Why we are not any the wiser on Gravity

I love that idea! a reply to: sapien82

a reply to: ErosA433

I wonder, what were the large hadron colliders created to detect? When were they first operational? 2008?

Have they proven or even detected dark matter yet? No? Now they are starting a massive 21 billion dollar upgrade to increase the platform...something about luminosity and them stating the previous build just wasn't big enough for the results they were looking for? Very curious.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: ErosA433

I wonder, what were the large hadron colliders created to detect? When were they first operational? 2008?

Have they proven or even detected dark matter yet? No? Now they are starting a massive 21 billion dollar upgrade to increase the platform...something about luminosity and them stating the previous build just wasn't big enough for the results they were looking for? Very curious.

Obviously, not gravity thingies.

a reply to: ClovenSky

The LHC collides two beams of protons together at the highest energies ever achieved in a laboratory.

She has generated mind-blowing science in the last decade alone, including the Higgs Boson particle.

It is one of the largest, most complex machines ever created, and is helping physicists decode the universe.

Hardly a disappointment nor a noble goal to achieve.

If we ever wish to unlock the secrets of our universe or at least attempt to understand a fraction of such, machines such as the LNC are how we will go about it.

a reply to: booyakasha

So off the batt as usual, Thornhill misrepresented the evidence and rolled with the initial statement being correct

"The observation of neutrinos from the sun was always about 1/3'd of that was expected"

Incorrect, it depended upon the energy threshold of the experiment, some experiments saw 1/3rd others saw 1/2.

The standard model does not require the sun to be composed of entirely hydrogen... so he is wrong there, the current solar model was not invented in the horse and cart era, the current model dates to the 1960s and was improved as simulation and nuclear research was improved. SO once again, Thornhill is either knowingly lying, misrepresenting the current state of play out out right being manipulative.
The idea that heavy things sink and light things will float... yeah not in a high temperature plasma, you would have to be an idiot to believe that kind of entropy change would occur in a hot plasma... something that the EU people love to talk about and seem to know nothing about... rather interesting dont you think? Already he is proving himself to be... franky a liar and an idiot.

All stars born shortly after the universe was created... NOPE, no model ever said that at all.. again... lying to promote his model. We are only 3 mins in, and the number of things he is clearly wrong about or claiming the mainstream to believe are wrong.

His knowledge of nuclear physics is very poor, probably why he needs to invent fantasy to make himself feel like he knows what is happening... where do the heavy elements come from? Well... stellar collapse, its been long known that supernovae and planetary nebular they produce, produce a huge amount of heavy elements. But its ok lets ignore this right because ignorance is knowledge for this man and the EU theory proponents. Him saying there is far too few is to ignore that the early universe would have burnt big and hot, with most starts being supermassive, having very very short lifetimes in the 10s to 100s of thousands of years... again... ignore the actual models. promote ignorance.

I simply stopped at this point because... its almost unwatchable as i feel im being made more stupid by just listening to him ramble about mostly proving how he understands very little.

You know, like ignoring the fact we observe supernovae... and nebulae... the mechanism of which is actually rather well understood these days and observations tested. the EU people like him, just simply aways say "Believe me... its simpler" or do what iv said there.. misrepresent what the current theories are, because they have no idea what the current theories are.

originally posted by: booyakasha

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: booyakasha

You are speaking to someone in Particle Physics research who built (among others in a collaboration) one of the current largest dark matter searches. So i know what we know, what we dont know etc, but my point was, your call for it to be simple 'bs' is extremely short sighted and if all you will do is post youtube videos at me, then, that is quite unfortunate.

You speak as though the Dark Matter solution was simple accepted, with no evidence... that isn't the history, and that isn't what happened either.

no I'm not saying it was simply accepted with no evidence. I'm saying the evidence that it is wrong far out weighs the evidence that it is correct.
They have been looking for dark matter for 85 years. They have found nothing. There is absolutely no need for dark matter when you understand Birkeland currents.

Sorry again for just posting videos from youtube, but i'd rather source my information and give visuals because people seem to learn better that way.
This is short 7 minute video that debunks dark matter and the scientists that have been looking for it for 85 years.

Again i got part way through the video, the issue with it is largely it takes singular assumptions and rolls with them and says "Oh look we proved them wrong."

MOND actually doesn't fix anything... MOND cannot explain what we observe in an object such as the bullet cluster. MOND also is more complicated than using dark matter, requiring that every galaxy has a complicated set of 'fudge factors' that cannot be derived from first principles.

Also, the blackholes at centre of galaxies have been observed, both SAG A* and the one in M87. SAG A* being interesting as its been observed in a test mass like environment watching stars move around it to determine its mass, and it has been imaged with the BlackHole telescope though being side on, its not quite as nice looking as M87.

