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.
False. Electric power from coal? How is that related to gravity?
originally posted by: Dolour
we account 100% of what we see to gravity,
The interesting experiments in the last 100 years have been written up in peer reviewed scientific papers. Have you got one you'd like us to review?
while experiments indicate that it might be just one factor.
You haven't posted anything in support of your anti-science claims. Now I will post something to suggest that your interpretation of this expression may be as flawed as your understanding of science:
originally posted by: Nochzwei
Being beyond pay scale only means figuratively that, this subject ought not to be discussed. nothing to do with rich or poor really.
So it definitely can be about pay but more often in my experience it's referring to asking someone with more competence (who generally tends to earn more so even when referring to competence level, it could still be related to pay).
The expression above my paygrade is used to indicate someone doesn't know, and that someone more senior is the one to ask. It can mean either that the speaker does not consider themselves competent to answer the question, isn't high enough in the organization to answer it, or just isn't paid enough to deal with the problem.
That expression also means thy shall not discuss classified subjects which may be classified in the interests of national security. Your rant about backing up claims / and or excuses and gray or skunk areas is not understood?
originally posted by: [post=18064380]ArbitrageurYou haven't posted anything in support of your anti-science claims. Now I will post something to suggest that your interpretation of this expression may be as flawed as your understanding of science:
originally posted by: Nochzwei
Being beyond pay scale only means figuratively that, this subject ought not to be discussed. nothing to do with rich or poor really.
Above my paygrade
So it definitely can be about pay but more often in my experience it's referring to asking someone with more competence (who generally tends to earn more so even when referring to competence level, it could still be related to pay).
The expression above my paygrade is used to indicate someone doesn't know, and that someone more senior is the one to ask. It can mean either that the speaker does not consider themselves competent to answer the question, isn't high enough in the organization to answer it, or just isn't paid enough to deal with the problem.
More importantly, it seems like an excuse for you to say "this subject ought not to be discussed" which I interpret to mean you either can't or don't want to try to back up your claims with evidence because people who know the topics better than you will point out the flaws in your arguments and evidence. In the forums "Gray Area" and "Skunk Works", you can make claims without evidence, but in other forums you're expected to at least try to back up your claims with evidence, not make excuses.
I've never heard the expression used in that context.
originally posted by: Nochzwei
That expression also means thy shall not discuss classified subjects which may be classified in the interests of national security.
So wheres the proof that mass energy equivalence makes relativity work?
originally posted by: ErosA433
i doubt anyone here is really privy to classified information, only privy to their own dreams of grandeur and ego to make lengthy discussions and excuses to why anything can be said without backup or proof.
I already posted the proof of how this comes from from relativity.
originally posted by: Nochzwei
So wheres the proof that mass energy equivalence makes relativity work?
Are you claiming to know something they don't? What do you claim to know and how do you claim to know it?
originally posted by: Nochzwei
But the scientists that run these accelerators don't know about the fundamental changes in particles that move at near light speeds
Its conjuring tricks and not proof. I already posted 2 videos that conclusively prove GR wrong.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I already posted the proof of how this comes from from relativity.
originally posted by: Nochzwei
So wheres the proof that mass energy equivalence makes relativity work?
I already agreed with you that other people came up with mass-energy equivalence ideas, but they knew their models didn't match experiment. So far Einstein's model has matched every experiment. I asked you if you know of a model other than relativity that matches experiment which can explain this and I get either crickets or excuses.
Are you claiming to know something they don't? What do you claim to know and how do you claim to know it?
originally posted by: Nochzwei
But the scientists that run these accelerators don't know about the fundamental changes in particles that move at near light speeds
False. Electric power from coal? How is that related to gravity?
The interesting experiments in the last 100 years have been written up in peer reviewed scientific papers. Have you got one you'd like us to review?
Pointing a camera at something and making a video may be fun. I enjoyed watching the videos of guys who stuck various objects inside microwave ovens to see what would happen. They destroyed a number of microwave ovens in the process, and I guess you could call them "experiments" but they aren't advancing science, because the results were largely predictable if one knows enough about how to model microwave energy. I don't see your link advancing science for similar reasons.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
If I said an invisible man in the sky holds galaxies together, how is that any different than claiming dark matter does the same thing?
A stealth bomber makes an attack.
The scientist says the plane was there and launched a missile, but we can't detect the plane.
You are suggesting an invisible plane is religious nonsense and instead electrical effects caused an explosion.
One of those sounds like religious nonsense at least ....
Dark matter is a type of matter in astronomy and cosmology hypothesized to account for effects that appear to be the result of mass where such mass cannot be seen. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level. It is otherwise hypothesized to simply be matter that is not reactant to light.[1] Instead, the existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe.
accounts for celestial bodies settling in a DISC around any mass.
did i miss something? when did gravity start to become selective in regards of direction?
But hey, screw observations if they violate your narrow minded believe system!
it's still false for celestial bodies. Here's an article on the REAL electric universe:
originally posted by: Dolour
you are aware that were talking about the movement of celestial bodies, right?
or are you just trying to redicule something by intentionally talking nonsense?
Many EU advocates try to claim that astrophysics ignores the effects of electric fields and currents as possible drivers of astrophysical phenomena. Once they do this, EU advocates try to hijack the discoveries of legitimate researchers, claiming success for their theories with any mention of currents in mainstream astrophysics. Yet electric currents and fields are discussed throughout the professional astrophysical literature, predating much of the Electric Universe....
-Pannekoek-Rosseland Field...
-Offset Rotating Magnetic Dipoles...
-Charge-separation by radiation pressure...
-Black Hole Electrodynamics...
-Currents...
All these mechanisms create the charge separations and currents using energy from other processes, usually gravity. The charge-separation itself is not the original energy process but can create non-thermal distributions of charged particles....
In one recent e-mail discussion, a correspondent claimed that EU advocates use all of these processes. However, aside from an indirect reference in Thornhill (2007) (Thornhill references a paper at mentions the Pannekoek-Rosseland field), I have found none. I would be interested to discover if EU advocates use such processes as the offset dipole or charge separation by radiation pressure. Considering how much of this early work was done by astronomers, it would suggest that the EU advocates knew they were making false statements when claiming astronomers ignore electric processes.
Conservation of angular momentum.
Do the math, do the physics and you will see that a spinning disk is the lowest energy configuration for the system.
Oh but of course right, screw simulations and observations right? screw people who have already figured it out. because you don't really understand it, dont want to actually understand maths and physics, so its better to say "I dont get it, so it must be wrong" right?
Unfortunately, astronomy has become so specialized that there are a lot of professional astronomers who don't know about these mechanisms.
originally posted by: Dolour
heres something for you: show my ANY half reasonable explanation, that mainstream science came up with, wich accounts for celestial bodies settling in a DISC around any mass.
did i miss something?
when did gravity start to become selective in regards of direction?
The interaction of a planetary gas cloud is not comparable to stars orbiting in elliptical galaxies, they are two different mechanisms, the difference being density.
Comparing something at atomic scale and then scaling up and saying "hey there is a contradiction" is to not understand the big picture.
Simulations also show or hint at disk at spiral arm formation
originally posted by: ErosA433
The funny thing about many invokers of 'eu' style arguments is that they continually make statements but do not provide anything close to an explanation other than a few youtube videos they dont understand (but convinced themselves they make perfect sense) where these videos are from speakers acting like self appointed prophets and wise men, more than actually providing any theories and answers.