Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 121
09-29-2011, 06:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesun
Misconception, abstract mathematical structure that has no bearing on reality.



Incredible, to avoid changing the frame work you want to force the universe to comply with the your prefered theory, it just doesn't work like that, well it might do for a mathematician in an abstract kind of way.
But the universe is acting in every other way according to this framework. That's what the countless experimental validations mean. So the question is - how do you change the framework so it fits a new observation, and we don't just end up with another framework that doesn't describe the universe either?

You say that electromagnetism can explain this? How so? Do you have a framework that allows EM to explain the differences? EM can both attract and repel electromagnetically interacting matter. The positve and negative poles are often found together, negating attraction and repelling on a larger scale. Are you suggesting that there is somehow an organization of overall positive and negative poles across the galaxy that creates the observable structures and velocities? Or are you perhaps suggesting that there is an always-attractive part of the electromagnetic force that is neglible on small scales but becomes overwhelming on larger scales? Wouldn't this actually imply a new force, some kind of "superelectromagnetic" force? Why do you that our detectors couldn't pick up this effect so far, despite it basically making out 76 % of the attractive forces between stars and planets?
How do explain a gravity lens effect of distant galaxies with electromagnetic force, when the carrier of the electromagnetic force does not interact with itself and so a source of electromagnetic attraction cannot alter electromagnetic waves to get a lens effect.

It seems you're just shifting the solution from dark matter to a dark force, but haven't done anything to give us an actual explanation for the observations on Galaxies.
Neither have you yet explained why this would explain the apparant FTL Neutrinos, or the inconsistencies between the supernova measurment and the CERN project.

If you consider dark matter "magical", I don't see why you fail to see that your "EM" idea is just as magical.
Is it because you are fascinated by Tesla and his speculations? Is it because you want FTL travel?

In either case, you have to look beyond what you personally want, and even what you personally believe, and provide observations that match. It's not enough to point at a theory and show an observation that invalidates it and claim another theory is better. The claim needs to be substantiated, explain how this new observation (and all previous observations) work better with it.
Or you just have to trust other people that have the necessary education, experience and skill to find the right answer.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 122
09-29-2011, 06:23 AM
All things are possible... with time...

Einstein was not "wrong". Evolution of science always brings about breakthroughs... and with it, impossibilities become realities.

Face the facts gentlemen/ladies... There really is no such thing... as a No-Win scenario
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 123
09-29-2011, 07:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MustrumRidcully View Post
But the universe is acting in every other way according to this framework. That's what the countless experimental validations mean. So the question is - how do you change the framework so it fits a new observation, and we don't just end up with another framework that doesn't describe the universe either?

You say that electromagnetism can explain this? How so? Do you have a framework that allows EM to explain the differences? EM can both attract and repel electromagnetically interacting matter. The positve and negative poles are often found together, negating attraction and repelling on a larger scale. Are you suggesting that there is somehow an organization of overall positive and negative poles across the galaxy that creates the observable structures and velocities? Or are you perhaps suggesting that there is an always-attractive part of the electromagnetic force that is neglible on small scales but becomes overwhelming on larger scales? Wouldn't this actually imply a new force, some kind of "superelectromagnetic" force? Why do you that our detectors couldn't pick up this effect so far, despite it basically making out 76 % of the attractive forces between stars and planets?
How do explain a gravity lens effect of distant galaxies with electromagnetic force, when the carrier of the electromagnetic force does not interact with itself and so a source of electromagnetic attraction cannot alter electromagnetic waves to get a lens effect.

It seems you're just shifting the solution from dark matter to a dark force, but haven't done anything to give us an actual explanation for the observations on Galaxies.
Neither have you yet explained why this would explain the apparant FTL Neutrinos, or the inconsistencies between the supernova measurment and the CERN project.

If you consider dark matter "magical", I don't see why you fail to see that your "EM" idea is just as magical.
Is it because you are fascinated by Tesla and his speculations? Is it because you want FTL travel?

In either case, you have to look beyond what you personally want, and even what you personally believe, and provide observations that match. It's not enough to point at a theory and show an observation that invalidates it and claim another theory is better. The claim needs to be substantiated, explain how this new observation (and all previous observations) work better with it.
Or you just have to trust other people that have the necessary education, experience and skill to find the right answer.
No new force or magic needed, just classical/empirical science operating in the framework of an Electric Universe with maths as it slave.

It's all here http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/ everything is covered.

A different look at ancient mythology/history http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderb...13/qzxVhLcCH8w
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 124
09-29-2011, 08:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyce9984 View Post
b) gravity has less effect on the neutrino's, and thus the curvature of the earth was bypassed thus creating a shortcut for said neutrino's.
I was toying with this idea also, it definitely has appeal. I'm not sure how to calculate it though. I'm not even sure the said curvature has been measured accurately enough to do this.... Initial findings of this curvature are still coming in this year from Gravity Probe B. Working backwards from this to calculate properties of the neutrino would be pretty slick.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 125
09-29-2011, 08:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hort_wort View Post
It's good to look at alternate theories, but spacetime curvature has been verified recently by Gravity Probe B.
Abstract mathematical structure describing motion not cause. How is it possible to curve a descriptive term "space". You have to identify what your curving first. If the movement of earth is causing a drag effect, what is it dragging through? space? space describes an empty place. I know don't tell me, spacetime?

