from me for having a theory and puttting it out there.

i enjoy your idea and will spend some time cross cheacking expected results
xploder



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Science will never be 100% correct (even though lots of people want it to be).
Its all a matter of perspective really. This is an interesting article to contemplate, and science is proven wrong time and time again, i am not saying they are wrong of course. But science is merely the best possible theory that is testable.

Some things just are not testable from our perspective. I can see some of einsteins equations being wrong, his perspective was different. It would bring some credence to the electric universe theory. Highly interesting, thumbs up!

I wonder if a solar system is just an atom amplified in size. They do similar things. Such as an orbit (think a diagram of an atom from science class)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by XPLodER
wow this is big,
no, it isn't. The amount of stuff up there is pretty small, 1/3 of the distance to the moon.



and the moon would be expected to have a cold plasma zone too, so the distence between the cold plasma reigions of the earth and the moon would be alot closer than you think



cold plasma found above earth raises questions of einstiens "gravity is a fundimental force"


What a complete crock and misrepresentation to post this baloney in the science forum. The article you cite doesn't even mention "gravity"!! This is a new low for you Xploder! I am disappointed in you. Just when I thought you were trying to get rational in your posts, too.


well rational would be to look at all available data and to discuss the implications of those discoveries with others to find what others can conprehend and to bring freash ideas to the subject.

i mentioned gravity because i can see a mecanism that would be at play between the cold plasma boundaries, as the hot plasma travels between them,
not a complete replacement of gravity but a part of the equation.


ok just so we know this is big i have added a statment from a member,



This happens frequently when some discovery is made in space. The EU proponents come along and claim that this discovery A or discovery B proves their unfounded theory.


if the solar wind had any effect on our orbit the fact that the cold plasma "bubble" was larger in diameter than the surface of the earth and hot charged plasma would have to "squeeze" between the two bubbles.
this forces the hot plasma to increase in speed between the constrictin of the cold plasma bubbles,

in a strange sence it would be magneto-hydrodynamics and electro magnetics that would be required to be part of the equations.IMHO


It's also a re-iteration of nonsensical straw-man arguments about "E-fields in space". Of course there can be e-fields in space, and to suggest that only EU people believe this is a straw man argument because real physicists believe it too. The question is, what are the measured/observed e-fields and gravitational effects?


i think you may be missing that the hot plasma and the cold plasma dont really mix all that well,
this causes a "striiping" of electrons by the hot flow at the hot cold boundary,
at that bounday the difference in pressure/density and electrical charge creates an obstruction to flow requiring a change in either pressure denisty or speed of flow, if it was the speed of the hot plasma that changed,
a hydro-dynamic AND electrical attraction occours



This is always there the Eu theory falls apart. It's not supported by evidence, just like the claim in the OP. There's no mention of how much matter exist 1/3 of the way to the moon, what the e-field would be, etc etc etc.


well i think this article goes towards the argument that density seperation and charge difference combined with the hydro dynamics are the ingrediants for what we describe as gravity. in that case if the theory holds,
gravity would not be a fundimental force.


This is just an empty hollow claim with nothing to back it up, no specifics. And the people who fall for this kind of nonsense really should learn to develop some critical thinking skills to tell the difference between science and BS. Heck this isn't even pseudoscience, with the absence of any data presented with this claim.


im sorry you feel that way my friend as im only trying to bring the science to others as i understand it,
usually a debate ensuws and every body supplys contary evidence or supporting evidence.

do you have evidence that hot/cold plasma at different densities doent cause a "boundary"
xp



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
No idea what all this means. I usually throw my faith in science being right. The electrical universe theory or whatever it's is interesting to me only because I'm so stupid.

Wish I knew more about the classical theories and the electric universe theory so I could compare em. If the electric universe theory is right then time will be the true test of its rightness.

I have always thought that gravity is looked at like people used to look at birds that fly. I mean, to us, gravity is this all-powerful force that dominates our lives. It's comparable to a god. I am kind of anti-authority and always dreaming about flying with the birds. So it's all inhospitable and unliked.

But SOMETHING is pulling me towards this planet. They tell me it's because of some complex space/time distortion that I really have no mental grasp of whatsoever. And they say that this distortion is permanent for the foreseeable future. But at the same time they say gravity is WEAK. Really? Is confusing. There's a strong force that holds the atom together and that's STRONG.

We're splitting atoms and still stuck here. Doesn't seem weak to me.

I was googling and found this:
en.wikipedia.org...


This is larger than what the planet Earth would weigh if weighed on another Earth. The nuclei in one jug also repel those in the other with the same force. However, these repulsive forces are cancelled by the attraction of the electrons in jug A with the nuclei in jug B and the attraction of the nuclei in jug A with the electrons in jug B, resulting in no net force. Electromagnetic forces are tremendously stronger than gravity but cancel out so that for large bodies gravity dominates.

edit on 25-1-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by VonDoomen
 

Science is ALWAYS confusing to a laymen. I am a laymen. I had a physics class several years ago and saw how there's a big gulf between science and common people.

