The Six Billion Dollar Experiment

2007 ,    »  -   83 Comments
Ratings: 8.81/10 from 16 users.

The Six Billion Dollar ExperimentThe Large Hadron Collider promises to recreate the conditions right after the Big Bang. By revisiting the beginning of time, scientists hope to unravel some of the deepest secrets of our Universe.

Within these first few moments the building blocks of the Universe were created. The search for these fundamental particles has occupied scientists for decades but there remains one particle that has stubbornly refused to appear in any experiment.

The Higgs Boson is so crucial to our understanding of the Universe that it has been dubbed the God particle. It explains how fundamental particles acquire mass, or as one scientist plainly states: It is what makes stuff stuff...

More great documentaries

83 Comments / User Reviews

  1. doc-fan

    6 billion dollars... They could wait another 20 years and save like 5 billions on new technology...

  2. Waldo
  3. Waldo

    @ Roachinkansas

    I don't think they would have to tell us, we would know pdq on our own. The last thing we would hear is the unnerving sucking sound of our arse being pulled out our throat backwards. (LOL)

    Just kidding, in reality I have no idea how quickly or how long it would take. It is a bit unsettling that they will not say there is no chance, instead they say that there is a very small chance of it happening. You know, they also say that the length of the average intelligent civilization plays a very real role in the drake equation, i.e. that if they do not last long we would have little chance of hearing a signal from them. Maybe this is why we have not heard anything; once a civilization learns to create particle accelerators and that they can recreate the birth of matter with enough energy they extinquish themselves. Just a thought, in reality I think all will be fine when they finally get it going. I don't know if they will find what they are looking for but I seriousely doubt it will be our bane.

  4. DeathSSghosT
  5. DeathSSghosT

    well how long are we gonna have to wait to know whether this higgs field is real or not. im tired of waiting. i thought the LHC was supposed to be running in 08, wtf happened?

  6. Achems Razor
  7. Achems Razor

    This doc to me is basic and elemental, but still love watching.
    What if there is no Higgs Bosun? Then I imagine the simplest answer may be, do "we" collapse the wave form to form mass as we know it?

  8. Ramus
  9. Ramus

    This doc is a bit old now. I would like to see an updated doc on the LHC. The LHC website seems strangely quiet on what its been up to so they have either found a) nothing b) something they don't want us to know about.
    Last month, however, they did manage to create a mini big-bang by smashing lead ion particles together (rather than the usual protons). This created temperatures of 10 trillion degrees, 1 million times hotter than the core of the sun, creating a quark-gluon plasma. Although I have yet to find any useful data from this experiment.

  10. Achems Razor
  11. Achems Razor

    There is a theory which states, that is ever anybody discovers exactly what the universe is for, and why it is here. It would instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

    There is another theory this has already happened.

  12. Dr. Dunkleosteus
  13. Dr. Dunkleosteus


    You could be right there. All those M theory guys like to talk about the universe as a bubble; what if we pop it trying to figure out what it is?

    I think if a black formed on earth, you would experience getting pulled down extremely fast while onlookers would see you as drifting off slowly. Is this right? I know there is some goofy analogy invloving a man and a woman and one is being sucked into a black hole. It was in an episode of the universe I think...

  14. Ramus
  15. Ramus

    With regards to the "mini" black holes the LHC was supposed to create apparently none have been detected. It is worth pointing out that even if they had created one it would have been measured in nanometres and last only fractions of a second, the accelerator doesn't use enough mass to create any significant sized hole.
    If you could see someone falling into a black hole you would see them slowing until they reach the event horizon where they would appear to stop moving completely. For the guy in the hole things speed up until its just a blur.

  16. Dr. Dunkleosteus
  17. Dr. Dunkleosteus

    Ah, thank you Ramus. I knew it was something weird like that. Interesting phenomenon. We need to fly a camera into one so we can see what it looks like.

