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: 22
14
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Do you believe it's true the theory originated with a Catholic priest?


Depends on what you mean by 'originated'. Monseigneur Lameigtre was the one who first came up with the math to describe the red shift but it was Definitely based on earlier musings and expanded upon by Hubble. For example, Edgar Allen Poe wrote an essay in 1848 called 'Eureka: A Prose Poem' While obviously not a scientific work it was based on Erasmus Darwin's 1791 "poem" that described an expanding and contracting universe which was based on eauer work by Newton and Keppler. The concepts go back as far as Aristotle but it wasnt until general relativity that anyone attempted to apply
Math to this concept and this is where Monseigniour Lameigtre comes in to the story.




posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   

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.


Ok first virtual particles dont exactly pop in and out of existence think of waves with a high point and a low point. Any way energy can never just appear remember it cannot be created or destroyed which means it has to be already there in the form of potential energy.Now as far as quantum jitter this is a term used mostly in quantum computing they like this alot its really used to describe spin.So let go of this term it will confuse you. 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. As far as virtual particles this really occurs as the universe cools as this stored energy releases much like a rock rolling down a hill.All this potential energy was released through the unfolding of space.And is still occurring gravity can overcome expanding space in close distances such as a galaxy making it unnoticeable but on universal scales its effects can be seen.The greater the distance the more we see its effect.

Now ill try to explain a theory i like to explain how this could be possible first the big bang is so miss leading merely an expansion of the universe think of space unfolding the space was there just compressed. And what we are seeing is it returning to its natural state. Now lets expand this out even further eventually a universe expands to a point we call the observable universe. Now this definition has changed the observable universe now is considered the point where light can no longer reach us due to the expansion of the universe. Or in other words the universe is expanding so quickly that when you get far enough away from us light cannot reach us because space is being created or unfolding quicker then the photon can travel meaning it will never reach us. This creates sort of an event horizon much like a black hole just in reverse instead of pulling light in its pushing it away. So in effect our universe gets cut off from the rest of the universe as it continues to expand. This creates a bubble universe one of many in a multiverse.

Now what is this unfolding space well i guess at its most basic there spinor fields sort of but the problem becomes to discuss this you need alot of information you have to understand first.to truly move on you need to understand multi-oscillator systems, spin, identical particles, perturbation theory, and scattering. Now not to discourage you but these are not simple principles. So instead of trying that approach ive been using analogies but they are fraught with errors .So you now currently believe energy can just manifest in the form of virtual particles.This is the same argument that creationists like to use to say physics is wrong but couldnt be further from the truth.



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Do you believe it's true the theory originated with a Catholic priest?
That theory has been proven wrong Mary.

I don't disagree with what dragonrdr said, but let's be clear: He was a physicist, professor of physics and mathematician. The paper he wrote was a scientific paper, which if you can read untranslated here you will at least see it's got plenty of math and isn't a religious document but a paper with plenty of real physics and mathematics and lacking any religion:

articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

Now here's a point you didn't mention, his theory has been proven wrong. Look at this translation from his original paper:

adsabs.harvard.edu...


See the heading at the top about Doppler effect? That's how he explained the red shift, and we now know to an extremely high confidence level this theory is wrong at cosmological scales:

Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the universe


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
So they have a confidence level of 23 sigma that it's not Doppler shift...5 sigma or more normally constitutes scientific "proof".

So in addition to the fact that Lemaitre was a physicist first (in 1920) and had several PhD's and wrote a non-religious scientific paper, which we have since proven wrong with a confidence of 23 sigma, yes he also happened to be a priest three years after getting his PhD, and is credited with the idea of an expanding universe. But as dragonrdr said, that credit can be questioned, and as I just showed, his theory has been proven wrong, though the idea of an expanding universe is still around.


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?
The question you need to ask is:

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.


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.
That's one way to think of it.



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   
From "The Hollow Earth" blog, "Electric Gravity in a Plasma Universe":


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.


And no, the hollow earth theory is not a "crackpot theory."



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Oh yeah it is i strongly suggest you look into how geologists know about the earths core. And electric universe is slightly worse. See when science disproves a theory doesnt matter how hard you believe it because its still wrong.



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Mainstream science doesn't know what causes gravity and admits it.



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Mary Rose
And no, the hollow earth theory is not a "crackpot theory."
I guess it depends on what you mean by "Hollow Earth Theory".

If that means there are underground caves and such, that's not a theory, that's scientific fact.

If however you mean this:

Hollow Earth Theory
(I love that note about inner Earth needing to be redrawn by someone who has been there!
)

What makes you think it's not a crackpot theory? It's every bit as crackpot as flat Earth theory with so many scientific facts contradicting both.

I know someone said before that no science is ever settled, and in some respects that may be true since we can only prove a theory wrong and never prove a theory right. But, both those theories have been proven wrong, so that much is settled science.



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Eric Dollard has done work with earthquake forecasting. He talks about evidence of a hollow earth and central sun: Link



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Mary Rose
Eric Dollard has done work with earthquake forecasting.


