News

**quanta** lop guest User ID: 109306 07-19-2012 10:32 AM

Thanks Op for a great post and very interesting thread.

I'm an advocate of the black hole theory. I read too much science fiction I suppose but one day maybe we'll use them as portals for inter-galactic travel. ... Like Central Station.. Maybe.;)

But I have a question .... Under the expanding universe theory .. If we pointed our sensors [telescopes]to the outer reaches some 15 Billion years ago we would see the first objects ejected from the primordial explosion.

Have we done this yet?

The guys at Cern are trying to recreate that first big bang to discover the 'god' particle. I find it amusing .. under the old saying... As Above -So Below... Astronomers are looking the other way but getting black hole sand in their eye by not looking far enough. LOL.

**Blue Waffle**

DrPostman Wrote:

I ran across this in the comments of one of the articles out there about
this:

"With only three baselines there isn't really an image. It gives size and brightness information on a relatively narrow range of length scales: a coarsely-sampled Fourier transform of the object's appearance."

So I guess no actual image, just data.

Sooooo...
Multi-telescope two million times sharper than human eye and...
no image?

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 42549 07-19-2012 01:25 PM

Top thread mate.

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 14880 07-19-2012 04:02 PM

Supabill Wrote:

So which is true. Gravity Universe or the Electric Universe? Black Holes and "how gravity works" I thought were still just theories.

I have never seen a picture of a black hole that wasn't an artist's impression.

I am not saying there isn't black holes. I am trying to figure out which theory may be true. This article wasn't real clear that they actually witnessed a black hole. Though the headline for the article in the link says they did.

Both theories are 'true'. They both work to give testable and repeatable valid answers. But there is no theory yet that explains how gravity works. We do not know how to create it, we only correlate it with mass.
But the force is there and the electric force is also there.
I think the main issue with the electric universe is that they try to say that we can call all forces electric, where we now have a theory that says there are 4 main forces. (gravity, electric, weak nuclear and strong nuclear)
(Did you see: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/ele...verse.html ? )

I also have a feeling that electricity can create gravity. But this is never proven. The ones I know who claim they know that opposing electric waves create scalar electric waves that is what create gravity.

Tom Bearden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wypYFe3JXdE

and John Bedini who tested a lot of Beardens ideas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXSOLcQlOew

And ofcourse we have this marvelous weird dude
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BR8Ac7hxbg

**Ohio Dude**

DrPostman Wrote:

I ran across this in the comments of one of the articles out there about
this:

"With only three baselines there isn't really an image. It gives size and brightness information on a relatively narrow range of length scales: a coarsely-sampled Fourier transform of the object's appearance."

So I guess no actual image, just data.

It's a picture if you can see in frequency space. Aliens can.

**Bicnarok**

Galaxy Wrote:

Love this kind of threads.

Are there pics @ link?

Then your gonna find this interesting too.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/201...reach.html

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 9372 07-19-2012 06:21 PM

Blue Waffle Wrote:

DrPostman Wrote:
I ran across this in the comments of one of the articles out there about
this:

"With only three baselines there isn't really an image. It gives size and brightness information on a relatively narrow range of length scales: a coarsely-sampled Fourier transform of the object's appearance."

So I guess no actual image, just data.

Sooooo...
Multi-telescope two million times sharper than human eye and...
no image?

Yeah WTF

**Ðґℙ☺ṧ⊥мαη**

The Lucky AC Wrote:

Black holes are not science--but pop culture.

Quote:There has been a deliberate suppression of important scientific papers by the community of physicists and astronomers concerning the black hole, beginning with the original paper by Karl Schwarzschild of 1916, evidently for vainglory, money and self-aggrandisement. I bring you free access to those papers, and others of relevance, in the hope that this fraud can be exposed and physics restored to a rational search for knowledge. The black hole has no foundation in theory whatsoever. Neither Newton's theory nor Einstein's theory predict it. In fact, both theories preclude it, contrary to what the orthodox relativists claim.

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/

I'm pretty sure that most cosmologists believe they exist.

AC488 Wrote:

How can you view something that doesn't exist?

By viewing it's effects. What do you think accretion disks are?

quanta Wrote:

Thanks Op for a great post and very interesting thread.
I'm an advocate of the black hole theory. I read too much science fiction I suppose but one day maybe we'll use them as portals for inter-galactic travel. ... Like Central Station.. Maybe.;)
But I have a question .... Under the expanding universe theory .. If we pointed our sensors [telescopes]to the outer reaches some 15 Billion years ago we would see the first objects ejected from the primordial explosion.
Have we done this yet?

