Jump to content

Trouble with Einstein


KOYAANISQATSI
 Share

Are Einstein's theories correct?  

46 members have voted

  1. 1. Are Einstein's theories correct?

    • Einstein's ok by me
      30
    • Something seems amiss
      8
    • It's the twilight zone I tell you
      9


Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...

Crop Circles on Ice

http://i48.tinypic.com/259a5pz.jpg

 

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=no&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bt.no%2Fnyheter%2Flokalt%2F%26laquo%253BKornsirkler%26raquo%253B-paa-isen-i-Arna-1042370.html

 

A 77 years old man from Arna, outside Bergen in the west of Norway, saw a mystic light out on the lake one evening, about 6ft wide, unlike anything he had seen before. He could spot no one with his binoculars, and due to the risk of falling through the ice, he did not investigate until the day after. The following day, a strange, symmetric pattern covered the lake.

 

"The light may have come from someone who was out on the ice and fished but I can not see that there are some tracks in the snow. The second theory is that what I saw was a reflection of street lights across the bay. But now it has become dark again, and I can not see any light reflection," says Ole Johan Hansen.

 

Astrophysicist Knut Jørgen Røed Ødegaard has no theory about what it was

 

Silly Knut; here's a clue...

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060531-ball-lightning.html

 

People have reported seeing ball lightning—a rare phenomenon that resembles a glowing sphere of electricity—for hundreds of years.

But scientists still can't explain what causes it, or even exactly what it is.

"There's certainly no consensus. I don't think that anyone knows what it is," said Graham K. Hubler, a physicist at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C.

 

"Most scientists feel that the proper model hasn't been found yet."

 

Most scientists amn't doin it right.

You gotta drop the relativity model and try to get to grips with the Electric Universe model, before you'll ever understand the reality of a Plasma phenomenon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Experts" now give their explanation to the ice circles...

 

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aftenposten.no%2Fnyheter%2Firiks%2Farticle3555252.ece&sl=no&tl=en

 

Professor Tore Furevik

"I have most faith in the rings caused by water coming up through the hole and spread out onto the ice."

 

It's strange, but not mysterious, concludes Clas Svahn.

 

Of course the first thing they have to do to arrive at their theory, is to ignore the eyewitness account about any strange light seen over the lake. :?

 

And their model is saved once more. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

30 points that those who consider that nothing seems amiss, may want to consider...

 

1. Quasars brightness does not correlate to their observed red shift as it does with galaxies.

 

2. Quasars with low red shift have been found to more often than not match their host galaxy. This proves Halton Arp’s ejection model of quasar formation.

 

3. Quasars with low red shift along with galactic red shift can be explained by the CREIL effect, a property of light acting in the plasma vacuum of space interacting with diffuse hydrogen. This effect can account for all the effects of galactic red shift cause by “expanding space†– further refuting the notion of a big bang.

 

4. Quasar red shift is observed to be quantized, as is shown in the published papers listed here. This means the earth must be at the center of the universe in order for the big bang model to be true.

 

5. The M87 galactic jet has been observed to eject matter at speeds faster than the speed of light. The notion that a black hole is shooting out matter to make this jet is a joke. Los Alamos plasma physicist Anthony Peratt has shown how charged plasma can account for all observations of the M87 galactic jet without the need to invoke ludicrous ‘black holes’.

 

6. Physicist Stephen Crothers has demonstrated the physics behind black holes to be a fallacy. Black hole physics violates SR, which means it also violates GR. Even by the mainstreams own standards, black holes are an impossibility. SR forbids infinite point mass particles such as a black hole singularity.

 

7. The LIGO has never detected a gravitational wave.

 

8. A recent study of Quasars show them to be devoid of all effects of time dilation. This directly refutes the notion of “expanding space†and the big bang. This is a primary FALSIFYING observation of Einstein’s crackpot theories. This on its face means the big bang and Einstein’s whack-job theories must be rejected.

 

9. All observational evidence of the Sun refutes the notion that the Sun is a gravitationally collapsing gas cloud that is powered by a hydrogen to helium fusion reaction. The surface of the Sun is only observed to reach around 6000 degrees, while the corona high above it can get into the millions of degrees. Sun spots are the deepest place we can see into the Sun, yet they are the coldest places we can measure. These observations directly refute the notion that heat energy is being released from the core of the Sun.