Eric is "T-rex" on the Energetic Forum. There is a post by him entitled "Notes on a Hollow Earth":


. . . 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. . . .



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   
A lecture followed by Q&A and an interview of Jan Lamprecht, author of the book Hollow Planets: Link



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Mainstream science doesn't know what causes gravity and admits it.


that's a bit of a broad brush to paint the entire universe in don't you think? It's also not quite true until you get to the quantum level. 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. You can't have an intrinsic value of the universe work on one scale and not the others. Not fully understanding the mechanism that works on a quantum scale doesn't mean it isn't true. It just means our understanding is not yet complete. As for Hollow earth... we know what the mass of Earth is and we know that it matches up with everything we currently understand. There is no way there is an entire hollow cavity inside the earth with a second sun that nobody is aware of unless there is some insanely massive worldwide conspiracy involving all geologists and volcanologists.



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Mainstream science doesn't know what causes gravity and admits it.


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.
It sounds like you're talking about effect.

The quote you referred to was talking about cause.

Two different things.
edit on 28-10-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


In hindsight, I have to agree with you. I should know better than to argue physics, especially while my kids are yelling in the background about dinner. Note to self, don't rush to reply and stick to what you absolutely know.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Mary Rose
A lecture followed by Q&A and an interview of Jan Lamprecht, author of the book Hollow Planets: Link


Ok your kidding right theres a couple of problems with his theory for one he tries to sell you that science believes the earth to be crust over a molten core. They dont he made this up because he knows thats what alot of people think.This has never been the case since at least the 50s but people get his idea because they hear the mantle flows which it does just not realizing it takes millions of years. Also lava doesnt come from the crust hes just wrong its produced in the mantle it can be just below the crust temperature, pressure and water are the three main culprits in melting rock.So first check this out and you know hes clueless.

Next hes trying to explain how a huge cavity can be maintained in the earth without crashing into each other a sphere within a sphere.Well the only way he can pull this off is to use a theory from 1687 by the man by the name of Newton. Newton saw gravity a bit differently then we do today. His equation can still be used but not on everything because we now know its more a general guide the a rule relativity changed are view by making gravity a distortion of space time. Anyway back to Newtons theory uses point mass works when you deal with smaller object breaks down on planetary scales and here is why. He said every point has its own gravitational center and tugs equally on every point around it. But Einsteins theory allowed gravity to increase depending on velocity and mass or even decrease. Center of gravity can be shifted in Einstines equations but according to Newton they couldnt. Now what would happen in a hollow earth the center of gravity would shift bringing down the house of cards. By the way the Earths center of gravity isnt the middle of the earth and changes constantly with its orbit around the sun and the moon orbiting it. This is why Einstines theory can explain the orbit of mercury while Newtons would tell you it impossible.

So hes making a blatant attempt to miss lead you with science and quite frankly hes just trying to make money on all those new age people who will by his book so they can claim theres some ancient civilization living inside the earth. If they are there living in caves and without sunlight and in need of air conditioning. Dont buy into this garbage just because it allows you to believe something else when its wrong.
edit on 10/29/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 06:22 AM
link   
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



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   

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


Well his theory is based off something called lambda being positive or negative. Well let me correct something this isnt his theory though he seems to be claiming it. Im not sure what your wanting though if your wanting an opinion id say he makes some leaps of faith and i think some wrong conclusions but this is not a radical idea such as hollow earth or electric universe.Hes talking about Quantum gravity with a twist.

edit on 10/29/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   

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.
That was probably the biggest insult to the ATS community I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of threads.

You title the thread "Challenge to Mainstream Physics" and then you absolutely refused to discuss how it challenges mainstream physics:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

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.
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.

The reason I call it an insult to the ATS community is because looking at both sides of an issue was one of the strengths of this community, so your refusal to discuss the other side isn't bringing us any closer to truth or a resolution of different viewpoints.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   

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.


So the vacuum energy and space and virtual particles is one field, or multiple fields? How many fundamental fields exist? And are virtual particles coming from the depths of space from fields like quark field, electron, photon,gravity, higgs, are these all different manifestations of the same field or are these multi oscillator systems? On the smallest microest level are all these fields intertwined, overlapping or at least interacting? Why was all this energy and potential and fields compressed?



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   

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.


Ok thats interesting. So its kinda like a transitory phenomenon, like sparks or something that doesnt last long, but still occurs. When thinking about the field fluctuations and virtual particles and stuff I wondered if it could be caused by macro object interactions where small fractions of energy are absorbed by the surrounding fields and then trickled off and about. I know energy and momentum and everything is conserved, but perhaps macro objects like atoms and up can be seen like whole numbers, but because of their physical variables like momentum and velocity have non whole values of energy, and so when they interact with other bodies of matter, the result is not even and conserved just on those two bodies, but some trickles down into the realms of foundational fields, like dampening. Now this going on on macro scales like planets and stars and the subtle adjustments and harsh interactions that may occur between large bodies and their fields and forces, could be responsible for the constant action at the micro level of foundational fields?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join