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

So everyone stop spinning yarns and get on with inventing for me, a personal gravity shielding device; I'm sure it's all that stuff what's making me get older.

A working gravity shielding device would make it possible to construct a perpetual motion machine, so you might be better off investigating Botox and wigs.

ya a'm wirking on da perpetual motion machine :lol: no as easy as you wid think,a'll gee you a shout when i git it installed intae me flying saucer,a'll tell you,it's no easy making dat machine oot o an ald grey fergie :lol: HAE A GUD YULE :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

For those who haven't noticed, this year is "The International Year of Astronomy (IYA2009)." The International Year of Astronomy will involve 135 nations and thousands of events around the world. It marks the celebration of the 400th anniversary of the first use of an astronomical telescope by Galileo Galilei.

 

However, astronomers have little to celebrate in 2009. They have usurped the role of the church and cast out a modern-day Galileo!

 

Astronomers are repeating the mistakes of the Roman Catholic Church in Galileo’s day by refusing to accept what telescopes are showing them. The fear is the same; of having cherished dogma swept away, and with it their authority. It seems to be the nature of authorities to nurture and perpetuate self-serving myths.

 

Dr. Halton Arp is a modern ‘Galileo,’ in our midst. He was regarded in his early career as a leading young astronomer, but he made the poor career move of proving the Big Bang never happened. Like Galileo, he did this by diligent observation. He showed that Edwin Hubble’s intuition about the nature of the universe was simple and correct.

 

The greatest mistake in my opinion, and the one we continually make, is to let the theory guide the model. After a ridiculously long time it has finally dawned on me that establishment scientists actually proceed on the belief that theories tell you what is true and not true!

 

... if redshifts are not primarily velocity-shifts, the picture is simple and plausible. There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of time-scale, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions.
A choice is presented, as once before in the days of Copernicus, between a strangely small, finite universe and a sensibly infinite universe plus a new principle of nature.

 

There is no choice! The evidence that the universe is not expanding has been available for decades. Hubble’s "new principle of nature" is not new. But it requires "letting go" of some things we "know" that simply aren’t so. Quasars are not faint, their light redshifted and star-like, because they are very distant and moving rapidly away from us. Arp has shown that quasars are nascent galaxies, born from the central nucleus or ‘womb’ of nearby active galaxies. They are born at high velocity with faint and highly redshifted light. As they age, their brightness and mass increases, their intrinsic redshift decreases in quantum steps, and their velocity decreases until they become a companion galaxy of their parent.

 

Intrinsic redshift is quite distinct from "tired light" or interaction with intervening particles. The decreasing quantized redshift of the light from a quasar shows that the quasar's increase in mass occurs resonantly at the subatomic particle level. (Einstein intuited correctly, I believe, that quantum behavior requires a resonant structure within subatomic particles). It throws into sharp relief how a belief that the masses of the proton and the electron are universally fixed can shackle progress. Yet such a belief has been allowed to flourish when there is no knowledge of the relationship of matter to mass. Homo sapiens sapiens proves to be homo sapiens ignoramus!

 

Modern Cosmology: Science or Folktale?

"Michael J. Disney is emeritus professor in the School of Physics and Astronomy at Cardiff University. He has done research on stars, pulsars and quasars, but his main interest has always lain in galaxies and in designing novel instruments to observe them at many wavelengths. He has worked on the development of Hubble Space Telescope instruments since 1976."

 

 

In its original form, an expanding Einstein model had an attractive, economic elegance. Alas, it has since run into serious difficulties, which have been cured only by sticking on some ugly bandages: inflation to cover horizon and flatness problems; overwhelming amounts of dark matter to provide internal structure; and dark energy, whatever that might be, to explain the seemingly recent acceleration. A skeptic is entitled to feel that a negative significance, after so much time, effort and trimming, is nothing more than one would expect of a folktale constantly re-edited to fit inconvenient new observations.

The historian of science Daniel Boorstin once remarked: "The great obstacle to discovering the shape of the Earth, the continents and the oceans was not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge. Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments and contradictory witnesses." Acceptance of the current myth, if myth it is, could likewise hold up progress in cosmology for generations to come

 

And last but by no means least:

 

Astronomy looks set to encounter more surprises and to publish more science fiction this year.

 

Meanwhile, the Electric Universe has plenty to celebrate in 2009.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if I agree with your electric universe, Koy. But I do agree that this constant evocation of things we cannot see or feel such as dark matter and now dark energy are starting to get a bit suspicious. But the truth will out, as they say. If there really is a big problem with the current "Standard Model" it will show up eventually as we make more and more accurate measurements of what we can see.

 

A great phrase I read in one of Terry Pratchett's "Science of Discworld" books ~ "You can almost smell the Paradigm shift coming", (Book 3, I think)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A great phrase I read in one of Terry Pratchett's "Science of Discworld" books ~ "You can almost smell the Paradigm shift coming"

 

A man born outside of the box if ever there was one.

