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.

 

Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

page: 58
55
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: ImaFungi

What are those tenants? What observations would you expect to see if the EU hypothesis was wrong?


A simple procedure can be used to determine whether or not a hypothesis or conjecture is scientific and falsifiable. What would be an example of something that, if observed, would contradict the hypothesis? If this question cannot be answered, then the conjecture is not scientific. In addition, a good test of a theory is that it is able to make predictions about some future event. For example, Einstein's ideas about relativity predicted specific things that would be observed during a total solar eclipse. When the eclipse came, the predictions were confirmed, something which strongly supported his theory.


rationalwiki.org...




This is not something I can give you because I know nothing about EU, but can you give me some examples of what you are asking for, but with the standard model, some test that can falsify it?

You ask 'what are those tenants' , there have been posted on this thread links to sites and videos, or you can google im sure, do you doubt EU has any tenants? Is it not intuitive that a theory is judged by its tenants? So if you are looking for something to falsify it would follow that the essence of the theory would be the place to look.


edit on 1-7-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Fair enough if you don't know enough about EU (although I'm not quite so sure why you're defending it if that's the case) so perhaps one of the more learned EU proponents can chime in and answer this fundamentally important question instead.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: ImaFungi

Fair enough if you don't know enough about EU (although I'm not quite so sure why you're defending it if that's the case) so perhaps one of the more learned EU proponents can chime in and answer this fundamentally important question instead.


Exactly how, and by what path, energy arrives at the Sun is still in question. There are several competing EU models. One model even suggests the polarities are reversed. The SAFIRE experiment will try to uncover the answers to some lingering questions about the EU model of the Sun. As data is accumulated, it will invalidate some or all of the present EU theories about how the Sun actually works, and I'm sure it will also spawn insights into the process.

The ability to falsify theories by laboratory testing is unique to the Electric Universe cosmology. The standard model of the Sun cannot be falsified, nor can most of the core beliefs the standard theory hangs its hat on. Black holes cannot be tested. Dark Matter cannot be falsified (although they claim to be able to test for it). Neutronium or "strange matter" cannot be tested. The complete continuous process of hydrogen to helium fusion cannot be tested. MOND cannot be tested. In fact the list of untestable hypothesis is virtually limitless under the standard model. That's why you'll never hear a standard cosmologist attack an EU theorist on the merits of falsifiability, because they don't believe in it themselves.


edit on 7/1/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
You do realize birkeland currents are caused by the solar wind hitting the magnetosphere neither condition applies to the sun since it is the source of the solar wind come on now think.





Dr. Donald Scott described his investigation of the inherent properties of Birkeland currents and subsequent discovery that they produce unexpectedly far-reaching magnetic fields in cosmic space. These fields collect matter and compress it into concentric hollow cylinders. They also produce a long-range attractive force on other such currents. Without involving mathematics, Scott describes the results of his analysis of the magnetic structures that are produced by, and that surround, Birkeland Currents. This work and its results gives new insight into the understanding of the electrical properties of space.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

This may be off topic but; why exactly is standard model and gravity not compatible?

Why cant the variables be altered little by little, like guess and check, even by a computer or super computer, until it arrives at the correct equal equation? Including the notions of energy, quantity and quality, and the force of gravity related?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi
The problem can be summarized in one word: nonrenormalizable.

But if that still leaves you puzzled, here's more detail:
Quantum Gravity

Quantum field theory depends on particle fields embedded in the flat space-time of special relativity. General relativity models gravity as a curvature within space-time that changes as a gravitational mass moves. Historically, the most obvious way of combining the two (such as treating gravity as simply another particle field) ran quickly into what is known as the renormalization problem. In the old-fashioned understanding of renormalization, gravity particles would attract each other and adding together all of the interactions results in many infinite values which cannot easily be cancelled out mathematically to yield sensible, finite results. This is in contrast with quantum electrodynamics where, while the series still do not converge, the interactions sometimes evaluate to infinite results, but those are few enough in number to be removable via renormalization.
So quantum field theory works because it's renormalizable. A quantum version of General Relativity isn't renormalizable, or at least nobody has figured out how to do it.

edit on 1-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: ImaFungi
The problem can be summarized in one word: nonrenormalizable.

