The Moon - Why Einstein Was Wrong

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I provided links to the papers.

If you click through them, you'll find the supporting journal articles.

Why don't you explain it in your own words? You say that even a 10 years old understands, so it must be easy to explain.

I did explain it so a 10 year old could understand it.

Hence, why I linked the journal articles at the bottom so if someone wanted to research further, they could.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
2. I don't like having money taken from me at gun point and spent on worthless projects. Einstein's theories are the basis of those projects.

A vast majority of money our govt spends is on entitlement programs and defense. If you believe that Social Security and the US Navy were masterminded by Einstein, you need you head checked asap.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
2. I don't like having money taken from me at gun point and spent on worthless projects. Einstein's theories are the basis of those projects.

A vast majority of money our govt spends is on entitlement programs and defense. If you believe that Social Security and the US Navy were masterminded by Einstein, you need you head checked asap.

So when are you going to attack the points I presented in the OP?

Lets get back on topic here.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Not ad hominems; not personal attacks. They were just observations. Simple as that. If you view an observation as an attack, then it must be a touchy subject for you.

[edit on 21/5/2010 by Chamberf=6]

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Not ad hominems; not personal attacks. They were just observations. Simple as that.

No, not observations.

The are personal attacks against me and my credibility that have absolutely nothing to do with the theory and information proposed in the OP.

reply to post by mnemeth1


How is that an attack ? Please tell me how stating something is an attack against you. I am curious.

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

How is that an attack ? Please tell me how stating something is an attack against you. I am curious.

How about you refute the points in the OP, and I'll offer rebuttals to your criticism.

reply to post by mnemeth1


You did not explain anything, you just say it must be electrical forces and that it is obvious. I'm an electrical engineer myself, and it is far from obvious to me. Is doesn't need to be that complicated, just explain how the electric field that ejects planets is generated, where does the charge come from. Also explain why this doesn't happen anymore. Just a bit more depth to your theories won't hurt.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

You did not explain anything, you just say it must be electrical forces and that it is obvious. I'm an electrical engineer myself, and it is far from obvious to me. Is doesn't need to be that complicated, just explain how the electric field that ejects planets is generated, where does the charge come from. Also explain why this doesn't happen anymore. Just a bit more depth to your theories won't hurt.

I agree. And yet gravity is a constant presence, though its force varies. It is still observable and provable. It's affects are seen everywhere. And the astroids are moving in an orbit with momentum. That is why they aren't sucking into each other to form planets.



[edit on 21/5/2010 by Chamberf=6]

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

You did not explain anything, you just say it must be electrical forces and that it is obvious. I'm an electrical engineer myself, and it is far from obvious to me. Is doesn't need to be that complicated, just explain how the electric field that ejects planets is generated, where does the charge come from. Also explain why this doesn't happen anymore. Just a bit more depth to your theories won't hurt.

In a discharging plasma anode (standard star), you'll can have a fissioning of the plasma sphere under intense electrical loads as the plasma tries to distribute the load over a wider surface area.

This is where the ejection comes from.

Scott explains more here:
www.electric-cosmos.org...


[edit on 21-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

You did not explain anything, you just say it must be electrical forces and that it is obvious. I'm an electrical engineer myself, and it is far from obvious to me. Is doesn't need to be that complicated, just explain how the electric field that ejects planets is generated, where does the charge come from. Also explain why this doesn't happen anymore. Just a bit more depth to your theories won't hurt.

In a discharging plasma anode (standard star), you'll can have a fissioning of the plasma sphere under intense electrical loads as the plasma tries to distribute the load over a wider surface area.

This is where the ejection comes from.

Scott explains more here:
www.electric-cosmos.org...

Plasma it not sentient. It can't "try to distribute" anything because it thinks it's under too much electrical load.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Plasma it not sentient. It can't "try to distribute" anything because it thinks it's under too much electrical load.

No, its not sentient.

However it does obey the known laws of physics.

Thus, it can fission when overloaded.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Plasma it not sentient. It can't "try to distribute" anything because it thinks it's under too much electrical load.

No, its not sentient.
However it does obey the known laws of physics.
Thus, it can fission when overloaded.