  18. princeton
  19. princeton


    i thought black holes had been debunked long ago.. so many contradictions.. how can a point of infinite density exist.. these astrophysicists are breaking all the base rules of logic to come up with crazy and by their own admittance unimaginable views of reality.. I think it's all much simpler and feel they are just wasting tons of taxpayer money with overly expensive experiments that will more than likely create more confusion than solve anything. hicks boson "god particle" my ar$e..

  20. princeton
  21. princeton

    back in tha day we called them contradictions (like 2+2=5) now they call em paradoxes and still proceed as if they were viable or useful ideas

  22. Achems Razor
  23. Achems Razor


    Black holes are not debunked. Infinite density means there is no space or time, much less spacetime, as before the BB.

    "But" the laws of physics and GR do breakdown, enter the strange world of quantum gravity, There still is no satisfactory theory for what happens at and beyond the singularity. If there was then would be a theory of everything.

  24. princeton
  25. princeton

    "Infinite density means there is no space or time"
    hence the contradiction.. if there is no space or time, then by definition there is also no existence, which detonates the concept of black holes and categorically excludes them from reality.

    have you ever looked into the plasma universe theory? makes much more sense to me than a universe that is 95% dark/missing/undetectable ... actually almost anything would make more sense than that.. but hey, I'm no expert.. would love to hear your thoughts on the electromagnetic explanation for gravity though...

  26. Achems Razor
  27. Achems Razor


    Alas, we live in a contradiction, time and space are supposed to be illusions, according to physics and even GR. Physics makes more sense when they take out the time equation. Especially with quantum physics, we live in a sea of unlimited probabilities. One particular probable vibration level according to string theory. Re: our reality.

    Yes have looked into plasma universe theory quite a while ago, would have to familiarize myself with it again though.

  28. Waldo
  29. Waldo

    @ Princeton

    They have discovered a blackhole in the very center of our galaxy. They found it by watching the stars that it throws around like they are twigs in a high wind. Nothing else could have the mass required to make such massive stars orbit at such speeds. In fact they now believe every galaxy has one at the center, and that they play a very real role in the formation of galaxies. No one ever debunked them as you say, in fact they are more and more sure they absolutedly do exist. Its pretty much a given that they do in most physics circles. You can not try and apply your ideas of space, time, gravity, etc. when thinking about these types of things. All of those things are relative, which was proven by Einstien, meaning they act differently when they are in one context than they do in another. You are used to the properties of matter, space, time here on earth or maybe in orbit, you might even be able to imagine them on say the moon. But unless you do the math you can not just intuitivly predict what those same things would be like in the context of a black hole. By the way, these same scientist found many particles just as odd as the Higgs Boson that people like you made fun of doing exactly what they are doing now, you may not be laughing so hard in a few years. If they do not find the higgs they will find what ever it is that give mass...well, mass. Physics is a very complicated field were concepts that seem to be absolutedly immpossible are proven to happen all the time, look into the observer effect or the particle like behaviors of light waves. These are not guesses but repeatable proven phenomenon and are just as strange if not more so than the black hole and higgs particle you seem to have such a hard time wrapping your mind around.

    To each his own though, I still can't imagine capitolism in a country (Oh yeah no country either just a place with no borders or laws) with no currency or agencies to set trade rules and regulation. You seem to be able to comprehend that with no effort, so I know you are capable of believing the immpossible when it suits your agenda. I agree that right now we should chill on funding these types of projects, but we should never stop all together. That would be the saddest mistake science ever made.

  30. Ramus
  31. Ramus

    Are you talking about the electric universe theory or is there another theory I not heard about?

  32. Reasons Voice
  33. Reasons Voice

    First and foremost I will admit that quantum mathematics is less than a strong suit for me. However as much as i love Quantum physics I just can't grab onto it as anything deeper than fantacy. At least the more esoteric aspects. To me proof is a tangible thing not a mish-mash of leters symbols and numbers into an equation. Of course we end up "prooving out" a theory using mathe that we made up. Those squiggles and letters only mean what we say the mean and even their values are beyond physical prooving. We all agree to the speed of light but it has never been physically measured just mathematically measured. Sometimes belief in quantum etc. requires just as much faith in the intangible as religion does.