But if that still leaves you puzzled, here's more detail:
Quantum Gravity

Quantum field theory depends on particle fields embedded in the flat space-time of special relativity. General relativity models gravity as a curvature within space-time that changes as a gravitational mass moves. Historically, the most obvious way of combining the two (such as treating gravity as simply another particle field) ran quickly into what is known as the renormalization problem. In the old-fashioned understanding of renormalization, gravity particles would attract each other and adding together all of the interactions results in many infinite values which cannot easily be cancelled out mathematically to yield sensible, finite results. This is in contrast with quantum electrodynamics where, while the series still do not converge, the interactions sometimes evaluate to infinite results, but those are few enough in number to be removable via renormalization.
So quantum field theory works because it's renormalizable. A quantum version of General Relativity isn't renormalizable, or at least nobody has figured out how to do it.


Wow that is very interesting and I understand the conundrum! It all has to do with the lack of comprehension as to what the total fundamental space is.

Its so difficult just to imagine a baseball moving through empty space, and think about it as a quantum entity creating a dynamic gravity field local to its movement. So yea, we imagine a bazillion particles that make up the baseball, and all their forces made out of particles that keep them together, and then the space surrounding it it seems from this issue it can not be said it is made of particles. Water is made of particles, a trampoline is made of particles, a blanket it made of particles, jello is made of particles, a baseball is made of particles, particles are made of...just kidding, but 'what is the stuff' that all these particles exist in? non particles? One fundamental, eternal, physical, blob? Which has no parts or breaks about it, but particles have squeezed their way in this, could the particles be the breaks or parts of a fundamental singular reality? Could 'what the gravity field is' be the most primal fundamental essence/substance, and all particles, matter and energy, made of it, and thats why the nature of the gravity field is so ungraspable, because all other natures are the gravity field, broken into parts and these forms, which interact, meanwhile whats left over, the gravity field, cannot be penetrated by the particles, or measured, or understood maybe, because I dont know, this sucks and I hate everything and everyone. Hey ive been thinking about gravity and space for the past 3 years, millions of scientists have been thinking about this every day with much better minds, tools, resources, schooling, team work, than me for the past 100 years. Has there been any progress with this gravity problem? Is there any idea, any clue, as to how space might exist, how matter and energy might couple/relate to it?

The way I see this normalization problem is; 3 great artists charged with drawing a portrait of a very important man, but they dont have communication with each other while they are working, and the first draws the head really big, the second draws the legs and feet really small, and then the third has to try and figure out how to get away with drawing an appropriate looking body connecting the two.

The most frustrating thing is; There is truth! The universe works! There is a reason it works! It must be knowable! By observation, experiment, and logical deduction/inference, and imagination.
edit on 1-7-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
The most frustrating thing is; There is truth! The universe works! There is a reason it works! It must be knowable! By observation, experiment, and logical deduction/inference, and imagination.
Absolutely. Unsolved doesn't mean unsolvable. We will probably figure it out, but this aspect of nature has us outsmarted at the moment.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Space we have some understanding at least its properties anyway however gravity is a huge enigma the more we learn the stranger it gets. About the only thing we know is gravity is weaker than the other forces and this is a clue to its nature but so far the clue eludes us. Cern is supposed to help on this issue but im skeptical i dont think were dealing with the planck scale but something even smaller that makes up everything and that is where we will find the answer. Im not a fan of string theory but oddly it does provide some answers so i think were going to find its similar to string theory but ive always thought more on the lines of frequencies creating everything. After all vibrate strings at different energies you get different frequencies. Frequencies would interact in strange ways also possibly creating some of the stranger things we see in quantum theory. Now this is just a strange though ive had for a couple of years just cant figure out what would cause the frequencies in the first place. But i do know you think quantum mechanics is strange wait to we found out what's under that.

As far as gravity figure out what truly causes it and you have a nobel prize guaranteed i dont think its going to be as easy to solve as what gives a particle mass.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

But with the tens of thousands of scientists who have worked on the problem since Einstein's death bed and prior, has any progress been made with comprehending the relationship between energy/matter and gravity and space? Any idea or clue on what might it be, so far it took at that long to say 'gravity might not be a particle', but any other general details?



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 03:13 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Does string theory say anything about what might exist in between the strings? Pure vacuum? Also how would gravity work in string theory, a 3d ether fabric knit of strings? And in standard model gravity is thought to work as a 3d ether fabric knit of particles?



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi
a reply to: ImaFungi

ImaFungi, you've been quite vocal about your objections to the ideas of Lawrence Krauss and others on the origin of the universe. I have no idea if he's right or wrong and could easily be wrong about that but I try to keep an open mind about things we're not so sure about.

