Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: ErosA433
One method of determining the speed of light is looking at the radioactive decay of ejecta from supernova. Why? Well because if we say that E=mc^2 which for all accounts works fine for us here on Earth, and look at the decay of various isotopes taking place at large distances from earth. If those decay products produce photons at the correct energy, and do it in multiple steps (most decays give multiple different energies) then you can test the c^2 part.

Observations of Supernova 1987a from memory gives us Cobalt lines, which decrease in intensity as it decays. We can check the rate of the decay, to make sure that the decay rate is the same (local passage of time measurement) and if the local speed of light is lower / higher which would result in different spectral line splittings.

As far as i have read (in the past, and just now over the last hour to refresh) all appears to work fine and point at a speed of light that is the same as we observe here.... soooo that is at least a blob about 168,000 light years away where the speed of light is the same

hmm... but the radioactive decay vary as Earth moves around the Sun so how is it any scale for anything ?
Till we know exactly why this happens, how can we know what rate of decay we have to expect 170K light years away.

Why should you believe radioactive decay works different here on earth? We can measure it and we can even see its effects in gravity. Your making the assumption because it can vary we cant calculate rate of decay?????

a reply to: ErosA433
True Cosmic rays can affect measurements and even video footage and can be also a source of image artifacts suugesting some otherworldly radiation, which is neither alpa . beta, gamma , x rays or cosmic source radiation.

a reply to: ErosA433
Interesting metrology stories, and I could tell some also which are less relevant, but just to summarize one unexpected source of variation in test results turned out to be related to the arrangement of lights in the test lab when measuring temperature sensitive material properties. How many papers do we see that go into that much detail to specify how the lights are arranged in the lab? I could even see chart recorder records demonstrating that temperature variation was not an issue (when it was, due to less than ideal temperature probe placement).

So yes you don't have to twist my arm to get me to believe that in addition to accounting for all the variables they could think of, they may not only have done so inadequately but there may also be variables that they didn't think of which are unaccounted for.

originally posted by: KrzYma
if A moves relative to B 3/4 the speed of light, and C moves 3/4 speed of light relative to B what speed measures A on B ?
I know you will come with time dilatation and length contraction as explanation but this is not true.

So you know the answer, yet you deny it, in spite of all the evidence we've collected in support of relativistic math?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: KrzYma
This isnt complicated no there not moving faster than light. Say we have two cars going in opisit directions at 60 MPH. To passengers in either car thay see the car as moving away from them at 120 MPH. An outside observer see two cars traveling at 60 MPH.

Not applicable in this example since you can't add .75c to .75c to get 1.5c like you added 60 and 60 to get 120, but I think you already knew that, so I'm not sure why you answered that way, unless you misread the question. As this hoaxed Feynman quote exposes, you can't add velocities in relativity though it's unfortunate how many people don't get why this is false, and that KrzYma does get it but just doesn't believe experimental evidence.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: ErosA433
True Cosmic rays can affect measurements and even video footage and can be also a source of image artifacts suugesting some otherworldly radiation, which is neither alpa . beta, gamma , x rays or cosmic source radiation.

The term "Cosmic rays" is a misnomer, as the true rays are gamma and x-rays. The other "cosmic rays" are actually particles, mostly protons, but also electrons (aka "beta") and Helium nuclei (aka "alpha") among others, so I'm not sure why you excluded those.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


I was trying to show the strangeness of relativity but i guess i need to expand that out further to get the idea. Any way since this seems to be an argument on how calculations are done heres something that you can play with.

www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com...

