Why electricity flows

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
Right from the beginning I would have to take on a "general purpose" audience.

I think you are mixing "general purpose" with "those who have forsaken critical thinking and thinking in general". You see,

Spiral arms (the grooves) tend to resemble... You might have guessed it - tentacles.

...what? I've observed octopi and while they curl their tentacles once in a while, they don't wrap them around their bodies in spiral pattern (like what you observe in some galaxies).

Magnetic currents denote movement/ spin.

Movement and spin are different entities, and you didn't even bother to explain what the "magnetic current" is. But thanks for an object lesson on what graphomania may look like.

Magnetic currents correspond to directional flow (more commonly referred to as - dark flow). Apparently you haven't visited Six Flags or perused the dictionary based on your stated observation.

Spin is Universal movement... Unfortunately, you haven't the slightest clue yet. In any event, perhaps you should take your "spaghetti monster" for a ride. At least you'll meet the height requirement.

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Bedlam
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Inertia. It was spinning to begin with, and there's no reason for it to slow down - much. Some rotational energy is lost to tidal forces with the Sun and moon.

why was it spinning to begin with?

The short answer: conservation of angular momentum - the original dust/hydrogen cloud was rotating. The spin is conserved.

The long answer: this is a fairly good link

thanks for that.....

so the sun is revolving around the galactic center ( blackhole)... and lets imagine the galaxy as a flatish horizontal.... thing....with the sun revolving around the center...

do the planets ( more specifically to think about.,, earth ) revolve horizontally around the sun? as in passing in front of the suns future path and then swinging around? or do they orbit some other directional and angular way? like vertically wobbly around?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Good question. I'm not sure we will have a full answer to that until we have a quantum theory of gravity, which we are still working on but don't have yet. It's a theoretical gap.

Perhaps the Keshe Foundation has answers.

Here are screenshots from a YouTube video of an interview of Mehran Tavakoli Keshe:

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Good question. I'm not sure we will have a full answer to that until we have a quantum theory of gravity, which we are still working on but don't have yet. It's a theoretical gap.

Perhaps the Keshe Foundation has answers.

Keshe has ideas that don't square with plethora of experimental observations. Which in a sane person's mind means they are quite false. Perhaps there are some unhealthy persons who don't care about those pesky things called "facts" and like the New Age woo-woo stuff so much that they think that perhaps Keshe has some sort of answers. Perhaps they also think that it's fine to post so far off-topic.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Bedlam
The short answer: conservation of angular momentum - the original dust/hydrogen cloud was rotating. The spin is conserved.

The long answer: this is a fairly good link

thanks for that.....

do the planets ( more specifically to think about.,, earth ) revolve horizontally around the sun? as in passing in front of the suns future path and then swinging around? or do they orbit some other directional and angular way? like vertically wobbly around?

I answered that question about the path the Earth takes here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

@Bedlam both that short and long answer are at best incomplete, as neither explains the rotation of Earth, Venus, and Uranus with axial tilts inconsistent with that explanation:

en.wikipedia.org...


I think my explanation is better, or if you don't want to take me as a source, here's an external link which mentions the hypothetical impact which could explain the axial tilt, and numerous other observations:

Earth's rotation

The Earth formed as part of the birth of the Solar System: what eventually became the solar system initially existed as a large, rotating cloud of dust, rocks, and gas. It was composed of hydrogen and helium produced in the Big Bang, as well as heavier elements ejected by supernovas. As this interstellar dust is inhomogeneous, any asymmetry during gravitational accretion results in the angular momentum of the eventual planet.[22] The current rotation period of the Earth is the result of this initial rotation and other factors, including tidal friction and the hypothetical impact of Theia.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


That's interesting - however - too tired and intoxicated to reply cogently. I'll have to read that tomorrow when I'm more awake. Too little sleep makes Tom a dull boy.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
These ideas come from the e-book The Quantum Key by Aaron C. Murakami, published in 2009 by White Dragon Press.

A screenshot of page 75 of the e-book, from Chapter 5 "Gravity," illustrating the effect caused when mass displaces the Aether, and the Aether bounces back:

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Good question. I'm not sure we will have a full answer to that until we have a quantum theory of gravity, which we are still working on but don't have yet. It's a theoretical gap.

Perhaps the Keshe Foundation has answers.

Keshe has ideas that don't square with plethora of experimental observations.

