Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_31.thumb.jpg.b7a41d6a0fa4e315f57ea3e240acf140.jpg

grey

New Members
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

About grey

  • Rank
    Nebula

Profile Information

  • Location
    Canada
  1. the theory goes that every universe in a multiverse has it's own set of fundamental laws and properties... including spacetime.. and no it does not imply that spacetime exists without the specific universe it occupies, rather it is an inherent part of it.. .other universes may not have a spacetime as we know or describe... i personally don't subscribe to this theory...way too convoluted for my liking and requires too many tailor-made equations to explain.
  2. the idea has nothing to do with expansion in a constrained volume... the premise is one of multiple dimensions... these would never overlap as they don't occupy the same spacetime... if you subscribe to that theory.
  3. You presume too much, i never discounted the effects of gravity nor did i in any way say that gravitational effects are not to be considered, on the contrary. calculating orbital trajectories for spacecraft bound for any destination in our solar system require precise calculations involving Newton's law of gravitation, Kepler's law of planetary motion among other things like Hohmann's minimum-energy interplanetary transfer trajectory... i also never claimed to "building a star" or knowing how they are built for that matter...however i do know that the fusion model of a star is totally unsupp
  4. that's a very apt quote Julian... the theories i am currently working with are completely supported by experiment. In science, we use a method we call the three legged stool approach.. Observe, Theorize, Experiment ... dark energy and matter can only be addressed using the first 2 "legs", the first being interpreted and the third hypothetical, based on pure mathematical theory alone, therefore the stool only stands using one hec of a balancing act...as for the quote... it directly applies to theory you defend without a background to do so, rather than accept the possibility that there may be s
  5. Julian, you obviously know nothing of plasma physics or electrodynamics so debating this further would be analogous to debating the existence of God with a catholic priest or a fundamentalist. Before you denounce someone "claims" I suggest you do some research into plasma science and it's scalability.. throwing the comment about unicorns governing orbital dynamics in to the mix to make some diminutive parallel with my statements only makes me wonder, and based on what I've just read, i question the existence of any open mindedness at all. in closing, the foundation of current theories are te
  6. i read this article and it makes the claim based on this assumption: "In the end, the team determined that there is a 99.996 percent chance that dark energy is responsible for the hotter parts of the CMB maps, researchers said." "This work also tells us about possible modifications to Einstein’s theory of general relativity," said lead author Tommaso Giannantonio, of Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich in Germany. then we have this that pretty much sums it... "The next generation of cosmic microwave background and galaxy surveys should provide the definitive measurement, either confirming g
  7. Earl , i agree with you on the dark matter... but this is different, this object has been confirmed to be joined to it's companion and the 2 QSO,s within are just too precisely positioned within the filament to be coincidental
  8. there are many confirming articles and observations... here's one from Cornell http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0203466
  9. Earl, this object has been scrutinized by many astronomers and was found to have the four objects connected, not sure what you are seeing in the HST images you are talking about, but i assure you these findings are accurate. http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/586/2/L119/fulltext/16874.text.html
  10. build theories on evidence... precisely my point "Critics often point out that a theory requiring speculative, undetectable stuff on such a scale also stretches credulity to the breaking point. Something very real, perhaps even obvious, is almost certainly missing in the standard Gravity Model. Is it possible that the missing component could be something as familiar to the modern world as electricity?"
  11. Julian, i would just like to add that proof is key here... the gravitational model cannot be proven because we cannot understand, observe or measure 98% of the predicted constituents, the electrical model cannot only be proven, but reproduced in any plasma lab and scaled to cosmological magnitudes. Look at the recent findings with regards to cometary bodies.. this alone should shed some light on the question.. the stardust mission findings falsify the previously accepted theories all together. the burden of proof lies with the G model, where it seems that the more we observe the more dark stuf
  12. Jim, although this analogy has been made countless times before, the balloon demo fits the picture quite well... but that only works if the universe is in fact expanding... this may very well prove to be false and therefore the balloon is popped. I too wondered about this for a very long time until i began my studies in astrophysics... now i just can;t wrap my head around the expansion theory.. makes no sense in conventional physics, only a stable non-expanding universe can account for all we actually observe and can reproduce in plasma labs. food for thought.. research more and forget the bal
  13. I disagree... simply adding the equivalent of 96 to 98% of mystery element(dark stuff) to formulate "plausible" equations is not science... it's conjecture... mathematicians proved that heavier than air flight was impossible, and this after the Wright brothers had already flown... this was published in Scientific American! Don't get me wrong, Math is a critical and a vital tool for science, but let's not put the cart before the horse. In the EU model, gravity itself is simply an electrostatic dipolar force, planetary orbits are stabilized against gravitational chaos by the exchange of electr
  14. dark energy, dark matter... these are based on pure abstract theory and mere conjecture... dreamed up by mathematicians. we live in an electric universe, not a big bang universe where we need dark stuff to rationalize what we cannot understand based on a gravitational model that is based purely on speculation and non-scientifically observable and quantifiable elements.. "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:" - Nikola Tesla the universe has been m
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.