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: 13
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Mary Rose
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?



Heven't read it to form an opinion.
I only scrolled down and read the headlines.
Came across it when searching on google for relation between anti gravity
and earthquakes/and or Weather modification
edit on 8-10-2013 by Angelic Resurrection because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


I learned about their work by listening to an interview of Eugene Mallove, who spoke in the interview about the work of Wilhelm Reich, a person who is a good example of the suppression that the mainstream has exerted on scientific dissidents.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Well, that's probably because Reich was all about "orgone" which has all the reality of "n-rays".



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


In the land of the free, when you have an official book-burning take place, that should tell you that the people calling the shots have something revolutionary they're trying to hide from the masses.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

Not revolutionary, fraudulent:

inventors.about.com...

In 1954, the FDA issued a complaint for an injunction against Reich, charging that he had violated the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by delivering misbranded and adulterated devices in interstate commerce and by making false and misleading claims. The FDA called the accumulators a sham and orgone-energy nonexistent. A judge issued an injunction that ordered all accumulators rented or owned by Reich and those working with him destroyed and all labeling referring to orgone-energy destroyed. Reich did not appear in person at the court proceedings, defending himself by letter.
The books were considered as having labeling referring to the fraudulent orgone-energy claims.

If he had put a disclaimer in his book and device along the lines of:

"This device is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease - nor is it intended to replace the advice of a physician. It is for novelty purposes only"

Then he might have been able to sell the books and rent the novelty devices.

But he made false claims and even in the "land of the free" you aren't allowed to make false claims which is why you also don't see bottles of snake oil on the pharmacy shelf claiming they cure everything, though I would add it seems a lot like the "land of the free" since 9/11 and the patriot act, NSA domestic spying and all that.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by Bedlam
 


In the land of the free, when you have an official book-burning take place, that should tell you that the people calling the shots have something revolutionary they're trying to hide from the masses.


Too bad he was never able to pony up any proof. Even N-rays got more traction than orgone.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Why are particles considered point particles, dimensionless objects? That is impossible for a dimensionless object or 1 dimensional object to exist in 3d space, its paradoxical and illogical and incorrect thing to think, so why is that idea so prevalent?



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   

ImaFungi
Why are particles considered point particles, dimensionless objects? That is impossible for a dimensionless object or 1 dimensional object to exist in 3d space, its paradoxical and illogical and incorrect thing to think, so why is that idea so prevalent?


Science doesnt believe particles are 1 dimensional. What it is by making a point particle makes the math easier. Since when you observe the particle from a distance it will look like all its mass is centered in one point. Even a hydogen atom takes up space its volume is ~10-30 m3. But for equations this distance is so small you can say its propeties come from one point in space.So its simply easier then throwing the Heisenberg uncertainty principle into every equation only to discover the distance is so small that it wasnt needed.



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   

ImaFungi
Why are particles considered point particles, dimensionless objects? That is impossible for a dimensionless object or 1 dimensional object to exist in 3d space, its paradoxical and illogical and incorrect thing to think, so why is that idea so prevalent?


I wish I knew.. It makes no sense whatsoever for something to be a point particle with 0 size.. Lol it's the same as a singularity.. These are blatant signs of errors in the mathematics and theory. Like you it amazes me that these things are accepted and just overlooked. Defies logic.



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   

DigitalResonance

ImaFungi
Why are particles considered point particles, dimensionless objects? That is impossible for a dimensionless object or 1 dimensional object to exist in 3d space, its paradoxical and illogical and incorrect thing to think, so why is that idea so prevalent?


I wish I knew.. It makes no sense whatsoever for something to be a point particle with 0 size.. Lol it's the same as a singularity.. These are blatant signs of errors in the mathematics and theory. Like you it amazes me that these things are accepted and just overlooked. Defies logic.


Science agrees with you even the big bang is longer thought to have been caused by a singularity. When Hawkins did his equations he came to the conclusion and i quote "there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe". In quantum gravity even black holes no longer have singularities And this opens up a really cool result.We remove the singularity in a black hole and we have a tunnel to another universe or a different part of our universe. Although thats one trip your not going to make in one piece.



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Could that short cut of math have skewed other results? have created problems down the road, or it was always considered?

Also how does the accepted theory of gravity work? Locally for a mass in space, the space/gravity field is more energetically dense then it is far away from mass on average because the mass displaces the energy field and bunches it up locally. How does this activity of more dense energy cause a body to be attracted to another body, and continue to orbit it?