 

OK, just one more bit of spam, then I'll leave it to those who can describe such ideas in much better detail than I could ever hope to. I would never think that anyone would throw away their "black holes" on my account, as I was a big time fan of them space vampires myself for many a yonk and only landed here as a byproduct of googlin push gravity on a half arzed notion about it being strange that gravity had no opposite force, and finding "SOUPDRAGON 42"s youtubes (with a pinkfloyd soundtrack); I was hooked on the plasma angle.

True there is much jibba jabba crap on t'net about the likes of planet nibaru, reptilion humanoids, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc but the electric universe may just be worth keeping an eye on.

 

The big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

 

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

 

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

 

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

 

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method.

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm more for "sums is nature and nature is sums"

 

Some may argue:

 

To the extent that the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not true; and to the extent that they are true, they do not refer to reality.

 

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality

:wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
A working gravity shielding device would make it possible to construct a perpetual motion machine

 

Electrical Experimenter (July 1920)

 

Overcoming Gravitation

by

George Piggott

 

I had succeeded in sustaining a metallic object in space by means of a counter-gravitational effect produced through the action of an electric field upon the above object. A strong electric field was produced by means of a special form of generator and when the metallic object was held within its influence it drew up to approximately a distance of 1 mm from the center of the field, then was repelled backward toward an earthed contact, going within 10 cm of the same when it was again attracted toward the field’s center but this time getting no nearer than 5 cm from the polar nucleus. This backward and forward movement contained for some time until the metallic object at last came to a comparatively stable position, about 25 cm from the field’s center where it remained until the power was shut off. The metallic object (having of course a certain electrical capacity) became fully charged and gave off part of said charge to and against the surrounding field which tended to hold said object in space, apparently without any other sustaining influence. The ever-changing action of attraction and repulsion resulted in the overcoming of gravitation.

 

Therefore, after making many experiments to ascertain as nearly as possible the absolute facts and conditions as they exist, I have come to the conclusion that all electrical disturbances not due to our own radio oscillations, on this globe are due to the sun’s electrical activities in semi-inductional contact with our polar extremities.

 

The electric field produced for suspension  experiments is very powerful and intense, being detectable with a vacuum tube at a distance of over 6 meters (19.68 ft).

 

In conjunction with the above and drawing an analogy between the same, I am of the opinion that cometary motion is undoubtedly due to the activity of its compositional elements and their susceptibility to changes of polarity which, when the comet is far distant from the sun, would be opposite in sign to that of the latter, or when in close proximity to the ventral orb, would be of the same sign and therefore repelled.

 

All bodies in process of formation possibly have their cometary stage, and doubtless future experiments will reveal this fact.

 

These things have been around a while, the man behind the curtain just don't want you to know about things like free energy and peace, or that they know what a tasty weapon H.A.A.R.P is and don't want to share it.

 

Anyway we wont know about it til we rise as one and destroy those who control us with their lie craft.

Until then, enjoy watching your children die with pride in the remaining oil wars.

 

I did hear of a Swiss cult with their own Testatika Generator. If I ever manage to get in and steal it off them I will let you know and may even share the know how, (at a very reasonable price) :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

"Astrophysicists and astronomers do not study experimental plasma dynamics in graduate school. They rarely take any courses in electrodynamic field theory, and thus they try to explain every new discovery via gravity, magnetism, and fluid dynamics which is all they understand. It is no wonder they cannot understand that 99% of all cosmic phenomena are due to plasma dynamics and not to gravity alone.

 

When confronted by observations that cast doubt on the validity of their theories, astrophysicists have circled their wagons and conjured up pseudo-scientific invisible entities such as neutron stars, weakly interacting massive particles, strange energy, and black holes.  When confronted by solid evidence such as Halton Arp's photographs that contradict the Big Bang Theory, their response is to refuse him access to any major telescope in the U.S.

 

Instead of wasting time in a futile battle trying to convince entrenched mainstream astronomers to seriously investigate the Electric/Plasma Universe ideas, a growing band of plasma scientists and engineers are simply bypassing them.  A new electric plasma-based paradigm that does not find new discoveries to be “enigmatic and puzzlingâ€, but rather to be predictable and consistent with an electrical point of view, is slowly but surely replacing the old paradigm wherein all electrical mechanisms are ignored."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is vital to remember that information — in the sense of raw data — is not knowledge, that knowledge is not wisdom, and that wisdom is not foresight. But information is the first essential step to all of these.

 

The truth is indeed out there but do not take it for granted that you will be shown it by the mainstream.

 

Galaxy NGC 4319

 

wikipedia[/url] will tell you:"]NGC 4319 lies at a distance of roughly 80 million light years away from Earth, while Mrk 205 lies much farther away at a distance of 1 billion light years.

