More Evidence Einstein Was Wrong

reply to post by peter vlar


I'm sorry, you're right, what I was trying to get at were the mass extinction events.

The KT boundary is massively iridium rich IIRC.

www.lbl.gov...

One popular theory discussed at great length in the scientific literature attributes the extinction to certain effects caused by a nearby supernova. For example, if a star exploded a light year away, the increased cosmic ray intensity could have killed the animals by giving them all an intense dose of radiation. The problem is that the probability of such a supernova explosion is only about one in a million, in the last one hundred million years. From the amount of iridium measured in the rocks, supernova explosion would have had to be a tenth of a light year away. This upped the odds to a probability of one in a billion.

This theory of a supernova being the cause of the extinction events is exactly what happened.

And indeed, the supernova was much less than a tenth of a light year away.

Saturn went supernova as brown dwarfs are apt to do.

Because dwarf stars don't have same mechanisms to deal with current overload as primary stars, they are more prone to violent nova events. In an electric star model, novas do not necessarily destroy the star. They are an explosive break down of the plasma boundaries resulting in a massive release of energy. A star may nova repeatedly without destroying itself.

Also, I'm interested in what you think about that petrosaur paper I linked.

As a side note, you should look into the geologic record of the ocean floors. You will find them highly interesting. Particularly when one thinks about the Pangaea argument. The geologic record of ocean floor ages makes zero sense in Pangaea theory.

The reason why oceanic fossils are all found on dry land will become apparent to you if you can put two and two together.


[edit on 7-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by Maddogkull
Like neutron stars, common now... that has already been debunked and the cosmologists are still trying to think of alternatives.

When and how neutron stars have been "debunked"?

reply to post by buddhasystem


Well, they spin around at 67,000 times per minute and are made out of matter that violates the island of stability principle of nuclear chemistry.

Believing that a star is spinning on its axis at 67,000 times per minute while being made out of fictional matter takes more faith than believing Moses parted the Red Sea.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Well, they spin around at 67,000 times per minute and are made out of matter that violates the island of stability principle of nuclear chemistry.

The island of stability in nuclear chemistry is formed by combination of strong and coulomb forces. In neutron star, there is gravity that becomes one of the dominant forces as opposed to the case with a conventional nucleus. I thought you knew that... Silly me!

reply to post by buddhasystem


I know the standard explanation.

I just don't have the blind faith to believe it like you do. Especially when Peratt has published a paper that explains the pulses without the use of strange matter or 67,000 rpm rotation rates.

Considering Jupiter emits millisecond radio pulses and it is not spinning around at thousands of times per minute, I'm going to stick with Peratt on this one.



[edit on 7-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

While a super nova is an extremely possible explanation as there is not an abundance of iridium terrestrially there are some flaws with this.

1. there is absolutely no evidence that Saturn ever has or ever could go nova. It just isn't happening in any version of the multiverse, sorry.

2. the odds of a supernova 1 light yr away are 1 in a million for the past 100 million years. the odds of a super nova less than a 10th of a lt yr away (which by the calculations in your link is required for the iridium levels found) are 1 in a billion for the last 100 million years.

3. if the odds are that high, while it is not impossible to employ this model for the KT extinction event you are unable to explain away the following

Triassic/Jurassic extinction event 205ma
Permian/Triassic event 251ma
96% of all marine life gone, 70% of all land species including insects and plants extinct

Late Devonian 360-375ma
Ordovician/Silurian 440-450ma
57% of all life extinct

Now lets do a little additional figuring here. your theory hinges on a single, near instantaneous event like the KT event where there are elevated levels of a non terrestrial element i.e. iridium in this particular instance. we can rule out the later two mass extinctions as both were a slow gradual process much like the current Holocene event. That leaves us with KT at 65 ma, TJ at 205ma and the PT at 251ma. If the odds are 1 in a billion for such a supernova as you describe, what then are the odds of 3 happening in 186 million years and two of them in less than 50 million?

reply to post by peter vlar


The evidence supports Saturn being a brown dwarf and going nova, causing the KT extinction.