If the earth was not moving at all (not harshly halted, but just we start the thought experiment with the earth in space, not moving) and we placed the not moving either moon at its distance from earth, would they stay at their distances or would the moon fall towards earth and crash?

And so now im wondering, if the energy density drops off accordingly to the inverse square law, and the earth starts to move up until its current speeds now. So looking at the earth and its gravity area moving through space, when the moon is trailing the earth, since there is less energy density behind it, why is it not compelled to go that way? Ah, is it because even though there is more dense energy per area, the area of energy beyond it, being less dense, still calculates out to being more energy?
edit on 9-10-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   

ImaFungi


If the earth was not moving at all (not harshly halted, but just we start the thought experiment with the earth in space, not moving) and we placed the not moving either moon at its distance from earth, would they stay at their distances or would the moon fall towards earth and crash?


They would crash, Einsteinan relativity matches Newtonian gravity for the most part. GR does not explain or eliminate momentum and inertia. It says that momentum and inertia and the equations of motion must be computed in a curved metric.
edit on 9-10-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Could that short cut of math have skewed other results? have created problems down the road, or it was always considered?

Also how does the accepted theory of gravity work? Locally for a mass in space, the space/gravity field is more energetically dense then it is far away from mass on average because the mass displaces the energy field and bunches it up locally. How does this activity of more dense energy cause a body to be attracted to another body, and continue to orbit it?

If the earth was not moving at all (not harshly halted, but just we start the thought experiment with the earth in space, not moving) and we placed the not moving either moon at its distance from earth, would they stay at their distances or would the moon fall towards earth and crash?

And so now im wondering, if the energy density drops off accordingly to the inverse square law, and the earth starts to move up until its current speeds now. So looking at the earth and its gravity area moving through space, when the moon is trailing the earth, since there is less energy density behind it, why is it not compelled to go that way? Ah, is it because even though there is more dense energy per area, the area of energy beyond it, being less dense, still calculates out to being more energy?
edit on 9-10-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


Well to answer your question no its not going to skew results in math equations the only time it would is in the case of cern when trying to slam two particles together then it becomes an issue. As far as your example of earth lets look at the moon for a minute. First where you aware the moon is getting further from earth by about a 4 centimeter per year? So lets look into why this happens and i think it will answer your question.So obviously to stop the moon from finding its lowest energy state which would be the center of the earth there has to be energy to prevent it. The energy from the moon has to be higher then the potential energy of slamming in to the earth. So then how can the moon move away from earth well it steals energy from the earth.

So first lets talk about tidal forces the side of the Earth that faces the Moon is closer, it feels a stronger pull of gravity than the center of the Earth. Similarly, the part of the Earth facing away from the Moon feels less gravity than the center of the Earth. This effect stretches the Earth a bit, making it a little bit oblong or oval shaped. The actual solid body of the Earth is distorted a few centimeters, but the most noticeable effect is the tides raised on the ocean.This means to the moon the center of gravity of the earth changes.Also same reason the earth has a wobble through space. This also works on solar scales the planets cause the sun to wobble its way through the galaxy as its center of gravity changes by i digress. Back to the moon The earth actually spins faster then the moon this creates tidal friction stealing energy from the earth into the moon increasing its orbit. But ironically slowing its velocity,think of a sling whipping a rock around add energy and velocity would increase but if i lengthen the rope velocity can stay the same just the space it travels through increases. In essence thats orbits The amount of energy decides the orbit it can maintain.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Ok what about the gravity energy field causes them to fall? The earth displaces the gravity field which causes it to bunch/scrunch up locally, packing more energy into smaller area...higher density. What does that have to do with compelling mass to go towards higher density, instead of lower density which would be away from the mass?

Also by the time we get to the gravitational relationship between the earth and moon, its the moons distortion of the gravity field inside the earths distortion of the gravity field inside the suns distortion of the gravity field (inside the local solar systems distortion of the gravity field?) inside the galaxies distortion of the gravity field. So we really have no clue what the true average or equilibrium, non interfered with nature of the gravity field is, but perhaps in equations thats why outer galactic space is said to have its characteristics such as dark energy.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


What you said was interesting and helpful, but also im interesting in the more fundamental perception of the physical principles and mechanisms involved with gravity. So I would ask how does the speed of the earths rotation affect the moon at a distance, what are the gravity fields doing when the earth is spinning how is that energy transferred, what do they look like if we could see them? If I understand correctly, are you insinuating some relevance to the rotation or angular momentum of gravity fields as a whole?