BUT... ignore that because Thornhill says blackholes don't exist... and give zero evidence outside of pictures someone drew.


Once again the video takes quotes from Thornhill as fact without any kind of good evidence.

The statement of filaments is also incorrect. These are galaxies, not paths of gas, electrons or materials, but tubular like structures made of intersperced galaxy clusters... but hey its ok using the word filament is ripe for dictionary abuse, which the EU proponents use because they want to say everything is current flow....

The Birkland current model showing the excel plot, the two curves do not match well enough. The Birkland current model still goes off to infinity at high z... thats not what is observed... the rotation curves are FLAT... they do not keep increasing, but hey ignore that right because you want the EU theory to be true... go for the goal!

Also Dr Scott also is guilty of ignoring reality, rotation curves of galaxies have not been measured for the last 85 years as being flat... nice try but its only 50 years... again but whats being wrong when you want to promote your theory.

Both Scott and Thornhill have serious cases of chasing a theory because they want to feel like they are in some way keepers of secret knowledge. Their 'models' don't actually work without throwing away way more observational evidence against them than the Dark Matter model currently has to... which is actually that the DM model doesn't have to throw anything away.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: ErosA433

I wonder, what were the large hadron colliders created to detect? When were they first operational? 2008?

Have they proven or even detected dark matter yet? No? Now they are starting a massive 21 billion dollar upgrade to increase the platform...something about luminosity and them stating the previous build just wasn't big enough for the results they were looking for? Very curious.

Do you wonder? A quick google will tell you, but since you cant apparently do that then i can tell you.

The LHC was created to accelerate Protons to TeV scale centre of mass energies in order to have the collision energy to produce Higgs excitation, resonance or production, which based on previous experiments at other colliders placed within reach of the design energy of the LHC.

The Energy also placed it within reach of the lightest supersymmetric models which naturally predict a WIMP like particle, or dark matter candidate particle. SO it turned out that those lightest supersymmetric models are disfavoured based on the EXPERIMENTATION performed. Iv highlighted this because its important to know who is actually doing experiments and who is pulling things from their butts.

They do lots of other physics there too, they do have some Dark Matter searches specifically in beamstop experiments in which they stop the proton beam in a hall and try to observe missing mass, the theory being that if they produce dark matter candidate particles, you'd not see them leave the beamstop, they would just leave and not interact.

Why is an upgrade curious? The LHC experiments reached their design goals, and Physics goals, but there is more parameter space to search, what they want to do is increase the energy reach, to really see if supersymmetry is actually completely disproven, and they need the luminocity in order to perform precise measurements which help fill gaps and parameter space in the observation of the Higgs.

Not totally sure why you lean on the LHC and Dark Matter... the design goal of it was never to be a direct dark matter search... and its none observation is actually not an issue as the standard model of particle phyiscs and known physics beyond that model give us a lot of places to look for a Dark Matter Candidate.

a reply to: booyakasha

Dark matter doesn't exist my experimental results show that dark matter is nothing but electrons but these electrons are these electrons are 90° 2 hour electrons 888 80 degrees at 90 degrees out of phase please excuse my spelling as I am using this talking ocean of the keyboard

a reply to: Hyperboles

Citation required... lets look at the data.

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Hyperboles

Citation required... lets look at the data.

And there in is the problem there is no data.

In reading the comments one of the most relevant statements has to do with the dogma surrounding the adherence to the standard model being like cement. Although there is a good reason why we simply cannot abandon the standard model in search for those truths that we don't yet understand one thing is certain. Our understanding Of the universe and it's Fundamental forces is incomplete. And even though we have recently observed gravity waves this by no means confirms the absolute notion that gravity is one of four fundamental forces of the universe or weather it is the result of an interaction between known or unknown forces. What about Gravity acting as a repulsive force? we know that somthing is driving the accelerated expansion of the universe.
Not to mention their is a compelling case to be made that their is an area of applied science and research to technology that Government is hiding from all of us. Anytime someone delves into this area either by study or by invention the government steps in. take over any research, documentation or prototypes. And it has to do with applications of high energy electromagnetic and ultra high frequencies in the terahertz range. And recently this idea has gained even more traction with the revelation of four very interesting patents obtained by the US navy. Patents that were at first denied but then quickly approved. These patents refer to things like Room temperature super conductors And a mass reduction device. Both of which employ ultra high frequency. TELL ME how do you reduce the mass of an object without physically removing some of the mass? And yet it seems possible to reduce the mass of an object with high energy high frequency EM or electrostatic Fields.
So in looking at these navy patents It's possible to use the electromagnetic force reduce the mass of an object. Anyone that has even a passing knowledge of physics understands that this would mean having the ability the manipulate inertia and the effects of gravity itself. Of course we have seen these amazing manipulations of inertia and gravity when we see UFO's doing high speed right angle turns or going from zero to 10 thousand MPH, or just plain hovering. Of course we dont give this experiences any credence at all. even these things are confirmed by multiple radar tracks. what we know is so incomplete to pretend that something is impossible because of science just shows how little we actually know

originally posted by: slick1069
Not to mention their is a compelling case to be made that their is an area of applied science and research to technology that Government is hiding from all of us.

