Here's The Real Science

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


Plasma torus.

The "Phoebe" ring surrounds Saturn on the ecliptic plane. - That is to say, the ring is in the plane of Saturn's orbit around the sun.

Of course, scientists automatically presume this is a simple coincidence that has absolutely nothing to do with the Sun and everything to do with Saturn's moon Phoebe which also orbits in that plane of the ring.

To anyone with half a brain, the fact that this ring surrounds Saturn on the ecliptic basically screams that the Sun is playing a role in its creation.



[edit on 11-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

Watch and be amazed as I make some jaw dropping predictions about this ring.

Given that I know this ring is not composed of "moon dust" from Phoebe, but is actually the result of charged particles, most likely being imparted by the Sun, scientists will discover that this ring emits synchrotron radiation.

FURTHER

I suspect such rings also exist around the other gas giants. - also with the stunning revelation that the other rings are also in the plane of the ecliptic.

Remember this prediction, then have a heart attack and die after it comes true.

reply to post by mnemeth1


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6d4119aab6bc.jpg[/atsimg]

I've found a picture which should show Io's torus.
The halo looked much bigger.

Does this mean Jupiter follows it's torus and Io it's own or are they in fact one and io follows a path which has been layed out by the interaction from the sun and jupiter ?

Something similar as the gravity waves would create the spot where the orbit of a planet will be stable ?

Here is a link to a better picture showing the halo to follow the magnetic lines.

Wow guys I am flattered! Am I famous now? lol

Not too burst your bubble though, I am not well versed in cosmology and I am technically not yet a theoretical physicist. lol

Nonetheless I will give my 2 cents.


These are all very good points, and I am sure there are even more discrepancies out there, as is the case with the other sub-fields of physics.

As I mentioned to Sinister Klaas, there are big problems with physics today. There may be a major problem or there may be several minor problems, but the point is there is something wrong somewhere. I've argued with many professors about these (all of which were experimental physicists), and they could never ever prove their point. Where I am at now, there are many (experimental) particle physicists that worship the standard model, and I personally can't stand it. Even before I started college, when I heard about gravitons it made me sick! Virtual particle exchanges cause forces? Ya right. Now years later when I bring up the faults with the standard model (of particle physics) or with virtual particle exchanges as forces, physicists don't know what to say. It always ends with "Well, it works for us."

This is sad, but very true. The models, the theories used today might have serious flaws inherent in them, but they work for physicists.

Newtonian physics was like this for centuries, until they realized that Maxwell's equations implied that the speed of light would have to be fixed, which would contradict Newtonian physics, with the assumption of an absolute time and an absolute space. Then Einstein came along thinking outside the box.

Personally, I will say that before I learned special relativity, I had that same old feeling that there was something inherently wrong somewhere. First off, we have two working theories, quantum mechanics and relativity, and they are not reconcilable. This means that there is something amiss. Now, me being an avid fan of quantum mechanics I naturally assumed relativity was flawed in some way. Do I still feel that way now? Yes, but let me explain.

First, there seems to be several things intuitively wrong with his theory.

Einstein's field equations were borrowed from Riemannian Geometry, the geometry of higher dimensions. This makes perfect sense, taking time to be the 4th dimension, and defining an event in (x,y,z,t). Nothing wrong with this. Then we use the Lorentz transforms when solving problems in a different reference frame. Okay, this is good too.
So where's the problem?

In my opinion, the problem is with the paradigm.

What should we do about it? Change the paradigm.

However, the thing is these tools work well enough with our current scientific paradigm, as Newtonian Physics worked well enough for the previous scientific paradigm. Newtonian physics had many small discrepancies, but it wasn't until the major problem with Maxwell's equations that people went mad trying to figure it out. So now, we have discrepancies with Einstein's theory. Now, if you haven't noticed, after the irreconcilability with quantum mechanics, physicists are scrambling to solve the problem, coming up with just about everything they can imagine from quantum loop gravity to string theory.

However, there is just one thing they are missing: what they are doing is just adding to the problem.

Have you guys seen what the crazy things they are coming up with?

The problem is that they are not stopping to question if there is a flaw in the foundation. They are not going back to the basics. What they are doing is fabricating some highly elegant (but complicated) mathematics and adding to the mess. Now, I have to say it's all very interesting and entertaining to sit back and watch this madness go down, and I am sure there will be some good ideas and some new exciting mathematics that comes out of it, but... I think they are going nowhere in the direction they want to.

Now, with the big bang theory.

Where does the big bang come from?

All solutions to Einstein's equations show that 13.7 billion years ago the universe to have infinite density and infinite curvature, meaning the universe was squashed into a singularity with 0 size and 0 radius. All theories of cosmology assuming a smooth and flat space-time would break down 13.7 billion years ago.