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

That's explained here:
Tidal acceleration
There are even illustrations to help you visualize it.

It sounds like you may be mixing that up with Frame-Dragging which isn't related, so you may want to read that article too.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr
 


What you said was interesting and helpful, but also im interesting in the more fundamental perception of the physical principles and mechanisms involved with gravity. So I would ask how does the speed of the earths rotation affect the moon at a distance, what are the gravity fields doing when the earth is spinning how is that energy transferred, what do they look like if we could see them? If I understand correctly, are you insinuating some relevance to the rotation or angular momentum of gravity fields as a whole?


Well not in this case but Einstein did link acceleration and gravity to him they are one in the same.Lets see if i can explain this he didnt see gravity as a force at all. Now through the principle of equivalence which says no experiment can distinguish between acceleration caused by gravity vs acceleration caused by change in velocity.This is the reason you take a plane in to the sky cut the engines you feel weightless. Or another example is an astronaut blasting in to space feels much more gravity then 1 G . So since these effects are observed and he didnt believe it was a force that means we have to find a way for mass to effect velocity.


Now your wanting something we really dont know as far as gravity we see its effects.And of course we have models to show its effects but we haven't figured out how gravity is created. We have some theories such as gravitons then there is others which talk of other dimensions. We understand mass effects gravity we can model it accurately and do so its needed just to put a satellite in orbit but what causes it is the mystery. We could discuss theories but so far they have no proof of any of them.I myself believe gravity to be a fluctuation of a field but as i pointed out Einstein wouldn't agree with me.
edit on 10/10/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yes I think frame dragging is one of the things I was wondering about, wheather the energy field of gravity rotates as a whole around/with the masses rotation compared to non rotative gravity field equilibrium away from all mass. To me that may be the main reason for orbit, if the gravity field acts like a river/treadmill which carries objects in its direction of travel. Because if that is not that cause, I do not know why bodies dont (like the dark matter, why dont stars fling off into space, conundrum)sufficiently fall out of orbit because away from mass is less dense energy field. Using the 2d gravity well does not work and is not how reality is, you cant have a 3-d well (sphere) with multiple bodies orbiting the center at different distances, because the bodies inward are not touching anything. Which is why there is the idea of it being a matter of energy density. But thats why I ask, how this energy density situation causes bodies to fall towards mass and not away.

Also that wiki article does not get into what I was asking for, ^ is more what I was asking for, the underlying physical mechanisms of gravity, and therefore what occurs with the gravity field, how does the transfer of energy take place from one body to another cross a vast distance without touching.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


What do you mean by gravity potentially being a fluctuation of a field? The moon stays near earth, and orbits around it, because... fluctuation of a field, can you expand on that?



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 07:03 PM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr
 


What do you mean by gravity potentially being a fluctuation of a field? The moon stays near earth, and orbits around it, because... fluctuation of a field, can you expand on that?


We all ready discussed this earlier in physics gravity is an interaction with a field. Here since apparently i didnt describe this very well ill let wiki try to explain.

en.wikipedia.org...

Now this is my leading idea but not the only one in contention. The other being what if gravity isnt an attractive force at all.And works identical to mass in space time then its pressure instead of attraction. This could even explain the galaxies as you stated without addition of extra mass. But this requires space itself to push in all directions as the virtual particles pop in and out of existence. In 1927, Von Laue, devised that the spacetime curvature might be convex, not concave. The Physics Community did not followed him but recent experimentation's show that Von Laue might be right. This leads to identical results because

Concave curvature = Attractive force
Convex curvature = Pressure force

To us they will look exactly the same both result in forcing mass together. This would work much like vibrating a bowl of water and placing two pieces of foam. The pressure between them would be less then the pressure exerted externally forcing the two together. This also would explain the tides a lot better because right now there is a slight problem with the math involved. Let me see if i can get you to visualize something the earth and moon both have a gravitational field when you combine the two it moves the center of gravity closer to the moon. This creates that bulge we talked about in the earth problem is why doesnt gravity decrease on the other side of the earth? It gets moved further from the center of gravity and should be different but scans prove it isnt. Gravity maps of the earth show this not to be the case so something else is going on.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join