 

Hang on :?: :

 

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/6876/quasar.jpg[/img]"]Figure 1: This isophote image of the galaxy NGC 4319 (above) and the quasar Markarian 205 (below), made by superimposing a number of photographic plates taken by Halton Arp using the 200-inch Palomar telescope, clearly shows the luminous bridge connecting the two objects (north is up, east is left)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rrzpeRoWsU&feature=related

 

I don't understand how the last card is played

But somehow the vital connection is made

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...

Dwarf satellite galaxies...

 

Seeping through the cracks that dark matter can't patch.

 

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2745/could-dwarf-galaxies-rewrite-law-gravity

 

The number of companion dwarf galaxies, and the way they are distributed and moving cannot be explained by the laws of physics as they are currently understood, they argue in reports published in The Astrophysical Journal and the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

 

http://www.universetoday.com/2009/05/11/milky-way-dwarf-galaxies-thwart-newtonian-gravity/

 

“Maybe Newton was indeed wrong,†said Pavel Kroupa, an astronomer at Bonn University. “Although his theory does, in fact, describe the everyday effects of gravity on Earth, things we can see and measure, it is conceivable that we have completely failed to comprehend the actual physics underlying the force of gravity.â€

 

“theoretical calculations tell us that the satellites created cannot contain any dark matter.†This assumption, however, stands in contradiction to another observation. “The stars in the satellites we have observed are moving much faster than predicted by the Gravitational Law. If classical physics holds this can only be attributed to the presence of dark matter.â€

 

:roll: Ho hum, in your own time boys. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Figure 1: This isophote image of the galaxy NGC 4319 (above) and the quasar Markarian 205 (below), made by superimposing a number of photographic plates taken by Halton Arp using the 200-inch Palomar telescope, clearly shows the luminous bridge connecting the two objects (north is up, east is left)

But...

Hubble Heritage[/url]"]In the view of most astronomers, the juxtapositions are just due to chance. The filamentary connection became less convincing as better images became available. John Bahcall and collaborators made a noteworthy contribution when they showed that NGC 4319 absorbs some of the light from Mrk 205, just as expected if NGC 4319 is projected in front of Mrk 205 (Astrophysical Journal 1992).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now this is a weird thread!

 

Of course there are holes in the idea of dark matter, but it's the best explanation for the rate of expansion of our universe we have at the moment. That's all science can ever be, the best explanation we currently have to describe natural phenomena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are holes in the idea of dark matter, but it's the best explanation for the rate of expansion of our universe we have at the moment.

 

There are more than a few holes; the only explanation dark matter, dark energy and now dark flow gives, are as labels they have stuck over, what they don't undersand and the debate on the expansion of the Universe is far from over.

 

You may have to step outside of the current paradigm to notice this though.

 

A common belief today is that Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929 that the universe was expanding and that the Big Bang theory is the unavoidable conclusion from that fact. But what did Hubble actually say?

 

"If the redshifts are a Doppler shift...the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely in both space and time." (MNRAS, 17, 506, 1937)

 

What Hubble actually discovered was a correlation among the angular sizes of galaxies, their apparent luminosities, and their redshifts. If we explain this correlation in terms of our most familiar experiences from moving around on the surface of the Earth, we will assume that both smaller and dimmer are related to moving farther away. Redshift, the displacement of light toward lower frequencies, is related to the speed of moving farther away, just as the sound of a car's horn sounds lower as it speeds away (the Doppler effect).

 

Combining these assumptions in an "argument from familiarity" results in the conclusion that the farther away a galaxy is the faster it is moving away--just as happens in our familiar experience with flying debris from an explosion. Therefore, galaxies must have exploded from a single point at a particular time: the creation of the universe.

 

But science is not about accepting what is familiar. Science is about asking further questions: How could the familiar explanation be disproved? What else could it be? Hubble was referring to these further questions with his words "if" and "on the other hand." Until his death in 1953, Hubble continued to argue against an expanding universe/big bang interpretation of the data from his 1929 observations.

 

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041109hubble-redshift.htm

 

A fundamental difference between the standard cosmological and Electric Universe models lies in their views about how the Universe was assembled over time.

 

According to the standard model, some time after the Big Bang gas and dust clouds organized into stars, stellar clusters, then black holes which merged into super-massive black holes. The super-massive black holes were seeds that gravitationally assembled surrounding gas, dust, and stars into in all the various galactic shapes and sizes. Dark matter halos are also thought to have played a role in gravitationally organizing galaxies.

 

The Electric Universe model takes a very different approach. There was no Big Bang, no distinct creation event, and the Universe is as it always was: 99.999% plasma. Over time, the cosmic plasma organized into cells, as plasma will do, separated by differences in matter and charge densities, bounded by double layers. Along the boundaries between these cells, filaments and sheets organized into Birkeland currents. The Universe self-organized due to the electromagnetic properties of plasma.

 

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090330newlook.htm

 

Try Plasma...

What do you think eroded Arabia Terra? :wink:

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...