Scientists do this for a living and are geared for it. Common people don't/aren't. One of the most inspiring things I learned in that class was that we're capable of amazing things even following the rules! So it's not all bad news. It's not just about unbreakable universal laws. It's about possibility. For example, we may not ever have anti-gravity, but we still have helicopters, no?

What you reference is also found here:
en.wikipedia.org...

This is larger than what the planet Earth would weigh if weighed on another Earth. The nuclei in one jug also repel those in the other with the same force. However, these repulsive forces are cancelled by the attraction of the electrons in jug A with the nuclei in jug B and the attraction of the nuclei in jug A with the electrons in jug B, resulting in no net force. Electromagnetic forces are tremendously stronger than gravity but cancel out so that for large bodies gravity dominates.

I'd love someone to find anti-gravity or prove science wrong. But I'm not holding my breath.

Still, one always looks and compares the past with the present. Historically, science got a lot of things wrong. But for the time, the science made sense. Things just change. I mean, back then a person knew not to touch fire. They knew that if they leaped from a cliff top that they'd plummet down below. They knew some fundamental things that remain unchanged. But the theories that they had to explain these events did not survive as well. Some things haven't changed much, though. What one really has to do is find theory from 2000 years ago that survived to the present day and ask "HOW did it get it right?" What can we learn? Maybe this can offer us a clue about the future.
edit on 25-1-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



So let's see how well the standard model is doing these days. Looking at just a handful of science articles, we can see that it predicts nothing and explains nothing.


So let's see how EU stacks up. What quantity of "cold plasma" did it predict would be found in cis-lunar space? An exact number, please. Did it predict that this exosphere would extend one third of the way to the Moon? What temperature does it predict for the solar corona? Where does it predict that? Where, exactly, does it predict that Titan would produce negatively charged hydrocarbon ions at 0.1 % of the total. Where does it actually predict volcanism on the jovian moons? You get the idea. EU is very good at explaining things after the fact, but its predictions tend not to fare so well.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


They already have.



I wish I could find the expanded video or a article that went into greater detail.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 

This effect is very well understood by science. Just googled.

While it's cool, I don't think it supports the argument you were making.

This is relevant to the effect:
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 25-1-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Great thread, thanks for posting. Don't have time to make any real comments, but this continues to confirm what I have long suspected.

It only makes sense that negatively charged Earth would have a positively charged outer atmosphere.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



So let's see how well the standard model is doing these days. Looking at just a handful of science articles, we can see that it predicts nothing and explains nothing.


So let's see how EU stacks up. What quantity of "cold plasma" did it predict would be found in cis-lunar space? An exact number, please. Did it predict that this exosphere would extend one third of the way to the Moon? What temperature does it predict for the solar corona? Where does it predict that? Where, exactly, does it predict that Titan would produce negatively charged hydrocarbon ions at 0.1 % of the total. Where does it actually predict volcanism on the jovian moons? You get the idea. EU is very good at explaining things after the fact, but its predictions tend not to fare so well.


You are confusing the standard model with plasma cosmology.

Plasma cosmology predicts and explains BEFORE measurements are taken, in contrast with the standard model which continually revises itself after every failed experiment.

Paper that explains IO volcanism:
plasmauniverse.info...

What temperature does it predict for the solar corona?

Scott explains the sun in layman's terms here:
www.electric-cosmos.org...

A more detailed explanation can be found here:
sites.google.com...

Where, exactly, does it predict that Titan would produce negatively charged hydrocarbon ions at 0.1 % of the total.

Articles on Titan:
www.holoscience.com...

Particularly this part on the atmosphere:


It is time to reexamine the predictions I made there about Titan: "We should expect to see family traits amongst the members of the Saturnian family — including the departed Earth, Mars and Venus. For example, the moon Titan, which is larger than the planet Mercury, seems to be a close sibling of Venus, probably born from Saturn at about the same time. That Titan may be young is hinted at by its eccentric orbit, which cannot have persisted for billions of years. So we should be alert to similarities between Titan and Venus. It is already known that Titan has the densest atmosphere of any terrestrial planet, after Venus. That is a huge puzzle for scientists. After all, two of Jupiter's moons, Ganymede and Callisto, have no atmosphere yet they are of similar size. So it would not be surprising if Titan had warm spots over the poles, like Venus. Titan also has a global layered haze like Venus. (Haze layers seem to be the condensed form that non-polar molecules take in an electrified atmosphere. They are quite distinct from the vertically moving clouds that polar molecules, like water, form). And just as Mars has a whiff of the Venusian atmosphere, with carbon dioxide and nitrogen as major constituents, we may expect to find that the Titan atmosphere has some of the smell of Venus about it. Both Venus' and Titan's atmospheres, being very young, will not yet be in equilibrium. So calculations about atmospheric constituents that assume equilibrium as a starting point will be wrong. The methane found in Titan's atmosphere is quickly destroyed by sunlight so it has to be replenished. That has led to the suggestion that Titan must have a hydrocarbon ocean for the methane to have lasted for the conventional age of the solar system. However, radar, infrared and radio observations of Titan have not found signs of a hydrocarbon ocean. In fact one radar return was "of a type that we would expect to get back from Venus." Titan is most likely a baby brother of Venus!"'