 

10. All comet nuclei that have been directly observed have proven to be rocky with no visible water present on the surface. This flies in the face of the standard theory of comets, yet this observation was PREDICTED by plasma cosmologists. Comets are also observed to emit x-rays and have filamented tails. This is unexplained by the standard model, yet these observations were PREDICTED by plasma cosmologists.

 

11. All comets observed falling into the Sun or passing very near the Sun have subsequently been followed by coronal mass ejections. This is not explained at all by the idea a comet is a dirty snowball, yet this is well explained by plasma cosmology’s view of comets. Also, comets have observed to brighten at distances too far from the Sun to possibly be attributed to sublimating ice.

 

12. Stars have been observed that are too cold to possibly host nuclear fusion. These stars are called brown dwarf stars and may be the most numerous stars in the galaxy. These stars are not explained at all by the standard model of stars. However, they are well explained and predicted by plasma cosmology.

 

13. GPS clocks and all other phenomena that supposedly “proves†Einstein’s version of relativity can be accounted for better using steady state models of the universe. Lorentz’s model can well account for observations in a steady state universe.

 

14. The WMAP has show the existence of large scale voids in the supposed “cosmic background†from the big bang. These voids were not predicted and directly refute the notion of the big bang.

 

15. The CDMS project has never detected any observational evidence of dark matter despite years of trying. This directly refutes the notion that dark matter exists and is the supposed “missing mass†of galaxies.  This is an outrageous claim on its face.  Absolutely no evidence exists to support such a ridiculous theory.  Physicists simply making up matter to account for the failure of their models.

 

16. Quasar Q2237 “The Einstein Cross†– this quasar directly refutes the notion of gravitational lensing. This quasar is supposedly ONE quasar being lensed into 4 images. The individual quasars are observed to brighten and dim independently. They are not oblong in shape. They are are visibly connected by a plasma field. They are observed to change position. All of these observations are in direct contradiction to gravitational lens theory.

 

17. All Hubble deep field images show fully formed galaxies at the supposed “edge of the universe.†– if we are actually looking back in time to the birth of the cosmos, this should not be so. We should see developing galaxies, not fully formed galaxies.

 

18. Gravity is not constant. Every attempt to measure gravity has resulted in changes over time. No method of measuring gravity has ever proven gravity to be constant as is mandated by the general theory of relativity.

 

19. “Magnetic reconnection†as it applies to its use in explaining the Sun and the aurora’s violates the known laws of physics. Magnetic fields can not merge and snap imparting force.

 

20.  Neutron stars and pulsars violate the known laws of physics. The proposed density of neutrons in these stars by the standard model violates the Island of Stability in nuclear chemistry. Neutrons can not be packed together that densely without having them fly apart instantaneously. Also, in pulsars, rotation rates have been observed on the order of 1200 hz. This also flies in the face of standard theory. It is impossible that a star can rotate that fast. The outer edges of the star would be approaching appreciable speeds of light.

 

21. Saturn’s rings are observed to emit radio waves. This is not well explained at all by gravitational models of ring formation.

 

22. Io’s “volcanoes†are observed to move around the surface and leave burn marks behind them. Also the “volcanoes†plumes exhibit filamentation. Peratt and Dessler demonstrated how electric forces could account for Io’s oddities.

 

23. Standard galaxy formation models require the use of black holes and dark matter to achieve approximate model fit to observation. These hypothetical entities have never been proven to exist. Peratt has demonstrated super-computer formulations of plasma using standard classical physics to produce a galaxy formation model that does not require any hypothetical entities. His model well agrees with observations.

 

24. Stars located at the center of the galaxy do not agree with the standard model of galaxy star formation. They are too “young†by the standard model of measuring a star’s age to have formed at the locations observed. Theories that attempt to account for this are orders of magnitude improbable.

 

25. Frame dragging has never been definitively proven despite numerous attempts to look for it using numerous satellites. The most famous of which is Gravity Probe B. The final report issued by the Gravity Probe B team utilizes a hypothetical model to account for the effects of “static build up†induced error on the gyros.