What is space?http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...2lensagain.htm
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 126
09-29-2011, 09:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesun
Abstract mathematical structure describing motion not cause. How is it possible to curve a descriptive term "space". You have to identify what your curving first.
Curving space = altering the time and distance by which all known reality (matter and energy) is separated. Defining it beyond this may forever be beyond us since we're confined to it. For some perspective about this, I recommend reading Flatland.

They've found it. These people have zero motivation to lie. If they could disprove something like this, they'd get an instant Nobel prize, international recognition, contribute to the world, and live peacefully for the rest of their days.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 127
09-29-2011, 09:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hort_wort View Post
Curving space = altering the time and distance by which all known reality (matter and energy) is separated. Defining it beyond this may forever be beyond us since we're confined to it. For some perspective about this, I recommend reading Flatland.

They've found it. These people have zero motivation to lie. If they could disprove something like this, they'd get an instant Nobel prize, international recognition, contribute to the world, and live peacefully for the rest of their days.
I'm not saying they're lieing, just a misunderstanding of the cause for the motion they are seeing. Spacetime isn't real, it's an empty place with the man made construct of time. Space isn't empty, it's 99.9% plasma the earth the sun and everything above are charged bodies moving through that plasma.

I really would do a terrible job of explaining the EU theory, but please watch the below, it's only 10mins and is designed as an introduction into plasmacosmology.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderb...10/uwMDYNRZUKY
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 128
09-29-2011, 10:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesun
I really would do a terrible job of explaining the EU theory, but please watch the below, it's only 10mins and is designed as an introduction into plasmacosmology.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderb...10/uwMDYNRZUKY
Well, I watched it. It seemed to make some tremendous leaps that I'm not willing to make.

The first few minutes weren't bad. Talking about the history of the perception of lightning was interesting. It made me think that the atmosphere of the past, which pretty much everyone agrees had a different composition from today, may have caused lightning and other atmosphere effects to appear differently. This, however, was not the claim that the video made. It demonized scientists and claimed that there was a conspiracy to repress what lightning really is.

Then he started talking about other effects, like the auroras. But... there isn't as much mystery here as suggested. It's charged particles stuck in the magnetic field of a planet, hitting things in the upper atmosphere that happen to glow when charged. Charged particles like to go in a circle in a magnetic field, that's how most of the particle accelerators work.

Eventually, they showed the planets all lined up next to each other and blasting each other with tremendous bolts of energy. It also started talking about ancient alien warriors that the Greek gods were based on as a clear result of lightning looking different. Yeahhhhh I have *no* idea how they got from point A to B. I'm quite disappointed that it didn't claim that the asteroid belt used to be a planet named Atlantis. That one seemed obvious.

I really don't think it's fair to compare this to Einstein. This isn't even a theory... I don't know what this is. I'm genuinely sorry if I offended you for your views, but I just can't back this up at all.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 129
09-29-2011, 10:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hort_wort View Post
Well, I watched it. It seemed to make some tremendous leaps that I'm not willing to make.

The first few minutes weren't bad. Talking about the history of the perception of lightning was interesting. It made me think that the atmosphere of the past, which pretty much everyone agrees had a different composition from today, may have caused lightning and other atmosphere effects to appear differently. This, however, was not the claim that the video made. It demonized scientists and claimed that there was a conspiracy to repress what lightning really is.

Then he started talking about other effects, like the auroras. But... there isn't as much mystery here as suggested. It's charged particles stuck in the magnetic field of a planet, hitting things in the upper atmosphere that happen to glow when charged. Charged particles like to go in a circle in a magnetic field, that's how most of the particle accelerators work.

Eventually, they showed the planets all lined up next to each other and blasting each other with tremendous bolts of energy. It also started talking about ancient alien warriors that the Greek gods were based on as a clear result of lightning looking different. Yeahhhhh I have *no* idea how they got from point A to B. I'm quite disappointed that it didn't claim that the asteroid belt used to be a planet named Atlantis. That one seemed obvious.

I really don't think it's fair to compare this to Einstein. This isn't even a theory... I don't know what this is. I'm genuinely sorry if I offended you for your views, but I just can't back this up at all.
Alien warriors? where are you getting that from..........he's not talking about aliens the warrior is the planet Mars, 2 gods Saturn (kronos) and Jupiter (Zeus), Venus (athene/Medussa). Maybe i've messed the link up.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 130
09-29-2011, 10:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesun
Alien warriors? where are you getting that from..........he's not talking about aliens the warrior is the planet Mars, 2 gods Saturn (kronos) and Jupiter (Zeus), Venus (athene/Medussa). Maybe i've messed the link up.
No you did not mess the link up.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:45 PM.