  34. Waldo
  35. Waldo

    @ Reasons Voice

    You greatly misunderstand the natural language of mathematics my friend. It is not a man made science but a discovered fact. We simply use symbols we made up to represent it, but math is not open to interpretation. In fact it is the only pure universal language in the universe. I have to say I am some what dissapointed, I thought you knew better. I have always enjoyed your posts and you seemed so intelligent. You could assign completely different symbols to each quanity and you would still get exactly the same relation to each other. In other words the symbols do not matter, it is their relationship to each other that defines mathematics. Pythagoras was absolutely correct when he stated that the universe could be described through the mathematical constants. No science could exist period without mathematics to back it up. To observe things does not explain them, it only proves their existance. If you want to understand them you must break them down into mathematical equations. I know you are very intelligent, you should learn more about math. You would be very suprised.

  36. Achems Razor
  37. Achems Razor


    Sorry, the speed of light has been measured both physically and by other means since the 1600's and on.

  38. Ubik
  39. Ubik

    once again, the greatness of this sites is this> one can learn more about the subject in particular by reading you guys arguing, than by watching the doc. ;)
    Personally i tend to Reason's Voice opinion.

  40. Waldo
  41. Waldo

    Peoples inability to comprehend the quantum world and so forth stems from relativity that leads to intuition. We live in a relavtive world, in other words what we see as reality depends on our relation to the events we observe. We are so much larger than the quntum world that our relation to the physical world is very different. If an atom could express itself it would say that what we intuitively expect to happen in any given event is ridiculus. Why, because it has witnessed things happening totally contrary to what we expect and observe. If a planet star could talk it would also say our expectations are unfounded, because it is so much larger than us that it experiences the physical world in a much different way. Mathemeatics allows us to do away with this intiuition and examine the bare facts of what actually happens. It is no surprise that people have trouble letting go of our intuition and accepting the data, our intuition serves us well in our relative reality.

  42. Waldo
  43. Waldo

    excuse me, that was suppose to be "planet OR star" not planet star.

  44. Reasons Voice
  45. Reasons Voice

    I agree Waldo and Achems; But my forte has never been math I am more analytical minded than I am mathematical. @Achem; I have never seen a physical test of light speed. I would be interested to though. How does one actually time light over distance without conjectuer. For instance say we measure from the sun. We know the distance so that part of the equation is solid but how do we mark it? Like with a particle we can say it was at point A at this time and point B at this time and work out the speed. How do we do that with light?
    Thank you both for the compliments. I do like to think I am intelligent but I am aware of my limitations. Math is one of those. Beyond statistics I just see squiggles.

  46. Reasons Voice
  47. Reasons Voice

    Also on a lab basis to test light speed would seem to require a time measuring device well beyond our tech let alone in 1600. If I set a timer on a light source and a timer on a photo receptor spaced apart a measured distance would work. But light speed is so fast it would be sub- nanoseconds. What do we have to measure such minute increments.

  48. Achems Razor
  49. Achems Razor


    Just one example, in the 1670's a Danish astronomer "Ole Roemer",
    was making observations of Jupiter's moon "IO". "IO" makes one orbit around Jupiter every 1.76 days. But at certain times IO was either behind or ahead of schedule; means that Jupiter was closer or further from Earth on its orbit around the sun at different times.

    So by measuring the discrepancies "Ole" determined the speed of light at 186,000 miles per second.

  50. Reasons Voice
  51. Reasons Voice

    @Achems; Gotcha. That makes sense. I was also thinking since my post that perhapse the timing of refraction from the miror arrays on the moon could be used to calculate it. I hope you didn't take offense to my remark because I know how into quantum you are. As I said I am far from MIT level math my strengths are elsewhere.