 

26. The Pioneer space probe speed anomaly can not be explained by standard model physics. Plasma cosmology offers a proper explanation.

 

27. After nearly 100 years, Einstein’s theories have not been unified.

 

28. Galaxies have been observed to be moving in “dark flows.†This observation stands in contradiction to the standard model of galaxy and universe formation. Such movement can be well accounted for in an electric model.

 

29.  Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs.  David Esker has put together a site detailing many of the findings.  Some of the highlights include:

• the largest dinos wouldn’t have been able to lift their heads due to the heart not being strong enough to pump blood up to the head.

• the largest dinosaurs bones would have crumbled under the stress of their weight.

• the largest flying dinosaurs would not have been able to propel themselves into the air

This gravity variation can only be accounted for with an electric theory of gravity.

 

30.  There is no such thing as “frozen in plasma.† A simple discharge tube experiment proves that voltage in a real plasma never drops to zero.  Such a plasma is pure formalism and can not be demonstrated in a lab.  Hence, any theory that relies on “frozen in†magnetic fields is a fallacy of physics.

 

http://fascistsoup.com/2010/04/11/einstein-was-wrong/

 

Don't forget to play 20 questions, with Professor Donald Scott...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12. Stars have been observed that are too cold to possibly host nuclear fusion. These stars are called brown dwarf stars and may be the most numerous stars in the galaxy. These stars are not explained at all by the standard model of stars. However, they are well explained and predicted by plasma cosmology.

Cobblers. If a collapsing cloud of gas has enough mass ( over about 0.08 solar masses ), it can sustain nuclear fusion at its core and becomes a main sequence star. If it doesn't have enough mass, it becomes a brown dwarf. Not a problem for the "standard model of stars" at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a collapsing cloud of gas has enough mass ( over about 0.08 solar masses ), it can sustain nuclear fusion at its core and becomes a main sequence star. If it doesn't have enough mass, it becomes a brown dwarf. Not a problem for the "standard model of stars" at all.

 

If all stars are indeed powered by a nuclear fusion reaction as is claimed, with the T dwarfs we must be in the 'cold fusion' range!  Indeed,  for fusion reactions to occur, standard theory requires that the temperature in a star's core must reach at least three million K.  And because, in the accepted model, core temperature rises with gravitational pressure, the star must have a minimum mass of about 75 times the mass of the planet Jupiter, or about 7 percent of the mass of our sun.  Many of the dwarfs do not meet these requirements.  One mainstream astrophysicist, realizing this, has said that these dwarfs must be powered by 'gravitational collapse'.

 

The orbiting X-ray telescope, Chandra, recently discovered an X-ray flare being emitted by a brown dwarf (spectral class M9).  This poses an additional problem for the advocates of the stellar fusion model.  A star this cool should not be capable of X-ray flare production.

 

However, in the ES model, there are no minimum temperature or mass requirements because the star is inherently electrical to start with.  In the ES model (if a brown/red dwarf is operating near the upper boundary of the dark current mode), a slight increase in the level of total current impinging on that star will move it into the normal glow mode.  This transition will be accompanied by a rapid change in the voltage rise across the plasma of the star's atmosphere.  Maxwell's equations tell us that such a change in voltage can produce a strong dynamic E-field and a strong dynamic magnetic field.  If they are strong enough, dynamic EM fields can produce X-rays.  Another similar phenomenon can occur if a star makes the transition from normal glow to arc mode.

 

A case in point – NASA recently discovered a star, half of whose surface was "covered by a sunspot".  A more informative way to say this would have been that "Half of this star's surface is covered by photospheric arcing."  The present controversy about what the difference is between a giant gas planet and a brown dwarf is baseless.  They are members of a continuum – it is simply a matter of what the level of current density is at their surfaces.  NASA's discovery supplies the missing link between the giant gas planets and the fully tufted stars.  In fact, the term "proto-star" may be more descriptive than "giant gas planet".