There are secret patents and the public can't see them, so yes the information in those secret patents is hidden.

So in looking at these navy patents It's possible to use the electromagnetic force reduce the mass of an object.

But wait...you were just talking about the government hiding things from us which no doubt they are in secret patents. But, those supposedly game-changing patents are not hidden, they are not secret like the other ~5000 or so secret patents, why not?

www.thedrive.com...

I came across some supplemental documents in the USPTO’s databases that seem to imply that Navy leadership knows that these technologies are actually feasible – or that they want us or someone else to think that they are.

The highlighted part is the only reason I can think of why they would want to make such patents public, instead of secret.

Of course we have seen these amazing manipulations of inertia and gravity when we see UFO's doing high speed right angle turns or going from zero to 10 thousand MPH, or just plain hovering.

"we" have not seen this. I have heard this claim many times but the latest "star" making similar claims, David Fravor, didn't think of flipping the switch on his helmet to turn on his camera. Then he talks about a video made later that he thinks might be the object but it doesn't do anything like what he says.

So as in all other cases seen to date, no evidence ever seems to support the claims of physics-defying maneuvers. Some people including Fravor have talked about some amazing acceleration at the end of the flir video,but that only makes him sound like an unreliable witness because though it looks like acceleration, it's not, someone just changed the zoom on the display which he apparently didn't notice. After accounting for the zoom change, there's no acceleration.

a reply to: moebius

I would respond to your statement by saying those who understand Our universe the best are not necessarily MIT graduates And Anyone Objective person regardless of formal education knows that we are not even close to a complete understanding of the universe and though we can proclaim that what why know so far isn't wrong one thing is certain it's at best incomplete.

originally posted by: slick1069
a reply to: moebius

I would respond to your statement by saying those who understand Our universe the best are not necessarily MIT graduates And Anyone Objective person regardless of formal education knows that we are not even close to a complete understanding of the universe and though we can proclaim that what why know so far isn't wrong one thing is certain it's at best incomplete.

Ah this old Gem

You do know that even the brightest and best will never tell you we know it all right? Also you do know that this is a standard statement that says "leave the door open for charlatans and crackpots because opinion born out of ignorance is equal to that born out of knowledge and experience"

I see it here all the time. The number of times iv had to read "Dark Matter is just some BS fudge factor" from people who have absolutely zero clue of the evidence outside what they saw on some half baked popular science show dumbed down to the point of uselessness... BUT... sure... please tell me, a person who has a PhD, who has been involved in the design and construction of a Dark Matter search experiment... how dark matter is just a fudge factor with no evidence.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
Its 2020 and for the most part our understanding of Gravity is Still primitive. Nothing can bend space so gravity is not

result of bent space.

This is correct. Since space is just where stuff resides, and not a "some thing", therefore there is nothing to bend.

About a hundred years ago the ether was removed from the study of physics, and now they are stuck with a bunch of nonsensical explanations that explain nothing for the observations they can't understand. Pop the ether back into the equations and stuff starts to make sense again. But this will remove the mystery from things, and probably remove an easy source of grant money for some.

Anyways, I like Edwin Webb's theory of gravity that includes the ether. Here are some excerpts of the theory:

1. In empty space (away from observable massive objects), there is an extremely high pressure of the ether "fluid" (i.e., the extremely high density of energy or matter referred to above); however, all vector components of the force produced by this pressure are equal and therefore cancel each other out. As a result, there is no net force vector (direction).

2. Observable matter (atoms, molecules, and large objects composed of these) is slightly less dense than the uniform ether of the vacuum.

3. Therefore, the surrounding ether (vacuum) will (paradoxically) create a force vector pushing (not pulling) from the high pressure in the space away from observable massive objects and toward the lower pressure near observable massive objects. That is, a pressure gradient in the ether is established toward "matter."