  52. Achems Razor
  53. Achems Razor


    No offence taken at all.

    Yes, a prime example, the three mirror/prism array on the moon.

  54. Anti Dantas
  55. Anti Dantas

    With the advent of quantum mechanics, and the realization that any particle, including a thrown ball, has wave like properties, the rather mysterious Principle of Least Action looks a lot like Fermat’s Principle of Least Time. Recall that Fermat’s Principle works because the total phase along a path is the integrated time elapsed along the path, and for a path where that integral is stationary for small path variations, neighboring paths add constructively, and no other sets of paths do. If the Principle of Least Action has a similar explanation, then the wave amplitude for a particle going along a path from A to B must have a phase equal to some constant times the action along that path. If this is the case, then the observed path followed will be just that of least action, or, more generally, of stationary action, for only near that path will the amplitudes add constructively, just as in Fermat’s analysis of light rays.

  56. princeton
  57. princeton

    @ waldo.

    I agree with almost everything you said, and please don't misunderstand my statement, i am all for scientific research, but as RV put.. there is a lot of fantasy in relativity. what you describe as a definitive black hole in the center of our galaxy is actually all speculation.. what they found were stars being thrown violently near the center of the galaxy, but that does not fit the description of a region with infinite density. matter of fact, if there were even one region with infinite density, then by definition it would be impossible to have anything else and that event would consume the whole universe... but alas, the mathematicians just theorize another so called force which can't possibly be explained or detected to cover up this inconsistency.. heck they have even observed jets shooting out of "black holes".. but somehow they are supposed to just consume everything and nothing can escape, not even light.. but yet we have jets.. seriously?

    like RV I am no super mathematician, but i understand what happens when you divide by zero as Einstein did, but in our reality, even common sense tell us there is no such thing as zero space (look into fractal geom ).

    Another thing to note is the fact that time is not a physical dimension or object, which renders the concept of space-time rather illogical.. bending "the fabric" of space seems like wordplay to describe bending nothing, which is an impossibility..

    actually there are different explanations for black holes and other stellar phenomena which doesn't involve imaginary/virtual particles simply through plasma physics and electricity. Even newton admitted he was just describing the force of gravity without an explanation for it.. because electricity and magnetism were not yet discovered during his time.. i tend to think that a force 10^39 stronger than gravity is probably going to win out and believe it to make more sense that electric/magnetic currents in space create the effect we now call gravity... no need for imaginary gravitons or bending nothing (like the mattress of space analogy.. just wordplay).

    I would have more respect for the mathematicians, if they would just go back to the drawing board and start over, instead of making up "dark energy" & "dark matter" just so their equations work... leaving 95% of the universe "undetectable" and speculation is not science at all.. its supposed to work the other way around.. you can't just make stuff up so your theory fits.. c'mon

    & by the way capitalism is not impossible (its happening all over the place) and does not mean no oversight or regulation (quite the opposite)... true capitalism only requires there be no central aggressor to impose their vision of regulation and oversight on people who can probably manage their own affairs much better.. a cooperative society based on real tangible incentives and not political whims or mass theft..
    & BTW a world without borders & taxation would be the end of poverty and wars.

  58. Waldo
  59. Waldo

    @ Princeton

    Bullox, you simply don't understand physics so you discount it, typical. Yes, go on believing that everything you see is reality and nothing unintuitive is possible. What a small mind.

  60. Waldo
  61. Waldo

    @ Princeton

    If the bending of space time is not possible then explain gravitational lensing. In fact never mind, its not like I am really going to take your word over Einstien, Feynmen, Hawking, etc. not to mention the same mathematics that allows the world as we know it to run anyway. Princeton the master of all, you think you are the authority on politics, economics, physics whats next? Will you tell us all that you are the final authority on philosophy as well. You Know that philosophy of questioning authority doesn't mean that you discount everything you are told in every legitimate feild of study and assume you know the answers depite having no education in the field or ever doing a single experiment.