Krauss is very critical of string theory and how it's failed to deliver, but even Krauss won't say it's wrong. For one thing there are many different versions of it, so my guess about what it says about what's between the strings depends on which version. Here's what Wiki says about that:

String Theory

The vacuum structure of the theory, called the string theory landscape (or the anthropic portion of string theory vacua), is not well understood. String theory contains an infinite number of distinct meta-stable vacua, and perhaps 10^520 of these or more correspond to a universe roughly similar to ours—with four dimensions, a high planck scale, gauge groups, and chiral fermions. Each of these corresponds to a different possible universe, with a different collection of particles and forces. What principle, if any, can be used to select among these vacua is an open issue.
I get bored writing 100 zeroes after a 1 and I can't even comprehend that number (a Googol), so of course 520 zeroes after a 1 is far beyond my comprehension but with that many choices I'd expect one of them will say whatever you want it to say, but whether it's right or not is another issue which we haven't figured out how to test as far as I know.

One possible solution to the experimental problem I've heard is that an accelerator much larger than the LHC at CERN might help, but I'm not sure how much larger we can actually make them and if it will be large enough. It might take one the size of the solar system which we are obviously not going to build anytime soon.


It is widely believed that any theory of quantum gravity would require extremely high energies to probe directly, higher by orders of magnitude than those that current experiments such as the Large Hadron Collider can attain. This is because strings themselves are expected to be only slightly larger than the Planck length, which is twenty orders of magnitude smaller than the radius of a proton, and high energies are required to probe small length scales. Generally speaking, quantum gravity is difficult to test because gravity is much weaker than the other forces, and because quantum effects are controlled by Planck's constant h, a very small quantity. As a result, the effects of quantum gravity are extremely weak.
Even if someone comes up with a viable model, testing it could prove challenging.

edit on 2-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I dont know why you love that guy so much, im guessing its his happy go lucky attitude and sense of humor, because in small doses thats about all he has offered the realm of human knowledge.

When I asked about gravity, the nature of space, the incompatibility of standard model and theories of gravity, I was not interested in how many particle accelerators need to be made and at what increasing sizes, I was interested in hearing a theoretical theory, a description, as to what space may be, and how it may relate to mass to create the phenomenon of gravity.

I dont care about probing or testing (as of now, as of the, I want to understand a basic and general analogous essential theory of just the bare minimum description.

You said renormalization cant work because the quantum equations, are equal, and when you put gravity equations into them the equations get messed up with infinities and stuff. Is there any theory on how to fix this outlook? Have tens of thousands of scientists who went to school and dedicated their lives to not even solving, but making some theoretically progress on these problems, just been banging their heads on their desks non stop every day for the past 50 years?

I dont get how guess and check and trial and error cannot make the equations compatible. All the equations of quantum mechanics have values that check out, I assume, that is to say, the equations are equal to themselves, and at least thought to be equal to reality. But if gravity is an aspect of reality, the equations of quantum mechanics cannot be right, if they are not adjusted to contain the reality of gravity. So why cant the equations of gravity, and equations of quantum mechanics, be slightly adjusted at different points, until they are compatible? It sounds like a puzzle, sounds like a puzzle a super computer can solve, by typing out every type of sequence and kind of equation using the variables we know are needed in the final equation, and well I understand you may say the problem is 'we dont know what we are looking for, we dont know, or how can a computer know when it has found the right product, if we or it cant know what its looking for', and would I be wrong in saying that we have some idea what the final product would contain, the relationships between variables at least and some aesthetic structure of equations? I dont know, bleh, this sucks.

What if the probability functions in quantum mechanics were eliminated and given steady exact existents, and replaced with gravity values? I think there may be something to that idea.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I dont know why you love that guy so much, im guessing its his happy go lucky attitude and sense of humor, because in small doses thats about all he has offered the realm of human knowledge.

When I asked about gravity, the nature of space, the incompatibility of standard model and theories of gravity, I was not interested in how many particle accelerators need to be made and at what increasing sizes, I was interested in hearing a theoretical theory, a description, as to what space may be, and how it may relate to mass to create the phenomenon of gravity.

I dont care about probing or testing (as of now, as of the, I want to understand a basic and general analogous essential theory of just the bare minimum description.

You said renormalization cant work because the quantum equations, are equal, and when you put gravity equations into them the equations get messed up with infinities and stuff. Is there any theory on how to fix this outlook? Have tens of thousands of scientists who went to school and dedicated their lives to not even solving, but making some theoretically progress on these problems, just been banging their heads on their desks non stop every day for the past 50 years?