(taken from: NASA's Advanced Energetics for Aeronautical Applications: Volume II 2005)


The above reminds of the same effect you'd get when floating in the ocean. Try as I might, it is tough to swim down below the surface. The air in my lungs, in me, pushes me back to the surface since I am less dense than the surrounding water. Thus, the higher density water is pushing me back to the surface. Similarly, like the higher density ether pushes down on some fruit you may toss into the air.

a reply to: ErosA433

Who created the standard solar model? I thought it was the work from Hans Bethe who later went on to work on the Manhattan Project. Somewhere around 1939/40. From wiki:

At the conference, Strömgren detailed what was known about the temperature, density and chemical composition of the Sun, and challenged the physicists to come up with an explanation. Gamow and Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker had proposed in a 1937 paper that the Sun's energy was the result of a proton–proton chain reaction:[55][56]

But this did not account for the observation of elements heavier than helium. By the end of the conference, Bethe, working in collaboration with Charles Critchfield, had come up with a series of subsequent nuclear reactions that explained how the Sun shines:[57]

When were neutrinos first detected? 1965? When was the start of plasma physics and the segway into the EU theory? 1970's. Hmmm, curious that a theory would discard the neutrino discovery at their birth. Or are you saying that the EU theory shouldn't be able to explain neutrinos because of the standard solar model. But if the standard solar model is wrong, using it as a source to prove itself or other theories right/wrong seems ridiculous. So you continue to argue from a failing model and condemn anything that goes against your religion. Nice.

It is kind of interesting that a simple video without cursing, gore or sexual content causes you so much pain and discomfort.

It causes me no pain or discomfort at all... i simply find a video full of lies and misdirection... to be worthless


The neutrino was proposed by Wolfgang Pauli in 1930. It was proposed because of the observation of non-conservation momentum and energy in beta decay. He proposed it, and hated the idea, as to paraphrase him... he didn't like to propose something that you cannot detect or test. (A lesson for all the EU theory people... who thus far haven't really proposed anything with any predictive ability or maths other than oh look at this shape, its similar)

At that point, and actually universally energy and momentum are observed to be conserved in reactions... beta decay was a single example which bucked this trend. So introducing it as a 3 body decay in which the neutrino carries away the 'missing energy and momentum' is a fix... not great... but its a fix and it can be tested as the neutrino proposed has properties attributed to it as a consequence as being part of the beta decay process.

So roll forward to the Cowan–Reines neutrino experiment in the 1950s, they set about observing electron anti-neutrinos from a reactor. Theoretically... the prediction is that an electron anti-neutrino can react with a proton, and undergo an inverse beta reaction, producing a neutron and a positron (anti-electron).

SO their experiment, which would give evidence for this reaction would be to detect both the neutron and the positron.

The positron will capture with another electron and give you back to back 511keV gammas (again conservation of energy and momentum) You detect this coincidence in segmented detectors. The neutron you capture on a nucleus in this case they used Cadmium salt, as had been observed previously, neutron capture on cadmium will give you an excited state Cadmium isotope which decays with a finite lifetime to give a gamma. So you try and detect that gamma coincident with the lifetime after the back to back gammas.

So they were successful in this, proving the existence of this particle as predicted by theory.

The Standard Solar model as tested from its prediction of neutrino flux is largely from John Bahcall and was largely done around the time of Ray Davis's homestake experiment.



So you accuse the standard solar model as wrong because of neutrinos, and yet you ignore the evidence from a wealth of experiments... because it doesn't support your religion. Nice

a reply to: ErosA433

Yes, non-supported evidence is the message. Where is the evidence? Gravity seems powerless within the expansion physics of the universe, that is, if we are truly expanding. F###ck.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: ErosA433
Where is the evidence?

You're looking for evidence of what exactly?

Gravity seems powerless within the expansion physics of the universe, that is, if we are truly expanding. F###ck.

Where there are concentrations of gravity, like in galaxies, gravity is not powerless against the expansion, gravity does seem to be overpowering the tendency for expansion on galactic scales, because galaxies and even galaxy clusters don't seem to be expanding.

Between the galaxy clusters are vast voids of relative emptiness, with not much there to create gravity, and those are the regions which are expanding. So I'm not sure I'd say gravity is powerless against the expansion, but gravity can only counteract the expansion in regions where there's enough of it there to do so.

It's kind of like saying air is powerless to push up a helium balloon. That depends on how much air is there. Close to earth's surface there's plenty of air to push up the balloon, but as the air thins out with altitude, at some height, there's just not enough of it there to keep pushing up the balloon. So the problem isn't how air is powerless, it's lack of air; similarly with gravity, with enough of it the expansion is halted, it's only in the regions with too little gravity to overpower the expansion that the expansion wins.

This Is Why We Aren't Expanding, Even If The Universe Is

hahahahaha, perish mainstream perish

you are gasping your last breath

enjoy it while you can

all of those years ... all of those souls sold for the paychecks .... wasted


hahahahahahahahahaha

suckers