So, it's up to you to decide what this means. Me, I have a totally different belief about the "beginning" and although it can correspond with any scientific model, it is not really scientific in nature - so I can care less about what the correct scientific model is because anything will work in my personal view.

As for gravitational waves, I don't buy into it. Gravitons are a joke. Virtual particle exchanges are BS.


Now, that's all I have to say right now. I will check out the links you posted and comment as soon as I get the time and I will check back here soon enough.

reply to post by BellaMente


You're a geek.

I like geeks.

btw, you all should check out that quasar article on time dilation.

I love this:

There’s also a possibility that the explanation could be even more far-reaching, such as that the universe is not expanding and that the big bang theory is wrong.

possibility?

How about "its a slam dunk in-your-face home run".

Thanks 10^100000 times to whoever pointed out that article to me. I hadn't heard of that study until you linked the article to me. To be sure, that's some heavy weight ammunition in the fight against the lies we are being told.

It the equivalent of finding an unexploded thermite cutter in the debris of the world trade center.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
btw, you all should check out that quasar article on time dilation.

I love this:

There’s also a possibility that the explanation could be even more far-reaching, such as that the universe is not expanding and that the big bang theory is wrong.

possibility?

How about "its a slam dunk in-your-face home run".

so im assuming that because you're so confident, you went back in time to the universe's creation and took video which you are about to post here, am i correct?

Originally posted by Paladin327

Originally posted by mnemeth1
btw, you all should check out that quasar article on time dilation.

I love this:

There’s also a possibility that the explanation could be even more far-reaching, such as that the universe is not expanding and that the big bang theory is wrong.

possibility?

How about "its a slam dunk in-your-face home run".

so im assuming that because you're so confident, you went back in time to the universe's creation and took video which you are about to post here, am i correct?

sorry to bust your bubble kid, but there's no black holes, wormholes, multiple dimensions, or time traveling particles.

I know this is a huge let down, but look at it this way - there are a lot of other cool things that can come from this like:

1. there may be no speed limit to how fast we can travel.

2. anti-gravity technology becomes a real possibility.

3. new sources of energy may be possible.

how's that.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Paladin327

Originally posted by mnemeth1
btw, you all should check out that quasar article on time dilation.

I love this:

There’s also a possibility that the explanation could be even more far-reaching, such as that the universe is not expanding and that the big bang theory is wrong.

possibility?

How about "its a slam dunk in-your-face home run".

so im assuming that because you're so confident, you went back in time to the universe's creation and took video which you are about to post here, am i correct?

sorry to bust your bubble kid, but there's no black holes, wormholes, multiple dimensions, or time traveling particles.

I know this is a huge let down, but look at it this way - there are a lot of other cool things that can come from this like:

1. there may be no speed limit to how fast we can travel.

2. anti-gravity technology becomes a real possibility.

3. new sources of energy may be possible.

how's that.

you never even answered my question. you dont have the answers so you change the argument to something else. inever even mentioned black holes, wormholes, or alternate dimensions. i would like to see this anti-gravity stuff and the possible new sources of energy you mention however



[edit on 11/4/2010 by Paladin327]

reply to post by mnemeth1


How about the polarization of light? Similar to a fiber optic perhaps?

A particular mass's net electric or magnetic field could affect the electric or magnetic components of light. Do not know if this makes sense.

I am currently in an Optics class so I am just brainstorming here.




[edit on 12-4-2010 by Unlimitedpossibilities]

Great thread and collection of information. I have for a longer time now argumented against such silly notions like black holes or big bang.

Tell a big enough lie enough times, and people will start to believe in it

Just imagine that parallel universes and colliding membranes have been seriously theorized just because someone decided ages ago that there must have been a big bang.

Originally posted by Unlimitedpossibilities
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

How about the polarization of light? Similar to a fiber optic perhaps?

A particular mass's net electric or magnetic field could affect the electric or magnetic components of light. Do not know if this makes sense.

I am currently in an Optics class so I am just brainstorming here.

[edit on 12-4-2010 by Unlimitedpossibilities]

Milo Wolff and Gabriel LaFreniere have put together the best explanation of light I have seen so far.

www.glafreniere.com...

Yesterday I've watched. Thunderbolts of the Gods

Amazing !


I've seen people say Occam's razor was BS on the science is a lie thread.

But here they show something in space and they tell it's perfectly explained with electricity. Well electricity I can understand. and there explanations are all easy to understand and you can even scale it down and try it for yourself if you're interested.

Talking about the an easy explanation. Ha !

There will probably be a lot of things which are wrong or not understand in and with the electric model. But I # you not ! When observations are as easily explained with a well understand force. People are real idiots if they do not even consider it to be possible.

