More Evidence Einstein Was Wrong

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by peter vlar

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla

 

If you want to believe there are stars made of hypothetical matter that spin around on their axis 67,000 times per minute, be my guest.

The theory is totally absurd.

If you want to believe that saturn is a brown dwarf from another star AND say it's a planet then be my guest.

Electric universe theory is totally absurd.

I never said it was both at the same time.



[edit on 8-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

No, you never specifically stated that Saturn was both a planet and a brown dwarf at the same time. you also have yet to answer any question I've asked relating to how this happens in your magically delicious version of the multiverse. Soooooooooooooooo how does a stellar object get to have multiple personality disorder? inquiring minds want to know.

I gave you links to the published papers on several electric star models.

I gave you links to a professor's web site that breaks it down piece by piece.

I've presented videos.

I've explained it in layman's terms.

If you don't want to read, then there's not much more I can do here.

no, its not that I don't want to read.I did read and you're asking me to research hard science by reading Grimm's Fairy Tales. I asked YOU, repeatedly, specific questions and you either refuse or much more likely are unable to answer them because there is not a cliff notes handy guide in any of your links. This has been fun and all but I think I'm going to go walk around in the GR universe where gravity keeps my feet firmly planted on the ground.

reply to post by peter vlar


If you want to call the IEEE Journals a fairy tale, there's nothing I could say to you that would change your mind.

Asking me to repeat myself over and over again is nothing more than trolling me to waste my time.



[edit on 9-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


What strikes me as entertaining is the fact that us fringe scientists had to spend years studying both the mainstream approach and the alternatives in order to reach our conclusions, yet the mainstreamers put a LOT of effort into not doing any reading of their own concerning the alternative viewpoints. I mean, heaven forbid anyone checks out the special issues of IEEE transactions devoted to the topic, or the books written by the pioneers, or the papers written by same, or maybe the transcripts from some of the conferences. No, all information must come directly from the thread that the conversation is happening in, as if this thread will be the turning point in all of Cosmology.

Another thing that always strikes me as entertaining is the fact that mainstreamers believe any alternative must be already complete in order to supplant the foundations of the old paradigm. However this is not how paradigm shifts work, and one does not need a complete theory in order to better explain observation than a currently existing and deeply flawed foundation.

Oh and for whoever it was that thinks otherwise: A moving charged particle IS a current IS electricity. Something taught in basic e and m.

reply to post by Ionized


a) You seriously think that rocky planets are just farts of gas giants in the Solar System, and that there is a mysterious force that made their orbits circular whereas they had to be eccentric, and also aligned all of the above in ecliptic plane?

b) You believe that the Solar corona with its temperature and density both much much lower than achieved in the lab can still produce a huge amount of energy, whereas in the lab plasma just fizzles despite million times more favorable conditions?

If you want to be taken seriously, maybe it's about time to stop insisting on nonsense.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Either you clicked on the wrong 'reply to' button, or you have me seriously confused with someone else. I stated none of what you claim I state.

The details are for the next generations to work out.

Originally posted by Ionized
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Either you clicked on the wrong 'reply to' button, or you have me seriously confused with someone else.

Au contraire, I meant to write to you.

I stated none of what you claim I state.

That's encouraging. If you don't, what's left of your "plasma cosmology"?

Scott writes on fusion:

V. FUSION IN THE DOUBLE LAYER
The z-pinch effect of high intensity, parallel current filaments
in arc mode plasma is very strong. Nuclear fusion may well be
taking place within the DL above the photosphere. The result
of this fusion process may be the metals that give rise to
absorption lines in the Sun's spectrum. Traces of sixty-eight of
the ninety-two natural elements are found in the Sun's
atmosphere. Most of the radio frequency noise emitted by the
Sun emanates from this region. Radio noise is a well-known
property of DLs.

The electrical power delivered to the plasma at any point is
the product of the E-field (Volts per meter) times current
density (Amps per square meter). This product yields power
density (Watts per cubic meter). The current density is
relatively constant over the height of the photospheric /
chromospheric layers. However, the E-field is by far the
strongest at the center of the DL. Nuclear fusion requires high
levels of power – and that power is available in the DL.
It has also been reported [8] that the neutrino flux from the
Sun may vary inversely with sunspot number. This is to be
expected in the solar DL hypothesis if the source of those
neutrinos is z-pinch produced fusion that is occurring in the
double layer – and sunspots are locations where there is no DL
in which this process can occur.

he further comments:

Fusion in the Double Layer

The z-pinch effect of high intensity, parallel current filaments in an arc plasma is very strong. Whatever nuclear fusion is taking place on the Sun is occurring here in the double layer (DL) at the top of the photosphere (not deep within the core). The result of this fusion process are the "metals" that give rise to absorption lines in the Sun's spectrum. Traces of sixty eight of the ninety two natural elements are found in the Sun's atmosphere. Most of the radio frequency noise emitted by the Sun emanates from this region. Radio noise is a well known property of DLs. The electrical power available to be delivered to the plasma at any point is the product of the E-field (Volts per meter) times current density (Amps per square meter). This multiplication operation yields Watts per cubic meter. The current density is relatively constant over the height of the photospheric / chromospheric layers. However, the E-field is by far the strongest at the center of the DL. Nuclear fusion takes a great deal of power - and that power is available in the DL.

It is also observed that the neutrino flux from the Sun varies inversely with sunspot number. This is expected in the ES hypothesis because the source of those neutrinos is z-pinch produced fusion which is occurring in the double layer - and sunspots are locations where there is no DL in which this process can occur.