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by XPLodER
 


If gravity is a side effect of an electric field, why can't we create gravitational fields in a lab while we can create electric fields in a lab?


Because it is so difficult to seperate charges in atmosphere.. it's like trying to use electricity under water. If our society developed in an environment with no atmosphere I think discovering antigravity would have been a no-brainer.

This is also why tornadoes show signs of gravity modification. Check out Dr. Judy Woods site about 9-11 she shows how houses will float in tornadoes yet not be pulled apart by the wind.. this doesn;'t add up. She shows that tornadoes produce effects like the Hutchinson effect where different objects are fused together.. like wooden boards implanted in palm trees etc.

Vortexs are great ways of seperating charges. Also seen in the Stan Deyo video I posted earlier here.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
WOW! I spent some time reading the last two pages and I not only love the topic (thank you Op) but I also am or I guess I should say have been enjoying the debate/conversation. I don't have time to add anything as of yet. I have some laundry to do and dinner to make ...but I will be back and hopefully there is more info to read.

S&F Op for creating such a topic.
Very interesting indeed and it I like how it makes my mind boggle, yet I get so excitedly anxious I grin from ear to ear...love the ENERGY I get from it (pun intended).



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
You just blew my mind!


Ill be following this thread and news very closely. Im not sure i understand it completely but will continue to read and learn. Thanks for bringing this to our attention!



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
this makes a lot of sense according to what i've been reading in The Source Field Investigations...

wilcock posits that there exists a "source field" (what has been called the ether) which is the prerequisite for all physical and meta-physical existence. he also posits that the Source Field is a "liquid-like" substance which acts like a fluid. This fluid-like source field pours into the Earth and all matter to create the "force" of gravity. ( Gravity well starting to ring a bell? )

he hypothesizes that the flow of the Source Field into the Earth is what creates the "push" of gravity. he also goes on to say that that same "flow" of the source field is also the "flow" of time.

this would make sense with the theories of a AC/DC electrical charge transfer talked about in the OP. This source field energy is pouring into the Earth in another dimension outside our physical dimensions,,,and the way it manifests it's presence in the physical world is through gravity, and the flow of time.

VonDoomen and others are playing with the idea, but not saying it: that Planets act as nodes in a solar-system-wide circuit-board. the plasma energy differentials in the upper atmosphere equate to Voltage.

in cases of planetary transits and other astronomical phenomenon, there are times when planets (and the sun) can have plasma discharges which are literal energy transfers betwixt celestial bodies. there are a few cases where this has been observed, this paper talks about it with cool additional ideas added in. Char acteristics for the occurance of high Current Z-pinch Auroras as recorded in Antiquity is also a VERY fascinating paper about this subject.

this idea would further be extended if you think of the ORBITS of the planets as separate circuits...

and when the orbiting nodes (planets) of these different circuits (orbits) happen to have their cycles meet-up for a planetary transit/conjunction, there is a potential for an energy discharge between planets.

the study of these planetary transits and energy transfers has been studied in detail by the Mayans. the Mayan calendar is based on the transit cycles of Venus and Earth. these planetary transits occur in geometrical patterns, which are played out over the entire solar system. The Source Field Investigations also goes into this idea in detail.

for an idea of what i'm talking about, The Little Book of Coincidence, by John Martineau, and this website will start to paint a picture for you.

sacred geometries are played out in solar-system-wide sacred space. The book "Quadrivium" will explain the divine relationships of Number, Geometry, Music & Cosmology as Pythagoras himself would have it.

the solar system is a 3 dimensional (and most likely higher) vibrational "machine". each planet rings it's own orbital tone, and with the entire symphony of the solar system in unison, they all resonate to a "Music of the Spheres".


edit on 1/25/12 by metalshredmetal because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/25/12 by metalshredmetal because: links

edit on 1/25/12 by metalshredmetal because: f'ing links

edit on 1/25/12 by metalshredmetal because: ATS hates Quadrivium links ! arg



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by 8311-XHT
 


I think that you forget that the H field creates a negative flux in the atmosphere. That pretty much explains it.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join