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.
You mean there are educational facilities teaching that the sun is not powered by nuclear fusion but by some mysterious electric current instead?
Originally posted by Herebychoice
The electric universe theory is gaining apace and more educational facilities are teaching it.
Originally posted by swan001
It's been a time now that physics is my favourite hobby. But now I'm about to introduce a new model. So I am wondering how strong really are some sides.
Ready? Okay. I'll form the opposition to root concepts (particle existence, observation of dark energy) - just to see how strong they are.
Originally posted by swan001
I, as the oppostion, say, "quarks don't exist". Prove me wrong.
Originally posted by swan001
I also say, "redshift from other galaxies is not caused by general rush-away-from-each-other movement, as many galaxies actually move towards one another and even collide.
Originally posted by swan001
Instead, redshift is caused by photon interaction with space itself". Prove me wrong.
I also say, "Einstein's Relativity is inaccurate - time will not slow down for a fast-moving body, as any thought experiment involving a third party, always at equal distance from both the "immobile" and the fast-moving body, would show. "
Originally posted by swan001
Prove me wrong.
The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners.
They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.
Originally posted by swan001
I finally say, "if virtual particles exists even in total vacuum, how come the CERN is never picking them up? " Prove to me quantum model is the right one.
Let's start the debate!
At the LEP collider at the European particle physics laboratory CERN, millions of Z bosons--the particles that mediate neutral weak interactions--were produced and their mass was very accurately measured.
The Standard Model of particle physics predicts the mass of the Z boson, but the measured value differed a little. This small difference could be explained in terms of the time the Z spent as a virtual top quark if such a top quark had a certain mass.
When the top quark mass was directly measured a few years later at the Tevatron collider at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago, the value agreed with that obtained from the virtual particle analysis, providing a dramatic test of our understanding of virtual particles.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by boymonkey74
Yes. No.
Wait. Now I'm confused. Let's back up.
The less gravity, the faster the clock runs.
So on Jupiter you would age slower relative to Earth. On a black hole, very much slower. In fact you could probably watch the universe end from there.
Originally posted by Herebychoice
reply to post by swan001
I agree with the OP. All physics are tge,ory anyway none have been entirely proven. one only needs to look at the letters between Velikovski and Einstein to be aware that Einstein knew the science world required a model and as long as it fit roughly then it would be accepted. There is an awful lot if doubt whether the photon exists as well as the points made regard the gravity and relativity theories are flawed.
The electric universe theory is gaining apace and more educational facilities are teaching it. www.thunderbolts.info...
Cheers
I also say, "Einstein's Relativity is inaccurate - time will not slow down for a fast-moving body, as any thought experiment involving a third party, always at equal distance from both the "immobile" and the fast-moving body, would show. " Prove me wrong.
Originally posted by swan001
It's been a time now that physics is my favourite hobby.
Originally posted by Bedlam
Originally posted by swan001
Originally posted by Chamberf=6
Also you are picking things to debate that have ben tested, double tested, triple, etc.
Have you ever been to light speed? Have you ever seen a quark? The purpose of this thread is to determine what's fact and what's nothing more than glorious theory.
edit on 2-3-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)
Like so many non-scientists, you seem very confused by the way science uses the word 'theory'. It doesn't mean wild ass guess as it's used on ATS. It's an explanation that fits the observed facts, that is tested by experimentation, that is at least somewhat falsifiable.
It's not "Wow, I think we're on an atom on a fingernail of some other guy in another dimension, oh WOW" like most ATSers seem to believe.