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.

 

Exposing the Myths of Settled Science

page: 12
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I think a good assumption is that the galaxies formed from clouds of gas, and that those clouds of gas had momentum. The supermassive black hole at the centre could have naturally formed from being the focal point of the gas cloud and formed a enormous star that was short lived and had an un-natural life as far as stars are concerned probably being pushed over degeneracy limits before it can form a stable equilibrium from fusion. The object naturally retains the momentum both linear and angular from its constituent parts and becomes the gravitational binding for the system, at least the bulge of a galaxy. Now as you go from the bulge outwards the gravitational field is weaker and weaker.

Think of the sun and earth. The Earth is quite close to the sun, it moves at 30km/s around it. We feel the sun and the planets, but the most dominant, is the sun. Now going to the milkyway and the sun, it moves at 220 km/s around the galactic milky way. Much of the graviational field is a defuse mix of the stars inside the Suns orbit, the SMBH at the center and the dark matter halo. Looking at just the SMBH at the centre it is not enough to give the orbital velocity that we observe (when applied to other galaxies too)

The other thing about Dark energy and the cosmological constant of expansion is that everyone incorrectly applies it to single galaxies. The space between galaxies is still not enough for the cosmological constant to have a big effect. It is the distances between clusters of galaxies where the large repulsion is observed. so these are say distances between super clusters... ENORMOUS distances, which make inter galactic distances look like the Earth and Sun by comparison.

So the interaction of said repulsive field would again manifest itself at the edges of clusters and be concentrated around those regions by what you propose... and that is not apparently what we see. We see the effect form huge halos and diffuse lenses around galaxies that do spread to envelop sometimes other galaxies when located in clusters.




posted on Oct, 7 2013 @ 05:37 AM
link   
This is an interesting and information-packed webpage: "The Aether Experiments and the Impact on Cosmology" by Conrad Ranzan (2007):


"In 1887 two American physicists, Michelson and Morley, performed what has turned out to be one of the most historic but misunderstood experiments in physics." (i)

Abstract

If a forensic investigation were to be performed to find the root cause of the disastrous failure of 20th century cosmology (and some aspects of astrophysics), it would lead to a famous experiment in 1887 and its subsequent misinterpretation. An enquiry into history reveals the discounting of an experiment's data, a disregard of its cautionary conclusion and the adoption by the scientific community of an unjustified interpretation ---the denial of the existence of aether and absolute motion-- with regrettable consequences. The discovery of the causal mechanism of gravity was delayed by well over one hundred years as theorists devoted themselves to the modeling of mathematical space. Without the existence of an aether-space fluid, the Science of Cosmology henceforth dedicated itself to the creation of hypothetical mathematical universes. Maybe the most appalling consequence is the failure to recognize the Universe's self-organizing preferential structure. The Universe, consisting, as it does, of aether-space that is regionally dynamic on the large scale, is a cellular universe. Those are three profound consequences. Meanwhile, the aether has been re-discovered at least six times during the 20th century. And it is only relatively recently that this knowledge has been incorporated into a restructuring of fundamental physics. The emergence of a modern aether theory has led Professor Reginald T. Cahill to the causal mechanism of gravity and the author to the intrinsic cellular structure of the Universe.



posted on Oct, 7 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   
From "An Open Letter to the Scientific Community" published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004:


Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.



posted on Oct, 7 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   
A study to prove a proposition where the proponents are strong believers in their own ideas... where have i see this before?

Point is, anyone who has these viewpoints that there is some big overbearing conspiracy to silence science into one way of thinking have never actually done any real science in their life. And it is also spoken as someone who seems to think that the only place in the world were science takes place is the USA... you know, every country in the world has a science budget? hate the break it to you but the idea of the sources of money coming from only a couple-three sources is so patently wrong that it makes that abstract incorrect.

Also it has been criticized many times that scientists shouldn't gun to prove something because they are paid to do so, so why is it suddenly correct that people who are so settled and obsessed with the aether are suddenly more correct because they have an unbreakable faith in there idea, and went out to find anything they could to say that everyone else is wrong.

Anyway they should have read more papers over the Years because the Aether as they proposed back then is not at all supported by science, modern or otherwise. It does not fit the observables one bit.



posted on Oct, 7 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   

ErosA433
A study to prove a proposition where the proponents are strong believers in their own ideas... where have i see this before?


Perhaps in what you do for a living?



posted on Oct, 7 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Mary Rose

ErosA433
A study to prove a proposition where the proponents are strong believers in their own ideas... where have i see this before?


Perhaps in what you do for a living?