Sorry but I find that assumption completely unfounded. I need to see a calculation which demonstrates that. What's overload in the first place? Do stars have fuses in the basement? Sheesh

Originally posted by mnemeth1
In a discharging plasma anode (standard star), you'll can have a fissioning of the plasma sphere under intense electrical loads as the plasma tries to distribute the load over a wider surface area.

This is where the ejection comes from.

Scott explains more here:
www.electric-cosmos.org...


[edit on 21-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

Im trying to understand and visualize what you say. With "the plasma sphere" you mean a plasma surrounding the sun? And with "load" you mean charge? Where does this charge come from? How does it get more intense? And what exactly is fissioning to what?

I have only skimmed the link you gave, I may read it a bit more later. I jumped right to the fission part but that didn't give me any more insight.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by -PLB-]

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Sorry but I find that assumption completely unfounded. I need to see a calculation which demonstrates that. What's overload in the first place? Do stars have fuses in the basement? Sheesh

Here's an image of a z-pinch in action.


www.holoscience.com...

The result is called the "z-pinch." The term "z-pinch" comes from the usual representation of a current flowing along the z-axis, parallel to the magnetic field. With a strong enough current, the plasma formed by the discharge electromagnetically "pinches" into a string of sausages, donuts and plasma instabilities, along the z-axis].

The z-pinch is a well known phenomena in plasma physics.

en.wikipedia.org...

plasma-gate.weizmann.ac.il...

In the Z-pinch system the plasma is produced by applying a high voltage pulse across an anode-cathode gap of cylindrical geometry, that is either pre-filled with gas or bridged by an array of wires (typically made of a high-Z metal such as tungsten). The plasma is imploded by the azimuthal magnetic field produced by the axially flowing discharge current. During compression and stagnation, the kinetic energy is converted to thermal energy and radiation, and a hot and dense core is formed at the center. Typical densities and temperatures at the pinch core are 1018-1022 cm-3 and 0.1-1 keV, respectively. At this stage the plasma becomes highly unstable, resulting in disassembly, expansion and cooling. The duration of the implosion process is typically between 100 ns to 1 s. Highly stripped ions are formed during the thermalization phase, and the plasma emits mostly in the x-ray regime. The X-ray radiation could account for nearly 10% of the total electromagnetic energy. This pulsed X-ray emission has many important future applications, being the main reason for current worldwide interest in Z-pinch plasmas.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by mnemeth1
In a discharging plasma anode (standard star), you'll can have a fissioning of the plasma sphere under intense electrical loads as the plasma tries to distribute the load over a wider surface area.

This is where the ejection comes from.

Scott explains more here:
www.electric-cosmos.org...


[edit on 21-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

Im trying to understand and visualize what you say. With "the plasma sphere" you mean a plasma surrounding the sun? And with "load" you mean charge? Where does this charge come from? How does it get more intense? And what exactly is fissioning to what?

I have only skimmed the link you gave, I may read it a bit more later. I jumped right to the fission part but that didn't give me any more insight.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by -PLB-]

You have to read the electric solar models first and understand them.

You should also familiarize yourself with plasma pinch instabilities because this is the basis of stellar formation in the electric model.

Electric solar models
sites.google.com...

Development of sausage-type instability in a Z-pinch plasma column
iopscience.iop.org...

[edit on 21-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Here they talk about a pulse. Where does this voltage pulse come from?

reply to post by mnemeth1


No, if you toss "Z-pinch" into that crazy salad, it still doesn't explain why fission of a star is preferable in term of potential energy.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

No, if you toss "Z-pinch" into that crazy salad, it still doesn't explain why fission of a star is preferable in term of potential energy.

I'm not "tossing" the z-pinch into the salad, this has been explanation for electric star theory since Juergen's came up with the theory.

I think the points in the OP make it clear why fissioning from a star is a better explanation of where planets come from than gravitational theory.

Unless you care to explain how a dust cloud can form a planet when the physics of dust in space say this is impossible.



[edit on 21-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Here they talk about a pulse. Where does this voltage pulse come from?

The pulse being described is talking about how we create them on earth.

Because of the electrical loads required, capacitor banks are used to create them in the lab.



[edit on 21-5-2010 by mnemeth1]