And that is pretty much this forum in a nutshell. Lots of people come up with ideas that they think are neat and dub ithem "the new theory of XYZ" but bend/ignore/completely disregard empirical evidence so their neat idea is at odds with observation and only adding more problems and assumptions than the scientific theory they're trying to usurp. This is putting the cart as science isn't about plucking ideas out of thin air because you think they're neat, it's about drawing conclusions from the data. As Feynman said (and I'm paraphrasing here), "It doesnt matter how neat your idea is, if it doesn't match up with reality, it's wrong. It doesn't matter how smart you are or how elegant and intuitive your idea is, it's wrong".

Originally posted by Mary Rose
These ideas come from the e-book The Quantum Key by Aaron C. Murakami, published in 2009 by White Dragon Press.

From page 33, Chapter 1 "Aether":

The Aether is free of mass and is the source of all electrical charge. It is the precursor of any force. Force is an effect of Aether interacting with mass.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
These ideas come from the e-book The Quantum Key by Aaron C. Murakami, published in 2009 by White Dragon Press.

From page 37, Chapter 1 "Aether":

Ponder this: The Aether is a gas made of something smaller than the smallest subatomic particles. It moves and flows like a gas under pressure and is all-pervasive.

reply to post by Mary Rose


I'm not sure how spamming pages from your favourite book is adding to the discussion.

reply to post by john_bmth


Your reply indicates the weakness of your understanding.

reply to post by john_bmth


Referring to "spam" and "favorite book" is stating absolutely nothing.

You could start the ball rolling by stating a coherent and logically consistent argument supported by emperical evidence rather than posting stream of consciousness gibberish or whatever momentary flight of fancy that pops into your head every other post.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Your reply indicates the weakness of your understanding.

I find it interesting that a poster who just joined the discussion characterized your style as "spam". I've been on ATS for a while and I've had the same impression for years.

Any thread on any topic, whether mildly scientific or openly occult, becomes a cesspool of EVERY FREAKING SORT of pseudoscience, given a little bit of time. And I mean EVERY.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Arb, I also saw it as incomplete but at least it's a good first approximation. In real world, there is oftentimes no shortcut for quick and satisfying answers. The woo-woos, of course, won't take any of that.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
These ideas come from the e-book The Quantum Key by Aaron C. Murakami, published in 2009 by White Dragon Press.

A screenshot of page 75 of the e-book, from Chapter 5 "Gravity," illustrating the effect caused when mass displaces the Aether, and the Aether bounces back:

this is actually similar to what i imagined may be the case... when thinking of what einstein ment by space-time being "something" or a fabric.... and also when he thought it could be distorted.....

if the "vacuum" is a fabric of quantum energy.. then i could imagine that energy reacting to a mass displacing it in the manner suggested...
this vacuum squeezing mass effect may have an effect from the middle of the mass,, to the surface of the mass, and beyond into space such as seen by gravity,,, with a force that wares of the further you are from the mass by the inverse square...

Originally posted by ImaFungi
this is actually similar to what i imagined may be the case... when thinking of what einstein ment by space-time being "something" or a fabric.... and also when he thought it could be distorted.....

Listen,

you are looking at a design which has a bunch of arrows point inward. That's extremely basic. It really beats me how you can deduce any sort of "fabric" or anything like that, from a few arrows pointing to the center. Could be an electric field. Could be roaches running towards the bait.

if the "vacuum" is a fabric of quantum energy.. then i could imagine that energy reacting to a mass displacing it in the manner suggested...
this vacuum squeezing mass effect may have an effect from the middle of the mass,, to the surface of the mass, and beyond into space such as seen by gravity,,, with a force that wares of the further you are from the mass by the inverse square...

Dude, stop the word soup already.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Reprint from Ed Leedskalnin Advertisement - The Miami Daily News 1945":

Before my research work I knew nothing about electricity. The only thing I knew was that nobody knows what electricity is. So I thought I am going to find out why they do not know. I thought that if electricity could be made and managed for over a hundred years, then the makers do not know what it is, there is something wrong about it. I found out that the researchers were misled by wrong instruction books, and by one-sided instruments. Voltmeters and ampere meters are one-sided. They only show what is called by instruction books, positive electricity, but never show negative electricity.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Reprint from Ed Leedskalnin Advertisement - The Miami Daily News 1945":

Before my research work I knew nothing about electricity. The only thing I knew was that nobody knows what electricity is. So I thought I am going to find out why they do not know. I thought that if electricity could be made and managed for over a hundred years, then the makers do not know what it is, there is something wrong about it. I found out that the researchers were misled by wrong instruction books, and by one-sided instruments. Voltmeters and ampere meters are one-sided. They only show what is called by instruction books, positive electricity, but never show negative electricity.

After his research, he still knew nothing about electricity. He did, however, have a lock on delusional.