It appears even Einstein was not satisfied with his explanations.
Not so remarkable if he basicly ignored electricity all together.

I'm convinced.

This seems to be a perfect example of people that think to much.
Of course you can make equations and calculations and take the long way home.
Ending up with ridiculous explanations and imagined causes to explain something which does not exist in the first place.

Why should you ?
The perfect explanation is presented on a silver plate. But all you see are countless possible and impossible ways to understand something you completely miss the obvious.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


Watching Thunderbolts for the first time is what convinced me that the standard model was indeed wrong.

From Thunderbolts, I set out to prove or disprove the theories of plasma cosmology.

I studied the work of Alfven, Peratt, Lerner, and all the other greats of the field. What I found was shocking.

Rest assured that what they say in the video is backed up 100% by peer reviewed proven science.

They aren't making anything up.

reply to post by mnemeth1


It's not just that.

I can even rely on my own experience ( not much ) with electricity and observings. To understand they are correct. To see that happening is crazy.

I don't really have a a basic background to these things only what I've learned when I needed to know to use or do something.

Originally posted by BellaMente
Virtual particle exchanges cause forces? Ya right.

Ya, right! As a physicist, you surely know that the notion of "virtual particles" comes about when calculating path integrals. I'm sure you've done some of this. Elements of diagrams used as an aid in calculations can be thought of as "particles". Here's a short excerpt from Wiki:

The calculation of scattering amplitudes in theoretical particle physics requires the use of some rather large and complicated integrals over a large number of variables. These integrals do, however, have a regular structure, and may be represented as Feynman diagrams. The appeal of the Feynman diagrams is strong, as it allows for a simple visual presentation of what would otherwise be a rather arcane and abstract formula. In particular, part of the appeal is that the outgoing legs of a Feynman diagram can be associated with real, on-shell particles. Thus, it is natural to associate the other lines in the diagram with particles as well, called the "virtual particles". Mathematically, they correspond to the propagators appearing in the diagram.

So basically, if you decide to attack "virtual particles" (which are mostly mnemonic and visualization tool), please explain what's wrong with propagators and be precise with your math.

The models, the theories used today might have serious flaws inherent in them, but they work for physicists.

Nobody said it's a perfect model, but no model ever was, and there unlikely be a "perfect model". Physicists know that. It just happens that SM explains an awful lot of stuff awfully well. Further, is scientists were 100% satisfied with the SM, lots of theoretical and experimental activity would probably just cease. However -- is there supersymmetry? We don't know just yet.

First off, we have two working theories, quantum mechanics and relativity, and they are not reconcilable.

QED, anyone?

I naturally assumed relativity was flawed in some way. Do I still feel that way now? Yes, but let me explain.

First, there seems to be several things intuitively wrong with his theory.

This world is not intuitive at all when we look at phenomena on "interesting" scale, micro or macro. If you have a gut feeling and I have experimental data, I'll go with the latter.

Einstein's field equations were borrowed from Riemannian Geometry, the geometry of higher dimensions. This makes perfect sense, taking time to be the 4th dimension, and defining an event in (x,y,z,t). Nothing wrong with this. Then we use the Lorentz transforms when solving problems in a different reference frame. Okay, this is good too.
So where's the problem?

In my opinion, the problem is with the paradigm.

What problem? That you have a hunch of some sort?

As for gravitational waves, I don't buy into it. Gravitons are a joke. Virtual particle exchanges are BS.

a) you seem to be mixing gravitons and gravitational waves in the same line, whereas they are not closely related.
b) for virtual particles, see my paragraph above.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
btw, you all should check out that quasar article on time dilation.

I love this:

There’s also a possibility that the explanation could be even more far-reaching, such as that the universe is not expanding and that the big bang theory is wrong.

possibility?

How about "its a slam dunk in-your-face home run".

As somebody pointed out in your other thread on same subject, for some reason you choose to commit same sin you so passionately accuse others of, which is being extremely confident in a particular dogma (as it related to science). I have no choice but call this stance a hypocrisy. But wait, there is more. Whereas the mainstream science does look at the body of experimental evidence they have, in order to converge to an understanding (which may indeed be misdirected at times), you are happy to jump to conclusions at the drop of a hat, passing judgment on complex items in physics which are way beyond your grade of competence. "Slam-dunk" and all.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Don't be mad that Einstein's theories are a joke and the highly intelligent and ever insightful Bella agrees with me.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I'm sorry I missed it.

You make a fair point on him attacking is confidence in the science he believes it true.

I'm convinced they are up to the point I can't follow it anymore.
I did not see you debunk anything he provided as evidence ( maybe missed it ) so don't count on that slam dunk to count .

Please provide some evidence what will proof his for wrong ? I like to see it simple so maybe I can understand it to.