You can choose to say the evidence does not support this, but I find it wildly amusing that tons of research has been done on the possibly of a nova causing the KT event, and here plasma cosmology offers the clear explanation for how this could feasibly occur, yet you are dismissing it out of hand.

If the shoe fits.

I don't have definite answers to the slow events, but I am offering you a clear plausible way to explain the KT event that can meet all the anthropological observations.

Nova events are not "odds" based they are location based. As a dwarf moves into a highly active region of space it may nova multiple times rapidly.

And what do you think about that petrosaur paper?


[edit on 7-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Let's play what if...?
What if Saturn IS a Brown Dwarf. Just for the hell of it, I'll play along. There are 4 types of brown dwarf. which type is Saturn and why?

reply to post by peter vlar


There are only two types of stars in an electric model, anode discharge and cathode discharge type stars.

What "type" of brown dwarf Saturn was (past tense) according to the standard theory of stars, obviously we can't tell. I use the standard term "brown dwarf" because it is more familiar. The term brown dwarf is interchangeable with the term cathode discharging electric model star.

In the electric model, the age of stars is an unknown. Stellar evolution is not a function of age in the electric model. In the electric model, stars can burn indefinitely.

An overview of the electric star model is laid out by Prof. Don Scott on his website here:
www.electric-cosmos.org...

and here:
www.electric-cosmos.org...

The second link provides and overview of "types" as they are denoted by the standard model.



[edit on 7-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

and what part of the model predicts that a brown dwarf or as you call it a cathode discharge will evolve into a Saturn like body?

reply to post by peter vlar


It doesn't evolve.

It depends on location.

The Sun is sucking up all the free electrons so to speak.

If one were to move Saturn outside the Sun's influence its magnetosphere would light up in discharge again.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by peter vlar

 

If one were to move Saturn outside the Sun's influence its magnetosphere would light up in discharge again.

complete and utter bull#, sorry. you have not demonstrated any evidence of fantasy land thus far.If Saturn were a brown dwarf it would have a much stronger magnetosphere itself. As it is, it is weaker than Earth's magnetic field. I'm also trying to figure out how you reconcile Saturn's low temperature and extremely low density and small amounts of atmospheric methane are completely contradictory to what is currently known about brown dwarfs. There is nothing going on with Saturn that remoptely resembles any of the processes we know about brown dwarfs.

reply to post by peter vlar



So you are an anthropologist that doesn't know how to read?

Are you incapable of understanding the words I've written, did you ignore them, or are you just trolling me?

How many times do I have to say Saturn was - past tense - was a brown dwarf, as in:

"not now"
"currently is not"
"not at the present"
"formerly"
"in the past"
"not any longer"



[edit on 8-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


This is something you state, with such certainty, with a straight face?

How many times do I have to say Saturn was - past tense - was a brown dwarf....

Simply, stunningly amazingly --- well, stunningly amazing! :shk:
~~~~~

Oh, wow! And I missed this, up thread~! Simply leaves me at a loss for how to respond, further....

Saturn went supernova as brown dwarfs are apt to do.

Oh, my. Oh, my. I think I'll borrow from our mates in the UK, and say it leaves me completely 'gobsmacked' to read such gibberish, when it is apparenlty meant in earnest....and with full sincerity.
~~~~~


So, in order for this delusion of a "theory" be sustained, it requires a complete ignorance of stellar evolution and composition?? What utter nonsense....now it is evident what a load of clap-trap this entire thread is, IF it is predicated on junk like this...

And, you ignore JUPITER?!?

(Hint: Jupiter is larger and more massive than Saturn...)

But, in any event, NEITHER Jupiter, nor Saturn, is large enough to even approach the requirements to qualify as a Brown Dwarf Star!!:

Brown dwarfs are sub-stellar objects which are too low in mass to sustain stable hydrogen fusion. Their mass is below that necessary to maintain hydrogen-burning nuclear fusion reactions in their cores, as do stars on the main sequence, but which have fully convective surfaces and interiors, with no chemical differentiation by depth. Brown dwarfs occupy the mass range between that of large gas giant planets and the lowest mass stars; this upper limit is between 75 and 80 Jupiter masses.

en.wikipedia.org...

