Colossal Cosmic Accelerator Discovered Hovering Above Earth

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


So every space agency in the world is in on it, since they've all mapped out the belts to some degree or another.

Apollo shielding was the right type that was needed for high energy particles. Shielding needed in space is completely different from shielding needed on earth. If you use dense shielding in space, you'll cook your astronauts in no time. How do you think satellites manage to remain in orbit working so well, when they have the same type of shielding that Apollo had? Electronics are more vulnerable to radiation than people, and yet they remain working for 30+ years while bathed in it.

As for the third belt, it comes and it goes. Sometimes when they map the belts it's there, other times there's nothing. It's a variable belt.

reply to post by SLAYER69




Hmmm Interesting


WOW...

Lets see..

What Has Scientist been Saying to the Public Lately...

The Discovery

in My Interest

We have found Out we have a 2nd Layered Code in our DNA .. and programmable..

We live in a Hologram Universe kinda sorta Theory but Pretty Much as it Look we may be..

We Discovered Portals in space Between Earth and our Sun as NASA CLAIMS!!
ahh like Stargate Universe Destiny ?

and Now this a Colossal Cosmic Accelerator ???

I guess The Movies like... The 13th Floor and Tron isn't so Off I guess we will find the Portal to Enter the Real Universe.. From Our Scientific Claim of a Simulation Universe Like in Tron n Tron Legacy LOL

I Guess We will Find out the Truth Soon ... of DISCLOSURE ... LOL


are We are Just a Simulation as Our Universe is ..
or a Simulation within a simulation ! Watch The Vid Clip Below

The Thirteenth Floor - The Truth Scene



Break on Through to the Other Side Yeah !!

With all those Crazy UFO Conspiracy Theorist running around saying that The Sun is a Portal it Self to another 1) Universe 2) Dimension and Now we are finding all this stuff in Space.. and they are saying that ( MASS ) Particles are are hitting the Speed of Light ... hmm.. Whats Next .. Finding Heaven ??

I can Imagine what these Scientists are Saying to them selves !! .. OMG !! Paranoia to just Awe...

I truly Think most of Our Answers is within Ourselves! and we just touch the Surface on that...


Ohh I almost Forgot !! NASA has the Idea of Making a Warp Drive... and we are finding these things out !! a coincidence????

reply to post by steaming


no one has stayed silent on this, you do not need lead shielding.

(Shielding on the earth and in space is basically the same though) The above poster is correct though, the issue is to basically cause a single ionizing particle to turn into a shower of ionizing particles. This happens on the Earth and in space just the same.

The difference is the energy regimes. Example being the lead shields of an X-Ray machine. X-rays are fairly low energy and are not capable of showering. thus a simple lead shield is effective. A ultra high energy particle however is better off being allowed to pass straight through rather than showering.

reply to post by SLAYER69


These sources are explained in the Electric Universe Theory (EUT - which I believe is a superior explanation of observable phenomena compared to the Standard Model of cosmology) as Double Layering of Plasma.

The existence of these accelerators was predicted before experimental evidence confirmed their existence.

In the 1920s Irving Langmuir and Harold Mott-Smith showed that in a discharge tube the plasma sets up a thin boundary sheath which separates it from a wall or from a probe and shields it from the electric field. The electric field in this sheath, or ‘double layer’ of separated charge, accelerates charged particles. In 1958 Alfvén suggested that this phenomenon might be important in space plasmas. Sources of cosmic rays situated along the Sun’s axes were predicted by Alfvén in 1986 in an IEEE publication and NASA Conference Publication 2469, “Double Layers in Astrophysics.”

And a final word from Alfvén, who took the unprecedented step of predicting in his December 11, 1970 Nobel prize acceptance speech the eventual crash of astrophysics at the end of its long dark tunnel:

“In conclusion, it seems that astrophysics is too important to be left in the hands of theoretical astrophysicists who have gotten their education from the listed textbooks. The multibillion dollar space data from astronomical telescopes should be treated by scientists who are familiar with laboratory and magnetospheric physics, circuit theory, and, of course, modern plasma physics. More than 99 percent of the Universe consists of plasma, and the ratio between electromagnetic and gravitational forces is 10^39.”
—H. Alfvén, NASA Conference Publication 2469, 1986, p. 16.

www.holoscience.com...

For some very nice explanatory video on the EUT is contained in the following youtube link;

www.youtube.com...

I discovered this theory while working on Gyroscopes and trying to understand the source of gyroscopic forces.

My additional conjecture as follows;

Its my theory that the universe is comprised (physically - but not categorically, as I am unable to derive the source of information) of two helical vectors, one left and one right handed - the electrostatic and magnetic forces respectively. These are instantaneous in transmission, and infinite in length.