In Perhaps everything... the opposition to 'mainstream' is in my opinion much more connected to never change their opinion that "science is wrong" "omg dark shadowy men run science" "any scientist who makes a important discovery is murdered" "x theory is suppressed because it is right and everyone else is wrong" so they constantly try to prove mainstream science wrong, from the automatic stand point that it is wrong, rather than trying to prove themselves correct.



posted on Oct, 7 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Gravity is the weakest natural force in the universe. Just because it is misunderstood and its origins are unknown, does not make it the top of the proverbial food chain in cosmic forces. We simply can't comprehend it right now, that is all.



posted on Oct, 7 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Mary Rose
From "An Open Letter to the Scientific Community" published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004:


Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.


This shows a severe lack of science to even make this statement. Science can be funded through colleges and universities then there is companies and government grants. Even private individuals will fund scientific experiments. If you have an idea somebody will fund it proof of point is aether experiments they get there funding from christian organizations. To even say committees control science is a joke. If you wanted to run experiments out of your home thats fine the key issue is submitting a paper for peer review. The reason for this is anything done should be able to be reproduced and the ability to test the hypothesis. This is the key to science you can make all the wild claims you like but someone else needs to be able to do it as well.



posted on Oct, 7 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Mary Rose

ErosA433
A study to prove a proposition where the proponents are strong believers in their own ideas... where have i see this before?


Perhaps in what you do for a living?


I do actually agree with this sometimes scientists get invested on proving an idea even if evidence starts to contradict.However there is a caveat to this in that eventually the evidence becomes over whelming and even people with investment eventually realizes there wrong.Just some people are more stubborn then others but this is human nature and not restricted only to science.



posted on Oct, 7 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Fapomet
Just because it is misunderstood and its origins are unknown, does not make it the top of the proverbial food chain in cosmic forces.


You don't agree that it is assumed to be the driving force in the universe - as "gravitational pull" which formed the planets?



posted on Oct, 7 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Yeah I do. I agree that a lot of things are "assumed". Wtf difference does that make?



posted on Oct, 7 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Fapomet
 


No need to use "wtf" language.

I was trying to clarify your point.

What was your point? Gravity is considered to be the driving force in the universe because we don't know any better?



posted on Oct, 7 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by Fapomet
 


No need to use "wtf" language.

I was trying to clarify your point.

What was your point? Gravity is considered to be the driving force in the universe because we don't know any better?


Uh yeah. It is considered such because we don't know anything else, yes. You got it. What does he win?!

That doesn't mean we are correct in our consideration. It's more than likely that there are more unknowns than knowns about the nature of the universe and that's why we can't explain it simply with gravity, hell we can't even explain gravity, much less use it to explain other things.



posted on Oct, 7 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Mary Rose

Fapomet
Just because it is misunderstood and its origins are unknown, does not make it the top of the proverbial food chain in cosmic forces.


You don't agree that it is assumed to be the driving force in the universe - as "gravitational pull" which formed the planets?


The two most fundamental driving forces in the universe are energy and entropy (disorder).See not everyone will give you the same answer and all equally as valid.



posted on Oct, 7 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Mary, In simplistic terms picture gravity as follows.
Consider the earth as a lemon. Now take a lemon squeezer and apply pressure
on the lemon to squeeze it.
Now this lemon squeezer is nothing but time coupled dark matter which acts perpendicularly from the 4th dimension of Time.

Hope this analogy helps



posted on Oct, 7 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


Mary, I found an interesting link for you
www.aetherometry.com...


edit on 7-10-2013 by Angelic Resurrection because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


Can you describe how mass increasing local energy density of 'gravity field' forces a mass to stay in orbit? Tell me if I am wrong in thinking of how the mainstream idea of gravity works.

Lets say space without mass around on average has (arbitrary value) 1000 energies/potential gravitons per 1 square Area. When a Mass exists in space, with say an area of 10 square areas, the energy that is contained in the area that mass now exists in, is displaced, and 'bunched up', the density of the local energy field is increased. How does this change, cause a body to stay in that more dense area?



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 01:18 AM
link   

ErosA433


the Aether as they proposed back then is not at all supported by science, modern or otherwise. It does not fit the observables one bit.


What is the Aether they proposed back then(surely there was more then one Aether theory, but which are you referring to with this comment)?



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Angelic Resurrection
Mary, In simplistic terms picture gravity as follows.
Consider the earth as a lemon. Now take a lemon squeezer and apply pressure
on the lemon to squeeze it.


Excellent.

You are describing the mass of the earth absorbing the aether to sustain itself.

If the mainstream would admit its mistake and bring back the aether, which is the foundation of the universe in my opinion, physics would get back on track and good things would come of it.

I'm not really a proponent of the electric universe. I think the aether is more fundamental.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


Yes, I'm familiar with their work, and their ideas are the ones I'm trying to get across.

What do you think of it?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join