A sub-stellar object – one that is intermediate in mass between a star and a planet; brown dwarfs (which are not really brown but a very dull red) are sometimes described as "failed stars" because they are not massive enough to have initiated hydrogen fusion (see hydrogen burning) in their cores. They are also commonly referred to as "missing links" between gas giants, such as Jupiter, and red dwarfs, which are the smallest, lowest-mass true stars.

www.daviddarling.info...


astro.berkeley.edu...

www.cfht.hawaii.edu...

www.scholarpedia.org...

scienceworld.wolfram.com...


SO...out of all the hundreds and thousands of actual scientists and astronomers and physicists and cosmologists in the world, only YOU "know" what is really the 'true nature' of the Universe?? :shk:

Wow!


This sullies the intent of ATS, I believe. We no longer live in the Dark Ages, when valid science was rejected because it conflicted with religious dogma and orthodoxy.

Back then, it was correct to challenge a skewed world view, with science. Today, however, it is folly to believe in such blantantly and demnonstrably FALSE assumptions; it is almost as if it has a religious slant to it, the very antithesis of science and inquiry!!

This "EU" baloney is a FAITH! And, has no basis in reality, any more than the attmepts by those who try to invoke pseudo-science to 'explain' Genesis!!!


[edit on 8 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Hello WW,

congrats on a nice post, but you can't win (and nobody can, for that matter) in a debate with "mnemeth", because you see, you are bound by rules of logic and facts of science, and they are not. They can say that whatever limits on brown dwarf mass are established, are based on faulty "traditional" science, that gravity does not apply, that the Sun in a giant sink for "free electrons" etc ad infinitum. Again, in a debate, if one side bases its argument on the science definition of a theory and observable facts, and the other is happy to invent ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING at will, and claim that you are too dense to understand their revelations, its really a lost cause.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Did you have fun destroying that strawman you just built?

By the way, EU theory does not require faith.

What requires faith is believing that pulsars are spinning around on their axis 67,000 times per minute while being made out of hypothetical matter that has never been created in a lab.



[edit on 8-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
What requires faith is believing that pulsars are spinning around on their axis 67,000 times per minute while being made out of hypothetical matter that has never been created in a lab.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The Universe we live in is an astounding place. One can have an open mind and still follow the scientific method. You do neither of these two things.

Neutrons stars have densities of same order as nuclear density. In the lab, we created densities 10 to 20 times higher than that. Look up RHIC and do some reading, if you are up to it.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
What requires faith is believing that pulsars are spinning around on their axis 67,000 times per minute while being made out of hypothetical matter that has never been created in a lab.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The Universe we live in is an astounding place. One can have an open mind and still follow the scientific method. You do neither of these two things.

Neutrons stars have densities of same order as nuclear density. In the lab, we created densities 10 to 20 times higher than that. Look up RHIC and do some reading, if you are up to it.

Stable matter at the densities required for neutron stars has never been created in a lab.

It can't be created in a lab because THE ISLAND OF STABILITY PREVENTS IT. The neutrons fly apart instantaneously.

And yes, the universe is an astounding place. However its also a place that follows consistent laws of physics.

I say the people who do not believe in plasma cosmology, to check out

www.thunderbolts.info...

And HAVE a debate. Those guys want you to debate there model, but no one ever does to there face, debate them.

Originally posted by Maddogkull
I say the people who do not believe in plasma cosmology, to check out

www.thunderbolts.info...

And HAVE a debate. Those guys want you to debate there model, but no one ever does to there face, debate them.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
-Mahatma Gandhi

Eventually the Einsteinian nonsense will come to an end.

Its already collapsing in on itself from the weight of its hypothetical nonsense.

The fact GR and SR still haven't been unified 80 years later says a lot.

Every month the physicists are forced to add another ad hoc form of matter or energy to their ridiculous equations to keep the farce going.



[edit on 8-7-2010 by mnemeth1]