It is the distribution and tension between these rotating vectors that produces three dimensional space - as they are at their 'low energy state' when they are orthogonal. Thus, they will always tend to create a specific geometry, that being of a rotating disc pierced by an axis - I believe this is the only, and most fundamental geometry of the universe, and every particle or celestial object conforms to this geometry.


The vectors themselves dont really exist, but rather the 'density' of force is not homogeneous, and the boundary layer between different regional 'densities' create a helical vector.

Toroidal structures of plasma appear naturally due to these vectors, and form filaments, which when entwined become stable accelerators with a complex structure.

Such structures are found at the heart of every star and planet - they may however 'burn out' leaving a planet with no magnetic field, internal heat or volcanic activity (as in the case of Mars). Some volcanic activity however can occur due to the close passage of oppositely charged celestial bodies, most specifically comets, asteroids or other planets. These objects may also interact with arcing if in close proximity.

So moons, planets, stars and galaxies are then all formed by the same mechanism - which is the ejection of a plasmoid from a parent plasmoid - the new torus shaped plasma structure has an electric and magnetic field associated with it. These fields direct the plasma from nearby space along their axis, and capture some of them in a 'corona'. In a star the corona is extremely hot and luminous, for planets the energies are lower and they tend to cool and condense into planetary surfaces (the complex elements found are generated by plasma sputtering).

This indicates the earth is hollow, filled with hot plasma and constantly increasing in mass due to captured charged particles. Some are expelled, and some converted some into more complex elements, through a combination of collision and sputtering, which are deposited onto its inner surface.

For additional food for thought see the Expanding Earth Theory (which conforms to this model), and also the nature of the Moon. The capture of the moon is not readily explicable using a gravitational explanation, however an electrical theory would allow a neat and symmetrical orbital capture - but would also indicate a great deal of arcing, which I suggest is the reason for much of the cratering present on the moons surface.

reply to post by 8675309jenny


an approach from above may evade gravity, but I doubt there's enough fuel on the planet to get the materials into the newly discovered energetic region, maybe the Chinese will have fun trying to mine the moon, probably an easier resource for getting materials into space. especially for structures on a planetary scale

funBox

If we have this enormously large particle accelerator in orbit can we use it? Imagine using it's power with an orbital factory to create enough anti-matter for propulsion. Pie in the sky thinking. That's along ways ahead of our present capabilities however.

reply to post by Amagnon

This indicates the earth is hollow, filled with hot plasma and constantly increasing in mass due to captured charged particles. Some are expelled, and some converted some into more complex elements, through a combination of collision and sputtering, which are deposited onto its inner surface.

If the Earth were indeed "Hollow", then there has to be another explanation as to why seismology works in pinpointing the location of an earthquake from seismic stations thousands of miles away from the event. There is some pretty heady and accurate mathematics involved, which depends on the Earth having a crust, mantle and molten core.

Like all science, you have to explain away what we have evidence for, before replacing a theory with one that does not have a demonstrated scientific foundation.

charlyv
reply to post by Amagnon

 

If the Earth were indeed "Hollow", then there has to be another explanation as to why seismology works in pinpointing the location of an earthquake from seismic stations thousands of miles away from the event. There is some pretty heady and accurate mathematics involved, which depends on the Earth having a crust, mantle and molten core.

Like all science, you have to explain away what we have evidence for, before replacing a theory with one that does not have a demonstrated scientific foundation.

The equations you refer to were developed empirically - to conform to the standard model, as in cosmology, a range of assumptions are blended in. You can adjust the physical properties of the earth as violently and arbitrarily as you like, and the math can be tweaked to conform to it.

Science has always tended to make this mistake, which is to develop robust empirical methods, and explain them in the context of the prevailing model - and then claim the accuracy of the empirical method proves the claims of the standard theory.

Of course the transmissions of seismic energy through the earth are also easily and accurately explained within the context of the hollow earth, as ringing and reverberation - however I do not consider this evidence, for precisely the reasons mentioned.

The accuracy of the empirical method proves nothing more than the composition of the earth and the transmissions of energy through it are of a predictable nature, and we have excellent measurements.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


Ask this guy. Bet it smarts.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Zaphod58

So every space agency in the world is in on it

Love that one.


No...they weren't in on it. The only ones that have or could have an idea what it means to send a human through that belt...is NASA. It is their claim...therefore I don't see why would other agencies be in on it. Also...other agencies besides Russians...didn't even exist at the time of the Apollo's.