So how does gravity works under plasma cosmology? it seems you people are caught up in fighting and therefore ignored my little request :-).

reply to post by masterp


Allow me to elaborate on that. The same way as Newton described it. That means at 9,8m/s^2 on Earth for example.

reply to post by masterp


"Gravitation is, of course, one of the dominating forces in astrophysics . However, as electromagnetic forces are stronger by a factor of 1039, gravitation is important only when electromagnetic forces neutralize each other, as is the case for large bodies. In our solar system, gravitational forces do not seem to be of primary importance in producing high energy phenomena"
"A plasma cloud approaching the Earth will already be stopped in the magnetosphere, or in any case, in the upper ionosphere, where gas clouds will also be stopped. The result will be a heating of the upper atmosphere which makes it expand and stop an additional infall of more distant clouds.
"Low density plasma clouds approaching the Sun will be stopped very far away by the solar wind. A neutral gas cloud falling towards the Sun is likely to be stopped when it has reached the critical velocity. This occurs when the cloud is still very far from the photosphere. In fact, its kinetic energy will be only of the order of 10 eV when this occurs."

- Hannes Alfvén

Originally posted by masterp
So how does gravity works under plasma cosmology? it seems you people are caught up in fighting and therefore ignored my little request :-).

www.holoscience.com...

Gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons.[18] The force between any two aligned electrostatic dipoles varies inversely as the fourth power of the distance between them and the combined force of similarly aligned electrostatic dipoles over a given surface is squared. The result is that the dipole-dipole force, which varies inversely as the fourth power between co-linear dipoles, becomes the familiar inverse square force of gravity for extended bodies. The gravitational and inertial response of matter can be seen to be due to an identical cause. The puzzling extreme weakness of gravity (one thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion times less than the electrostatic force) is a measure of the minute distortion of subatomic particles in a gravitational field.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Maybe it is just me, but I am strangely attracted to the woman in your avatar. What can I say? A pretty girl is a pretty girl, dead or not.

Anyways, I have read through the first couple of pages of this thread and I have to say every time I see mnemeth1's threads or posts I try and shut my brain off.

He has stated that many times he thinks Einstein is wrong, thats fine, but he has no evidence for it.

He has very little knowledge of the cutting edge of physics and probably has little better knowledge on the subject than high school.

I agree we know very very little about gravity, and we have tied the other 3 forces together in the quantum model, but that does not allow for the gibberish that comes out in threads like this.

He talks about brown dwarfs going supernova and clearly has no idea how supernovae works.

I agree it is a good idea to think outside of the box, as that is where the big advances come from but this is way too far out.

Pred..

[edit on 10-7-2010 by predator0187]

Originally posted by predator0187
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Maybe it is just me, but I am strangely attracted to the woman in your avatar.

What can I say? A pretty girl is a pretty girl, dead or not.

Anyways, I have read through the first couple of pages of this thread and I have to say every time I see mnemeth1's threads or posts I try and shut my brain off.

He has stated that many times he thinks Einstein is wrong, thats fine, but he has no evidence for it.

He has very little knowledge of the cutting edge of physics and probably has little better knowledge on the subject than high school.

I agree we know very very little about gravity, and we have tied the other 3 forces together in the quantum model, but that does not allow for the gibberish that comes out in threads like this.

He talks about brown dwarfs going supernova and clearly has no idea how supernovae works.

I agree it is a good idea to think outside of the box, as that is where the big advances come from but this is way too far out.

Pred..

[edit on 10-7-2010 by predator0187]

I saw the tesseract in your avatar and had to respond.

I thought you might like this thread I did on them.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Gentill Abdulla


I've always been fascinated by the concept of the tesseract as well. (And, by extension, the entire concept of "4-D". Ever read "Flatlanders"?)

Glad you linked that thread, will be reading it.

reply to post by predator0187


Yes, but he is showing that the mainstream theory on planet formation is wrong. Which it is

More supporting evidence for the electric model of stars.

Brown dwarfs are not found around normal stars.

In the electric model of stars, since brown dwarfs are nothing more than gas giant planets located outside the influence of a "Sun", this is expected:

hubblesite.org...

The Hubble survey, taken with Hubble's Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS), provides strong statistics pointing to the fact that brown dwarfs do not exist around even the least massive stars. "If mass ratio was the driving factor we would expect to find more brown dwarfs around small red stars than around solar type stars," says Dieterich.

Consistent.

Predictive.

Plasma cosmology.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

www.holoscience.com...

Gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons

This is the kind of a post I've come to expect from you -- heavy on science-sounding terms, with zero relation to facts and rich in ignorance in the discipline of physics.

The upper limit on the EDM of neutron is just miniscule. There is absolutely no evidence of electron having structure and/or dipole moment. Paradoxically, some people just invent stuff which is far less likely than the existence of dark matter and all that!

And I'm not even talking about interaction of light with gravity -- which was observed in the lab. Now are we to believe that photons also have EDM?

Look, at some point it's just too painfully obvious this whole thing of "electric gravity" if a huge pile of steaming crap.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Maddogkull

 

If you want a full working theory of earth's history from this perspective read this:
saturniancosmology.org...

It might not be perfect, but its close to what I think really happened.

I went to that link, and read the contents there too. The things presented there are not science. It is speculative fiction. Good read, but a shame people will actually believe it.