I dont get how guess and check and trial and error cannot make the equations compatible. All the equations of quantum mechanics have values that check out, I assume, that is to say, the equations are equal to themselves, and at least thought to be equal to reality. But if gravity is an aspect of reality, the equations of quantum mechanics cannot be right, if they are not adjusted to contain the reality of gravity. So why cant the equations of gravity, and equations of quantum mechanics, be slightly adjusted at different points, until they are compatible? It sounds like a puzzle, sounds like a puzzle a super computer can solve, by typing out every type of sequence and kind of equation using the variables we know are needed in the final equation, and well I understand you may say the problem is 'we dont know what we are looking for, we dont know, or how can a computer know when it has found the right product, if we or it cant know what its looking for', and would I be wrong in saying that we have some idea what the final product would contain, the relationships between variables at least and some aesthetic structure of equations? I dont know, bleh, this sucks.

What if the probability functions in quantum mechanics were eliminated and given steady exact existents, and replaced with gravity values? I think there may be something to that idea.


All the pieces arent in place there is no direct answer however that doesnt mean you can ignore what we have learned either. Now as for the theory of everything what your looking for it doesnt exist. Will it probably some day right now where stuck with things that work in specific areas but as a whole fail. The biggest reason is gravity and are lack of understanding about where it comes from. Gravity is the monkey wrench in the system as we get smaller gravity goes crazy works exactly like the universe on large scale however and thats the problem



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I dont care about probing or testing (as of now, as of the, I want to understand a basic and general analogous essential theory of just the bare minimum description.
Without testing I'd say it can't be a theory, only a hypothesis. On that basis I suppose string theory should be called string hypothesis, I don't know why it's called string theory, seems like a misnomer. Testing, experiment and observation are really relevant to this thread, because EU folks like to point out problems with the standard models and then imply that means EU must be right. That's not the case, and the only way to know which of 1000 alternate models might be right is to test them, so I'm both shocked and appalled at your lack of interest in testing.


What if the probability functions in quantum mechanics were eliminated and given steady exact existents, and replaced with gravity values? I think there may be something to that idea.
I'm not sure what that means.

About the rest of your post, I never said I liked Lawrence Krauss, I only said I try to keep an open mind, and wanted to point out that even a big critic of string theory doesn't dismiss it completely. I do like the fact that he's honest about how wrong some of his ideas have been, because it takes courage to not only admit that but make a point of it in your presentation.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Testing is important, but so is knowing what you are testing for. I am asking what they think they are testing for, and if they found what they are looking for, then gravity and standard model would be compatible? I am saying, if they know there is some variable and information they are testing for that they dont have, but know or have an idea or theory about the range, why they can guess and check with the equations? Yes, yes, test all you want, but I am saying if they have 90% of this puzzle solved, than it should be possible to infer, posit, deduce, what the completed puzzle may look like, that is what im asking for, the idea, the inference, the posit, the deduction, the theory, the hypothesis, as to how space exists, what it is, and how gravity works.

You are suggesting without doing any thinking, using particle accelerators, data will appear, and then they will have the completed puzzle, what is it they are looking for, when things break down and how long and when they split up and how they spin, and that will in a shadowy way illuminate the elusive gravity?



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi
I'm also skeptical of string theory but it is a contender, and how better to narrow down which of the 10^520 quantum vacua apply than to test and find out? Once we know that it might be a lot easier to figure out why that's the one that is actually observed. Or this guy could be right, but he admits he's probably not:

Garrett Lisi: A theory of everything



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

What is the standard model view of what space is, and how gravity works? A taught 3d manifold of particles that exist everywhere? If so how much space is it thought is between each particle?



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi
I guess you were busy doing something else when we had that discussion earlier in this thread, which started somewhere around this post. I think we covered all that in some fairly interesting discussion, so you may want to read at least that post and the following posts on that page (38). Page 39 was interesting too.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Id rather you just state an answer to my question; A taught 3d manifold of particles that exist everywhere?

Besides that, according to standard model, what other possibilities are there for what space is?

I started reading that page but had to stop, im a bit under the weather and dragonriders first two posts were rambling nonsense, of which had nothing to do with my question. Im asking a very direct question that can be answered generally or directly, simply, but at all.

According to standard model, is it thought the space field which is responsible for gravity is a connected network of particles? yes or no.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join