I came in late to this but someone please explain why it even important to electric universe what the speed of light is? This only matters to relativity and that immediately discounts electric universe since its incomparable with relativity both general and special.Trust me you can argue back and forth the validity of one experiment problem is there isnt just one theirs hundreds. Each experiment will have a margin of error but when combined the margin of error becomes so small as to be irrelevant. Do we actually know the sped of light no we dont but were really really close. As are technology becomes better so does are calculations on the true speed of light will we ever be able to give the exact speed down to the second no but the margin of error will be so great that trillions of light years we can still make the calculations. In science measurement can always be more accurate but theirs a point where it really doesnt matter anymore your just doing extra math to arrive at the same answer.

this is probably the last of my thoughts here..
I can not argue with priest about the non existence of God. It is impossible...

the whole MS scientific way is to keep humans low.
No visiting other planets, only fossil energy, no hope for human race !

but anyway... before I leave, just some "stuff" to think about, if somebody likes to think, if not, I don't care !

in this video, there is a lot about Black Hole nonsense ( which I will come back to later)
the rest is about the back ground radiation and how it is even NOT what we was told it is, "the image or proof of Big Bang".
So skip to about 23:15 just for the back ground radiation

www.youtube.com...

here it continues... from a guy who is an expert on MRI ( magnetic resonance imagery )

www.youtube.com...

next if you want, is about the Birkeland Current,

www.youtube.com...



back to Black Holes...
this video explains why black holes exist mathematically

www.youtube.com...

there is a question in the comments of this video I agree on

if escape velocity is the velocity needed to escape a gravitational attraction, like in this tennis ball example, why light can not escape the black hole horizon ? this is the velocity to escape ! it must escape at this velocity. This is the whole meaning of this "escape velocity" light also can not stop at the horizon, it stops first at an infinite distance, like in the tennis ball example. But light has only one velocity, it does not slow down or speed up! if nothing can be faster than light, not even light, and light speed is the escape velocity which means light escapes the black hole horizon, how is it trapped then ??

I repeat something I have told before
there is no such thing as photon in real life
photon is an imaginary no size particle that represents the energy of a wave for math calculus only, a real EM wave has distance in space, from beginning to end which is coupled to time, as it passes by (the time of action)
every EM wave has the same energy, the only difference is the time this wave is acting on something


Uncertainty principle, that is used to explain a lot of things, has no meaning at all, it's just a mathematical confusion.
As expected to be if you squash distance ( line in 3D space ) into a single point with no size
EM wave has length! this "line in space" determine its orientation and speed, those are the reel properties of this wave
squashing it into a point removes all this properties, what you call than Uncertainty principle
if you don't understand what I mean by saying this, there is no way we can continue to talk...


BTW:
Force is the amount of energy in time moment
Energy is the difference in equilibrium
Work is the rate of compensation in time moment
Resistance is the opposition to compensation in time moment

originally posted by: KrzYma
in this video, there is a lot about Black Hole nonsense ( which I will come back to later)
the rest is about the back ground radiation and how it is even NOT what we was told it is, "the image or proof of Big Bang".
So skip to about 23:15 just for the back ground radiation

I had a feeling of deja vu watching that because it sounded very much like another EU presentation by Robitaille, and then Crothers shows a slide citing Robitaille as a source, so I think he probably copied most of these ideas from Robitaille. If this interests you then you may want to watch Robitaille's video posted in another thread, which I commented on in this post.

The only different slant I got from Crothers presentation is that there's a lot of noise in the galactic foreground, so our attempts to extrapolate what CMB signal is hidden behind the galactic foreground are questionable, and he may have a point, but even if he does I don't see how this invalidates the rest of the data. He does harp a lot on the water issue and so my comment on the Robitaille video that Robitaille himself pointed out that water wasn't an issue with WMAP should invalidate that water argument regarding anything to do with WMAP.

here it continues... from a guy who is an expert on MRI ( magnetic resonance imagery )

I couldnt get that link to work but sounds like it might be the Robitaille video I commented on in the other thread, is it?

OK maybe you met the terms and conditions for the above and it was nice of you to provide a time index on the first video so we could skip to the relevant part, but you didn't meet the T&C here:

next if you want, is about the Birkeland Current,
www.youtube.com...

back to Black Holes...
this video explains why black holes exist mathematically
www.youtube.com...

Here is what the T&C say about posting videos:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
"15k.) Video links/embeds: You will not embed or Post a link to a video without a reasonable description of its content and why it interests you, is germane to the topics discussed on the Websites or the topic of an existing thread should you post it in a reply to an existing thread."