Yes, they have. Recently they've been puzzled to discover a spiral
galaxy at a time when they believed that those couldn't be organized
enough yet to exist. The working theory on that is that mergers can
create spiral configurations.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/07...erse-video

Blue Waffle Wrote:

Sooooo...
Multi-telescope two million times sharper than human eye and...
no image?

Human eyes can't see infrared or radio waves, so I'd consider that
"sharper". Especially given the distance, which I believe that also
alludes to.

**Cajun111**

LoP Guest Wrote:

Supabill Wrote:
So which is true. Gravity Universe or the Electric Universe? Black Holes and "how gravity works" I thought were still just theories.

I have never seen a picture of a black hole that wasn't an artist's impression.

I am not saying there isn't black holes. I am trying to figure out which theory may be true. This article wasn't real clear that they actually witnessed a black hole. Though the headline for the article in the link says they did.

Both theories are 'true'. They both work to give testable and repeatable valid answers. But there is no theory yet that explains how gravity works. We do not know how to create it, we only correlate it with mass.
But the force is there and the electric force is also there.
I think the main issue with the electric universe is that they try to say that we can call all forces electric, where we now have a theory that says there are 4 main forces. (gravity, electric, weak nuclear and strong nuclear)
(Did you see: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/ele...verse.html ? )

I also have a feeling that electricity can create gravity. But this is never proven. The ones I know who claim they know that opposing electric waves create scalar electric waves that is what create gravity.

Tom Bearden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wypYFe3JXdE

and John Bedini who tested a lot of Beardens ideas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXSOLcQlOew

And ofcourse we have this marvelous weird dude
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BR8Ac7hxbg

First, nice post! Heartflowers

Second, I agree with most of your statements, but one thing concerns me. Electromagnetic force is approximately 10^36 times stronger than the earth's gravitational field. That's 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger than gravity on Earth. How can that NOT be a factor?

**The Lucky AC** Everything in life is luck User ID: 888 07-20-2012 12:37 AM

DrPostman Wrote:

The Lucky AC Wrote:
Black holes are not science--but pop culture.

Quote:There has been a deliberate suppression of important scientific papers by the community of physicists and astronomers concerning the black hole, beginning with the original paper by Karl Schwarzschild of 1916, evidently for vainglory, money and self-aggrandisement. I bring you free access to those papers, and others of relevance, in the hope that this fraud can be exposed and physics restored to a rational search for knowledge. The black hole has no foundation in theory whatsoever. Neither Newton's theory nor Einstein's theory predict it. In fact, both theories preclude it, contrary to what the orthodox relativists claim.

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/
I'm pretty sure that most cosmologists believe they exist.

black holes are a mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY

it is a proven impossibility

cosmologists aren't necessarily very good with maths I guess

they use black holes to try to make implausible theories work
instead of admitting that their theories are flawed, they put in a mathematical impossibility to "force it" to work

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 98670 07-20-2012 12:43 AM

We can't comprehend 5 billion light years away, how could we comprehend seeing something that far away. To imagine what is out there is more truth.

**vki** lop guest User ID: 109468 07-20-2012 01:18 AM

DrPostman Wrote:

The telescopes revealed a fresh look..

semantics huh? revealed what exactly??

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 109249 07-20-2012 02:37 AM

If the goal is to increase the baseline, why aren't these in space? A 'size matters' issue?

**Ðґℙ☺ṧ⊥мαη** · (This post was last modified: 07-20-2012 06:15 AM by Ðґℙ☺ṧ⊥мαη.)

The Lucky AC Wrote:

black holes are a mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY
it is a proven impossibility
cosmologists aren't necessarily very good with maths I guess
they use black holes to try to make implausible theories work
instead of admitting that their theories are flawed, they put in a mathematical impossibility to "force it" to work

I realize that there are no proofs in physics, but the experimental
and observational evidence can't be easily dismissed. For example, the
motions of the stars at the galactic center around a small invisible
object. We also have imaged accretion disks.
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q7

vki Wrote:

DrPostman Wrote:
The telescopes revealed a fresh look..

semantics huh? revealed what exactly??

You could try reading the article.

LoP Guest Wrote:

If the goal is to increase the baseline, why aren't these in space? A 'size matters' issue?

I remember talk about placing a interferometer out near the orbit
of Saturn, but the costs involved are so high that the project never
found funding. It's all about the bucks when it comes to space.