 

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm

 

Fixed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all stars are indeed powered by a nuclear fusion reaction as is claimed, with the T dwarfs we must be in the 'cold fusion' range!  Indeed,  for fusion reactions to occur, standard theory requires that the temperature in a star's core must reach at least three million K.  And because, in the accepted model, core temperature rises with gravitational pressure, the star must have a minimum mass of about 75 times the mass of the planet Jupiter, or about 7 percent of the mass of our sun.  Many of the dwarfs do not meet these requirements.  One mainstream astrophysicist, realizing this, has said that these dwarfs must be powered by 'gravitational collapse'.

You're determined to find conspiracy where none exists: it is not claimed that all stars are powered by nuclear fusion. Brown dwarfs, white dwarfs, and neutron stars aren't, for example. There is no resulting crisis in astrophysics.

The orbiting X-ray telescope, Chandra, recently discovered an X-ray flare being emitted by a brown dwarf (spectral class M9).  This poses an additional problem for the advocates of the stellar fusion model.  A star this cool should not be capable of X-ray flare production.

"Recently" ? These observations were made in 1999! And, no, they're not the "smoking gun" that proves that astrophysicists have been involved in a world-wide conspiracy for the last century or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're determined to find conspiracy where none exists

 

Interesting you should pull that card to detract from, rather than try to articulate an argument against the many points raised.

To realise that the mainstream model is failing badly is not conspiracy theory; although it is willfully ignorant to say it is fine.

Don't get all defensive and insulting just because you're wrong Inky. I understand it's not your fault and that you were never encouraged to think for yourself about these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it doesn't have enough mass, it becomes a brown dwarf. Not a problem for the "standard model of stars" at all.

 

I didn't type in KOI 74b earlier on this page just as a random key punching exercise but to leave folk to look it up themselves and ponder on it but since you haven't; allow me...

 

http://news.discovery.com/space/blazing-stellar-companion-defies-explanation.html

 

too blistering hot to be planets but too small to be stars.

 

So what are they? It's anybody's guess. They're simply called "objects of interest" by the Kepler team.

 

KOI 74b, has a temperature of 39,000 Celsius, while its stellar host is only 9400 Celsius. This cannot be explained with consensus theories. Why would a planet be hotter than a star?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no resulting crisis in astrophysics.

 

Better nip back to the ad hoc supply cupboard Inky...

 

No Time Dilation for Distant Quasars

 

Mike Hawkins from the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh searched for, and did not find evidence for, so-called time dilation in distant quasars. Time dilation is a counter-intuitive, yet actual, feature of Einstein's special relativity in which time slows down for an object that is in motion relative to another.

 

Looking at the timescales for two groups of quasars, one distant and the other even farther away, there was no measurable difference. That meant no time dilation: meaning that for both groups of quasars, the clocks were the same.

 

http://news.discovery.com/space/no-time-dilation-for-distant-quasars.html

 

You do know what that implies, dont you? :lol:

 

Don't worry; like a team turning up for the world cup and insisting on using their jumpers for goalposts, then shifting them as they please; I'm sure your lot will think of a way to make it look as if it's not a direct hit on their sacred paradigm.

 

I don't know how many more nails that coffin can take but sooner or later the whole things gonna split wide open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've neither the time, nor the inclination to go through each of your posts pointing out the misrepresentations and misunderstandings, just for you to shriek that I'm part of the astronomical establishment (presumably a SMERSH-type organisation run by Stephen Hawking and Patrick Moore), and therefore everything I say is a pack of lies.

 

If you genuinely believe that you are onto something, than stop whining about it on an obscure web forum. Submit a paper entitled "Why Relativity, the Big Bang, and the theory that most stars are powered by nuclear fusion is wrong" to Nature or the Astrophysical Journal. Collect your Nobel Prize, and go down in history as the greatest physicist of all time. Come back, laugh in my face for ever disbelieving you, then urinate on my grave after I die a bitter and twisted man clinging to my out-dated notions.

 

It's time to put up or shut up :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I work with academics, I could ensure that a paper on why Einstein is wrong or how the Holocaust didn't happen gets pre-reviewed before submission.

 

And before you start quoting "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" or how the Jews control academia, why not just do it? If "the establishment" curtails your genius at least you have tried, if you are recognised as the great thinker you claim to be you get to be rich and powerful and you get to p*** on a grave!

 

It doesn't have to be a huge tome either, wasn't Einstein's thing about something just a few pages long...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...