Anyway...this is not a thread about the moon conspiracy...it's a thread about particle accelerators. I don't want to tie my responses here to a conspiracy, as I'm unsure about the whole thing to claim certainty.

I find it amazing that people traversed the Van Allen belts on multiple occasions...back in times when we didn't know all about it....yet today...it's considered a hazard.

check this out...

SHileding for astronauts

The link is not "pasteble"....but in the introduction it states...that some of the dangerous aspects of Van Allens belts were only discovered in 1978 (Wilson)...yet...back in 69...we were safe from these hazards on multiple occasions...simply by not knowing about them...and extreme luck I guess.

I suspect that even today...we don't know all about them....since NASA launched the Van Allen probes...obviously for the reason to better understand the belts.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


And every space agency out there has mapped the van Allen belts to some degree to protect their satellites. If they were so radically different than NASA claimed don't you think one of them would have said something?

reply to post by Zaphod58


why would it be radically different ? I'm not claiming that NASA is hiding facts about the belts. What I am saying is they are the only ones that supposedly went through it with live human beings...and are the only ones in position to comment on any effects on humans.

All others would have to rely on lab tests and math...which is fine...if you know all the factors involved. I claim only that not all factors were known back then... and if you're dealing with human lives...you can't leave too much room for error.

To me, it is a mystery. How they managed it back then without even knowing that the crew is stepping into a giant particle accelerator.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


Japan, India, Russia, and China are all planning manned moon missions. Which means they're simulating the trip through the Belts, and looking at all their data, and planning based on previous NASA data, their own data, and data from other sources. If their sims showed that they couldn't, or that it would be worse than they said then someone would have said something by now. But all the simulations, and all the math shows that it could quite easily be done the way Apollo did it.

reply to post by Zaphod58

Japan, India, Russia, and China are all planning manned moon missions

Yes...and they have the benefit of 21 century technology, and knowledge of previous generations.

Not really comparable.


One thing puzzles me though...a slight off topic. What's the purpose of their planned manned moon missions ?

we are constantly told that there is nothing up there...no point in going to the moon...NASA says.

It takes almost a decade to plan and build everything. Seems like an awful waste of time and resources.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


And yet, even with 21st century technology, it's extremely difficult to plan a long term mission to the moon or Mars. There's no way that you'll accept that they went then, or that you could have gotten through the Belts the way they said.

They want to go because it's the first step in getting off the planet, and the first one to set up a long term colony has a huge advantage. The others will be playing catch up.

MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

we are not looking for any kind of reasons...we are actually discussing potential consequences of being exposed to one.

I still fail to see how you tie OP with your post...not that your post is invalid...I just don't see the connection. Maybe you can dumb it down for me...

'Discussing potential consequences of being exposed to one' might be a direction in which the thread evolved, but concerning the OP's main question:

...to get me pea brain wrapped around this...
and
...fully comprehend the implications of such discovery

makes Shadow Herders reply completely relevant to me.
Interesting. Thought provoking. How it should be.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


Strangely enough they are quite comparable due to the move away from heavy industry by some of those countries. You might say because we are in the 21st century we should be able to whip up a mission in a few years no worries, the reality is quite different.

The physical constraints that hold us on the Earth did not change since the USA put a man on the moon, We still have to lift an object 'out of orbit' something that requires a colossal amount of energy. We do have modern materials now and such should be able to make things lighter. We also have a lot of experience building structures in space in the form of various space stations that have come and gone, and now with the ISS get a lot of good work done. BUT the ISS is in orbit of the Earth the push out to the stars is a little bit more difficult to do.

Sometimes value in research cannot be explained in terms of cost and resources. What you gain in experience by doing it yourself is far greater than what you read in a textbook. I have seen this with my own eyes in my field where you get people who sit behind desks all day telling you how vacuum systems work and behave, yet have never built one and have no idea how they actually behave in reality. Putting a man on the moon is a worthwhile venture, it allows economic stimulus of various industries in order to produce the space vehicle, allows a nation to be engaged in a common effort.

On the Van Allen belt, it has already been discussed that shielding against the threat is actually not a big deal with, electrons are easily absorbed/stopped by just a couple-three cm of material (not lead) and the protons too can be stopped by the same material to a high order.

Apollo had a multi skin like structure to stop radiation using aluminium. It is not a huge huge problem, and the amount of time spent in the fields is low. The danger to satellites is that they often spent months/years in them.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Try envisioning the "accelerator" as a function of the magnetosphere, somewhat like a gravity lens but in a slightly (completely?) different portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Does this make sense to anyone else here or is it just my caffeine deficient brain tripping over itself again?