The birkeland current video contains no reasonable description of its content and why it interests you and is germane to the topic, nor does the black hole video really.

if escape velocity is the velocity needed to escape a gravitational attraction, like in this tennis ball example, why light can not escape the black hole horizon ? this is the velocity to escape ! it must escape at this velocity. This is the whole meaning of this "escape velocity" light also can not stop at the horizon, it stops first at an infinite distance, like in the tennis ball example. But light has only one velocity, it does not slow down or speed up! if nothing can be faster than light, not even light, and light speed is the escape velocity which means light escapes the black hole horizon, how is it trapped then ??

Sorry but this question doesn't even make sense to me, especially that last part asking if light escaped the event horizon how is it trapped? Light doesn't escape from inside the event horizon.

every EM wave has the same energy, the only difference is the time this wave is acting on something

You said this before, but you haven't explained the photoelectric effect with this idea, because you can't and this is how we know this idea is wrong.

Uncertainty principle, that is used to explain a lot of things, has no meaning at all, it's just a mathematical confusion.
As expected to be if you squash distance ( line in 3D space ) into a single point with no size
EM wave has length! this "line in space" determine its orientation and speed, those are the reel properties of this wave
squashing it into a point removes all this properties, what you call than Uncertainty principle
if you don't understand what I mean by saying this, there is no way we can continue to talk...

Why don't you write a paper on the topic and get it published if all the scientists who think otherwise are wrong? But from what I've seen you may not have the math skills to be calling the work of mainstream science "mathematical confusion".

By the way if there is any validity at all to anything Crothers says (as I admitted might be possible about the galactic signal in the CMB), he would get a lot further by not calling all scientists mathematical idiots. This technique may sway EU enthusiasts but it will do little to sway mainstream physicists, who by and large did not get their PhD's by being mathematical idiots. It's not going to work for him and it's not going to work for you either so you need to come up with something better than "it's just a mathematical confusion".

originally posted by: [post=17933559]Arbitrageur .

The term "Cosmic rays" is a misnomer, as the true rays are gamma and x-rays. The other "cosmic rays" are actually particles, mostly protons, but also electrons (aka "beta") and Helium nuclei (aka "alpha") among others, so I'm not sure why you excluded those.
The cosmic ray is a rather broad term, but I was talking about an unknown radiation as yet unknown to MS, like when gravitons are released.

a reply to: Nochzwei
Sorry you lost me, if it's unknown to mainstream science, how do you know about it?

And that reminds me, dragonridr never posted his source about gravitational waves. I asked if the CMB study was the alleged "gravitational wave discovery", and KrzYma also asked about a source but I don't recall seeing it posted.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Nochzwei
Sorry you lost me, if it's unknown to mainstream science, how do you know about it?

And that reminds me, dragonridr never posted his source about gravitational waves. I asked if the CMB study was the alleged "gravitational wave discovery", and KrzYma also asked about a source but I don't recall seeing it posted.

Heres the announcement from Bicep 2

www.absolutely-unbelievable.com...

Here discusses the criticism were they are saying they picked up the dust from out own galaxy.

www.latinpost.com...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

OK maybe you met the terms and conditions for the above, but you didn't meet them here:

??? WHAT ?
are you serious ?
You deny evidence in a video just because it do no follow the thoughts line ??
( I posted 2 links to this video, one integrated, one on-line underneath, link to youtube )
I said

but anyway... before I leave, just some "stuff" to think about, if somebody likes to think, if not, I don't care !

some stuff ! not related stuff to a though I'm was writing right now, just something related to EU Universe

if nothing can be faster than light, not even light, and light speed is the escape velocity which means light escapes the black hole horizon, how is it trapped then ??

Sorry but this question doesn't even make sense to me, especially that last part asking if light escaped the event horizon how is it trapped?

are you AI ?
you must be if you don't understand this question

I will help you understand
"if nothing can be faster than light, not even light,"
C = constant
"and light speed is the escape velocity which means light escapes the black hole horizon"
C = escape velocity = moves away from black hole
"how is it trapped then ??"
C less then C ??

