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.
Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Do you believe it's true the theory originated with a Catholic priest?
ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Ok so every point in space is full of micro fluctuating fields, virtual particles. What is the theory as to why this occurs? Simply because it is not within the design or function or nature of the fields to exist at equilibrium, is it really thought that there is no causal cause of virtual particles popping in an out of existence like I feel I have heard? Because that is my biggest problem with discussions about the idea of the quantum jitter and foam and fluctuation talk, is that I have heard people saying that it is random and there is no cause and this is a justification for energy coming from nothing and nowhere, because if this random non causal energy can just appear, then hey, why not the universe.
That theory has been proven wrong Mary.
Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Do you believe it's true the theory originated with a Catholic priest?
So they have a confidence level of 23 sigma that it's not Doppler shift...5 sigma or more normally constitutes scientific "proof".
We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light. We explain why this does not violate special relativity and we link these concepts to observational tests. Attempts to restrict recession velocities to less than the speed of light require a special relativistic interpretation of cosmological redshifts. We analyze apparent magnitudes of supernovae and observationally rule out the special relativistic Doppler interpretation of cosmological redshifts at a confidence level of 23 sigma
The question you need to ask is:
ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Ok so every point in space is full of micro fluctuating fields, virtual particles. What is the theory as to why this occurs?
That's one way to think of it.
dragonridr
Look think of space as an area trying to find its lowest energy state it has potential energy stored and a particle or photon traveling through it causes interactions with this stored energy.
Instead of positing that gravity is an inherent quality of matter, it makes far more sense to stick with what we DO know to be true. First of all 99.999% of all observable matter in the universe exists in the plasma state. Secondly, even though Albert Michelson and Edward Morley concluded that there is no aether to fill in the voids composing the space between matter in the universe, Dayton Miller carried out far more rigorous experimentation which mirrored that of Michelson-Morley and concluded there was indeed a residual which appears to 'drag' along with matter meandering its way through the universe. Add to this that all matter is in some way inherently electrical in nature and you have some very solid building blocks with which to begin construction of a new understanding of the nature of gravity. Even light as we know it is an electrical phenomenon that makes its way through the structure of 'empty' space ... so why not gravity?!
After all, there is a reason that for all the technological and scientific advances that have been made over the past several centuries, we haven't seemed to budge even an inch in our understanding of gravity. Perhaps this could go a long way to help us question our underlying assumptions about the very nature of the force we call gravity. I for one would welcome a more reasonable explanation which incorporates the inherent electrical nature of matter in our plasma universe. Along with the new reasoning behind an electric-gravity model, we can also throw into the mix the then plausible corollary that the inner construction of the earth does not necessarily result in a goopy mess of molten magma. This would also give us more understanding of the electric dynamo which powers the inner sun, the Earth's powerful and dynamic magnetic moment, and the plasma discharge at the north and south poles known respectively as the aurora borealis and australis.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "Hollow Earth Theory".
Mary Rose
And no, the hollow earth theory is not a "crackpot theory."
Mary Rose
Eric Dollard has done work with earthquake forecasting.
. . . The R.C.A. Research at the Landers Installation continued the scientific study of the Interaction of the Earth with solar and cosmic forces. Here is the starting point for the knowledge of the Earth’s Interior. The physical mass of the Earth is here found to be alive with mechanical and electrical impulses and oscillations. These are continuously active often reaching astonishing magnitudes. Leveled cities and incinerated substations serve testimony to these wave-forms, and these seem to come from nowhere.
The Landers Installation contained the highest sensitivity and fidelity seismic recording system in known existence. In proportion to the standard (U.S.G.S.) systems, the one at Landers was 120 decibels more sensitive. A mosquito is now a jet aircraft. Also advancements on the Alexanderson system produced a network serving as a “Radio Telescope” for reception of Telluric Currents in the Earth. This also was of high sensitivity and fidelity. Here the amplifier theories of Bell Telephone Labs, along with Navy requirements of reliability and electro-magnetic compatibility, this with Western Electric Construction Practices, led to a remarkable “Bell System Installation”. But it is gone! (See the American Marconi website for pictures of this installation before they vanish like the rest.)
Here then existed a complimentary pair of systems. One was the Seismic Recorder-Indicator receiving mechanical vibrations from within the Earth, the other was the Telluric Recorder-Indicator receiving electrical vibrations from within the Earth. The sensitivity was normally set in the range of one milli-micro watt on both systems. This is one million times smaller than a telephone signal.
Among the various findings at this installation we will focus upon a few basic relations. . . .
Mary Rose
reply to post by dragonridr
Mainstream science doesn't know what causes gravity and admits it.
Mary Rose
reply to post by dragonridr
Mainstream science doesn't know what causes gravity and admits it.
It sounds like you're talking about effect.
peter vlar
it's quite well understood how large celestial bodies interact with one another and has been since Einstein described it. It's been shown to be accurate in 1919, 1953 and 1973 as well as other tests and confirmations.
Mary Rose
A lecture followed by Q&A and an interview of Jan Lamprecht, author of the book Hollow Planets: Link
Gravity would not exist if there were not vortices massed together. The vortex and its vacuum-like center is the underlying reason for gravity.
Mary Rose
The thread "Lew Paxton Price's Challenge to Mainstream Physics" addresses the issue of what is gravity. Price is a proponent of a dynamic ether and sub-atomic entities that are either a vortex or a combination of vortices.
From Price's website, the page "WHAT IS GRAVITY?":
Gravity would not exist if there were not vortices massed together. The vortex and its vacuum-like center is the underlying reason for gravity.
edit on 10/29/13 by Mary Rose because: Clarify
That was probably the biggest insult to the ATS community I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of threads.
Mary Rose
The thread "Lew Paxton Price's Challenge to Mainstream Physics" addresses the issue of what is gravity. Price is a proponent of a dynamic ether and sub-atomic entities that are either a vortex or a combination of vortices.
A real physicist was willing to examine the challenge with you, and one who is pretty open minded from what I've seen. On the other hand Mary, you are not open minded at all, and display the very behavior of closed-mindedness you accuse mainstream scientists of having.
Mary Rose
reply to post by ErosA433
Actually, I'm not interested in engaging in a debate about mainstream vs. alternative science.
I'm only interested in analyzing alternative ideas with others who are interested in the same thing.
So, I have nothing to say to you. I'm not going to spend my time on the debate you want to have. Maybe others will be interested in spending their time that way.
dragonridr
Now what is this unfolding space well i guess at its most basic there spinor fields sort of... to truly move on you need to understand multi-oscillator systems, spin, identical particles, perturbation theory, and scattering.
Arbitrageur
How long does a particle need to exist before it's called a particle?
Do you know the answer?
Nobody does, because there is no clear definition. So, one way you can think of virtual particles is that they are particles that don't last long enough to be called particles, or measured as such, The longer a virtual particle lasts, the more and more it becomes like a "real particle", taking on more properties of real particles and is more likely to be measured as such. But there's no exact time of existence you can point to and say here's exactly where it's lasted long enough to be called a particle instead of a virtual particle.