  62. Waldo
  63. Waldo

    You Know what,never mind your inflated ego. Do you have any proof that relativity is not fact other than your own simple intuition? I had written out a very long list of physical observations and repeatable experiments that prove relativity as reality, but lets face it you know how to use google and if you are insistant as you usually are about being correct what good would it do? All I will say is that your idea of the effects of a black hole at the center of the galaxy are comical and never were part of the theory proposed. They are either your ignorance or an attmept to build a straw man arguement that you can tear down. No one ever said a black hole had infinite mass, only infinite density. There is a big difference between the two. If they had infinite mass the entire universe would be attracted to them and swallowed up, but they dont, they have infinite density. The earth itself has enough mass to create a black hole if it were squashed down to an unimaginable density. So as we often see with religiouse nuts that deny evolution you do not even understand what you are saying can't exist. The reason the stars that orbit the black hole at the center of the galaxy do not get swallowed and only orbit it is the same reason satelites orbit the earth and do not fall to the ground, or the earth orbits the sun and does not fall into it. Its the speed of the star that creates its orbit, one day the orbit will decay and it will get swallowed. All that proof aside, where is your proof that the greatest minds in history have it wrong and Princeton has it right? If you know so much about economics, politics, and physics why not do something more than just argue with people like me online?

  64. Achems Razor
  65. Achems Razor

    It is true infinite density and infinite mass are not the same thing.
    As the volume goes to "0" point to infinity, does not alter mass which is finite.

    A super massive black hole will not absorb any galaxy, neither the universe.
    Rotating bodies are constantly trying to fall into the bodies they are rotating, but centrifugal force pushes them back out, hence most elliptical orbits.

    Also GR has been proven many times per, Einstein's equations by various means.

    And Hawking's radiation, also know as "Bekenstein-Hawking radiation" which reduces the mass, and is known as black hole evaporation, is what is escaping from black holes.

  66. Waldo
  67. Waldo

    @ Princeton

    I never said capitaism was impossible, I said your idea of no government which means no currency or any one to set the value of the individual units of this non existant currency made it impossible. You really need to read more carefully and stop trying to create simple straw man arguements so you can procede to tear them down.

  68. princeton
  69. princeton

    @ waldo
    i love the condescending tone.. like music to my ears.
    actually without governments, currencies will arise on their own.. for a more in depth explanation refer to the mises institute or google austrian economics where many economists (not just princeton as you put it) step you through how currencies arise spontaneously and value is based upon the transactions that happen between individuals.. no need for a nanny gubment.. maybe you should read my posts closer & stop making straw men.. i never said no currency or value.

  70. princeton
  71. princeton

    @waldo again
    "how do you explain gravitational lensing?"
    well.. what I am saying is that to say the "fabric" of space "bent" is not the only possible solution.. maybe the simple truth is that the light itself is bent almost like how it can be reflected and refracted around objects for other reasons, no need to resort to a philosophical contradiction.
    I didn't say relativity violates my intuition (though it does), I said it violates basic logic & you all know it.
    density = m/v. if you have zero volume which results in infinite density, then what you are describing physically is nothing & if I remember rightly physics is a ... oh yea, physical science (not imaginary.virtual).. I mean come on even a child knows that density basically means how tightly are things (with volume) packed. how hard is it to understand black holes do not exist by your own definition, its a very simple thing that only years of education (indoctrination) could make you overlook.
    actually its not just me that thinks this way, let me refer you to other phrofessionals who have done the legwork since you like to put me down in that manner.. basic logic & reason doesn't work for this "educated" crowd, so i guess i can do some name dropping too... (celebrity contest anyone?)

    Stephen J. Crothers work
    also the work of G.Stolyarov II, , Hannes alfven nobel prize winner, Nikolay Noskov, Dr. Halton c harp.