YOu said this before, but you haven't explained the photoelectric effect with this idea, because you can't and this is how we know this idea is wrong.

I did !! time interval !
wave is a length ! length moving at speed C in space == Force is the amount of energy in time moment
more length = less energy... and vice versa

intensity of light has no meaning, property of the material is important, not the light intensity
different material = different photoelectric effect

Why don't you write a paper on the topic and get it published if all the scientists who think otherwise are wrong?

because I'm nothing in the eyes of scientific community
nobody will listen !!

But from what I've seen you may not have the math skills to be calling the work of mainstream science "mathematical confusion".

what is math skills ? I know all the rules in math
1/0 = undefined and NOT what some scientist call infinty
near infinity = absurd
1/infinity is not 0, close to, but not (this is the time unit I call)

I can also add and subtract

and to confuse you, I take apart this experiment...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

( the explanation of this experiment comes from the guy who run this experiment, this is really persuasive )

my arguments ( and I don't even talk about the double slit nonsense explanation, I did it somewhere else here on ATS)
1. light is not a particle, it is not a tiny marble, its a potential difference over time in space
2. reflection and absorption is the property of matter, not that of a light wave. EM waves get absorbed and re-emitted, in a mirror, or prisms, or even detector do change its properties
3. entangled "photons"... hmm..how do I express it without confusing you..OK, first, space is one dimensional, one physical dimension... up, down, left, right or what ever direction you choose has no meaning, XYZ is metrical dimension and has nothing to do with space dimension. one "event" in physical dimension can have different locations in metric space. change in physical dimension of space is timeless, so if you look at it in metric dimension we are in, it looks like the event is happening simultaneously at a distance bigger than C could travel
4. in addition to this we have the time dimension, back and forth, witch influence the experiment
a double coupling sort to speak

and just to give you a hint how this is possible think of the condensate standard particle physics is talking about
about 19:00 something

a reply to: KrzYma

To answer your black hole and light question, I think its said light cant escape because; If we agree that light travels along the path created by the gravity field (meaning that light does not just travel through the vacuum, or no matter how curved gravity field was light would just travel straight...because if the gravity field is everywhere, then that means there is nowhere that is pure vacuum...a vacuum would just mean the averagely least affected gravity field away from massive objects, so light would travel at the speed of light in that free gravity field, but if you take two equal areas of space, point A to point B say they are both 100,000 yards distance between A and B and there was no mass near this area, so the gravity field was quite constant and steady, but then only one of these areas, there was lots of masses added to it, so now one area has pure non mass occupied steady gravity field of distance 100,000 yards. And the other area distance 100,000 yards between A and B has a gravity field that is very curved and distorted. I suppose it is supposed that from A to B in both those trials, the light would take a longer time to get from A to B in the curved gravity version then the lacking mass version. This suggests that the gravity field is the medium light always travels through).

To get back to answering your question; black hole is thought to be a large area, large 3d distance, with lots of curved gravity field, so if you imagine light getting into the middle of a 1000000000 yard 3d area, and that area constantly curving in on itself, at every point within the 3d area, from the center going outward, the light, like a maze, will just be trapped following the curves, instead of finding a path of least resistance out of there, the path of least resistance is for it to be compelled to follow the curve.

Depending on whether or no light itself creates its own gravity, perhaps lots of radiation being created and then trapped in/as a black hole, is what gives it is great mass, and gravitational prowess.

a reply to: KrzYma


Your not understanding a black hole at all. Gravity curves space doesnt effect light what so ever.Space gets Curved the light itself keeps the same vector and speed. Light doesnt slow down and fall back into the black hole!

Now your argument about needing an observer is silly. You are actually confusing two different things. The Hiesenberg uncertainty principle and a wave function collapse. Its actually a common mistake the wave function collapses because its being measured doesnt even have to be sentient. But the key is in order for us to measure it we have to change the parameters of the experiment this in turn causes the wave function to collapse.

Photons duality is merely its properties no different than matter has its properties if we look at one doesnt mean the others arent there as well.The act of observing we are causing photons to show us one of its properties because we are setting up the parameters.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: KrzYma

To answer your black hole and light question, I think its said light cant escape because; If we agree that light travels along the path created by the gravity field (meaning that light does not just travel through the vacuum, or no matter how curved gravity field was light would just travel straight...because if the gravity field is everywhere, then that means there is nowhere that is pure vacuum...a vacuum would just mean the averagely least affected gravity field away from massive objects, so light would travel at the speed of light in that free gravity field, but if you take two equal areas of space, point A to point B say they are both 100,000 yards distance between A and B and there was no mass near this area, so the gravity field was quite constant and steady, but then only one of these areas, there was lots of masses added to it, so now one area has pure non mass occupied steady gravity field of distance 100,000 yards. And the other area distance 100,000 yards between A and B has a gravity field that is very curved and distorted. I suppose it is supposed that from A to B in both those trials, the light would take a longer time to get from A to B in the curved gravity version then the lacking mass version. This suggests that the gravity field is the medium light always travels through).

To get back to answering your question; black hole is thought to be a large area, large 3d distance, with lots of curved gravity field, so if you imagine light getting into the middle of a 1000000000 yard 3d area, and that area constantly curving in on itself, at every point within the 3d area, from the center going outward, the light, like a maze, will just be trapped following the curves, instead of finding a path of least resistance out of there, the path of least resistance is for it to be compelled to follow the curve.

Depending on whether or no light itself creates its own gravity, perhaps lots of radiation being created and then trapped in/as a black hole, is what gives it is great mass, and gravitational prowess.

Light doesnt care if space is curved it doesnt effect its speed only its path relative to an outside observer. You seem to be under the impression gravity slows light it doesnt nor can it. Key is if you curve space enough light cant escape a blackhole because space itself curves back in on itself.Gravity warps space it isnt about gravity fields gravity fields are created by space itself being bent. In other words gravity waves arent the cause of space being curved they are an effect when it does.

a reply to: dragonridr

To get semantics out of the way; To me when I say gravity field I mean 'that energetic medium which allows the existence of gravity'.

The way I laid out my thought experiment, was giving a pure distance regardless of curvature of the gravity field.

2 equal distances from A to B ignoring the gravity fields curvature when measuring this distance.

Then, in one distance, after that initial measurement and assurance that the distances are equal, cause one distance to be very curved.

In the other distance do not do anything to allow the distance to be curved.

I never said light would be slowed down.

I said in the distance with lots of curved gravity field, the light would take longer to get from point A to B, then in the distance that is not curved.

Then I said, this is the reason light cannot escape a black hole.

Because normally, light traveling light speed, could travel the distance of the black holes radius.

The reason it cannot. Is because the black hole is a massive amount of curvature.

So the light just travels within the massive area of black hole. Traveling around the curvatures, that are always being created, and maybe also going round and round.

Never allowing the light to get near the edge.

Hawking radiation is maybe interesting relation to this topic.

Does this mean perpendicular to the horizontal plane of the galaxy, something about the curvature of the black hole, does allow some of the light to escape north and south?

It could even be a combination of yes to that question. And also matter that collides with the event horizon from outside the black hole, the radiation begins to travel the outer curve of the event horizon, and is then ejected off upward or downward in that perpendicular plane.

a reply to: ImaFungi


Hawkings radiation isnt created within the blackhole. Its created because of the event horizon itself nothing once passing the event horizon escapes.

AI is of essence in many a internet forums, so don't lose any sleep over it

a reply to: dragonridr

Ok, then we are in agreence about the other aspects of my response you just previously called out?

I guess to clarify my own understanding; Is it thought the gravity field exists everywhere in space?

Or does mass create the gravity field, like (you think) an electric charge creates an electric field?

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: KrzYma

To answer your black hole and light question, I think its said light cant escape because; If we agree that light travels along the path created by the gravity field (meaning that light does not just travel through the vacuum, or no matter how curved gravity field was light would just travel straight...because if the gravity field is everywhere, then that means there is nowhere that is pure vacuum...a vacuum would just mean the averagely least affected gravity field away from massive objects, so light would travel at the speed of light in that free gravity field, but if you take two equal areas of space, point A to point B say they are both 100,000 yards distance between A and B and there was no mass near this area, so the gravity field was quite constant and steady, but then only one of these areas, there was lots of masses added to it, so now one area has pure non mass occupied steady gravity field of distance 100,000 yards. And the other area distance 100,000 yards between A and B has a gravity field that is very curved and distorted. I suppose it is supposed that from A to B in both those trials, the light would take a longer time to get from A to B in the curved gravity version then the lacking mass version. This suggests that the gravity field is the medium light always travels through).

To get back to answering your question; black hole is thought to be a large area, large 3d distance, with lots of curved gravity field, so if you imagine light getting into the middle of a 1000000000 yard 3d area, and that area constantly curving in on itself, at every point within the 3d area, from the center going outward, the light, like a maze, will just be trapped following the curves, instead of finding a path of least resistance out of there, the path of least resistance is for it to be compelled to follow the curve.

Depending on whether or no light itself creates its own gravity, perhaps lots of radiation being created and then trapped in/as a black hole, is what gives it is great mass, and gravitational prowess.

Light doesnt care if space is curved it doesnt effect its speed only its path relative to an outside observer. You seem to be under the impression gravity slows light it doesnt nor can it. Key is if you curve space enough light cant escape a blackhole because space itself curves back in on itself.Gravity warps space it isnt about gravity fields gravity fields are created by space itself being bent. In other words gravity waves arent the cause of space being curved they are an effect when it does.

So you mean an object ie a star or galaxy behind a black hole event horizon cannot be seen?

a reply to: dragonridr

Gravity curves space doesnt effect light what so ever.

What is Space, that it could be curved by gravity?

a reply to: dragonridr

Thanks for the link.

I haven't looked into this as much as I did the seasonal variability of radiation, but my initial impression is that this finding also isn't entirely convincing. I see you added the critical view questioning if it's just dust. There are experiments to detect gravity waves, maybe they will make a less controversial detection.

originally posted by: KrzYma
I did !! time interval !

If all photons had the same energy and it was just a question of time interval, then I should see the electrons ejected in the photoelectric effect if I just wait longer, but I don't. why? Because your idea isn't supported by experiment.

because I'm nothing in the eyes of scientific community
nobody will listen !!

So, fix that. Get a PhD in physics, publish your paper and get some people to read it. Don't make a controversial topic your PhD thesis, write that about something non-controversial. It's no guarantee they will listen, because getting a PhD does nothing to prove your ideas are right, but it's some indication you may have enough technical understanding to make your idea worth considering.

I can also add and subtract

OK well dragonridr answered your black hole question, and you might need more math than this to understand the answer mathematically.

and to confuse you, I take apart this experiment...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That's a common fantasy of new age pseudoscientists to think the observer effect has something to do with consciousness. In fact I made a thread to illustrate how silly that idea is, about the observer effect in cooking my turkey dinner:

The "observer effect": Is it proof the system is "aware it's being observed?"

originally posted by: Nochzwei
So you mean an object ie a star or galaxy behind a black hole event horizon cannot be seen?

Inside the event horizon can't be seen.

"behind" the black hole from the observer's perspective can form an Einstein cross or Einstein ring, so it can be seen but in a distorted way. Here's an animation of an Einstein Ring (you can search the Einstein Cross if you're interested):

en.wikipedia.org...


Here's a video I uploaded about this back when we could upload videos:
Alex Filippenko on gravitational bending of light

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
What is Space, that it could be curved by gravity?

We have one model of it in general relativity, and we have another model in quantum field theory, and the two models don't talk to each other. As a result both models run into some problems in certain cases. It's an unsolved problem in physics, or in other words, we don't understand it as well as we'd like to. Actually that link contains a series of unsolved problems under the quantum gravity heading, and several are related to our lack of understanding about space-time.