    I could go on but feel am wasting my time because common sense and your own words prove the contradiction, not to mention the runaway mathematicians whose best explanation of our universe involves virtual and undetectable forces and particles.. omg like.. will you at least think about it without getting cluttered in the gibberish, status &or prestige.. I don't care how many experiments you twist to fit your conclusions, if your explanation is that zero volume exists.... or that 95 percent of the universe is not detectable & virtual (also a definition of nonexistence) then by all means, call me unscientific cos i want nothing to do with that nonsense.. 2+2 is never gonna equal five no matter how much you wanna bend space & dilate reality...

  72. princeton
  73. princeton

    again you misquote me.. I never said infinite mass but infinite density... and as my comment in moderation will tell you.. you only get infinite density by having zero volume.. like Achems also pointed out.. and by definition, zero volume is categorically non-existence. very easy even a 2 year old can understand.. no need for college degrees..
    but of course you know i never studied physics in university or on my own.. of course you know i never did any research.. you know me better than myself and also know i just like to believe what i believe because it makes me comfy.. or inflates my ego.. thank you for an intelligent response (sarcastic).

    & achems..
    thanx for staying on topic... but same thing applies here and i don't recall saying infinite mass.. i said i know what happens when u divide by zero.. and in reality there is no such thing as zero space.

  74. ne171pro
  75. ne171pro

    Yeah, a black whole slowly eating the world? I think a black hole is probably one of the quickest ways to go if you ask me. Unless they had it quarantined with radio waves or scalar waves.

  76. princeton
  77. princeton

    @waldo once again
    "Bullox, you simply don’t understand physics so you discount it, typical."
    lol.. so i guess because Galileo disagreed with the mainstream he just didn't understand astronomy and discounted it.. or maybe Copernicus. Guess the doctor who suggested everyone wash they're hands just didn't get medicine.. are you serious?

    dude... I have chugged all the Hawkins and Michio kaku science for years and drunk that cool-aid same as you. Simply because I have been made aware of several irreconcilable contradictions and errors in the mainstream approach to physics (mainly astronomy) does not mean I discount the science altogether... that is just propaganda to squelch dissenting viewpoints.

    on the contrary I have the utmost respect for the sciences, with the understanding that they are all subsets of philosophy and the only way to gain knowledge is with strict adherence to the basic rules of logic, else we are just dealing with opinion & fantasy, with no method of cutting through the noise.

    I accept all the physical evidence science provides, but believe the explanations need to be reworked so as to not be self-contradictory at the door.. i know its much more work than simply making up particles and forces whenever your equations don't add up, but its well worth the hassle.

  78. Achems Razor
  79. Achems Razor


    Okay, I grant you that, no infinite mass, my bad.

    No infinite space and no so called oblivion. Try to imagine a state where nothing exists. Such a state is impossible , even contradictory, since the concept existence is necessary to apprehend it, therefore existence exists necessarily, even if nothing else exists. Period. So there is always "something" instead of "nothing".

  80. Waldo
  81. Waldo

    @ Princeton

    I am not getting into an arguement with you, I have seen your pathetic excuse for debate on other threads and want no part of it. I will give you the fact that you didn't say infinite mass, but you did make the comical assumption that a black hole would consume the universe which implies infinite mass. If you refuse to believe in infinite density then you must discount the big bang and all that follows. So don't tell me how you revere physics and in the same breath discount thousands of man hours by brilliant minds.

  82. princeton
  83. princeton

    @achems razor
    sure.. i concur.. but that is all the more why i think zero volume a.k.a. infinite density is an impossibility. there are also many other reasons why black holes are logically inconsistent.. i got a comment in moderation which points to other physicists and astronomers who agree with me on this and have better explanations than I on this medium.

    refering to thousands of hours of work by brilliant minds is moot in my opinion.. many scientists are religious and this lets me know they have no problem entertaining logical contradictions.. many of those same brilliant minds had no problem with slavery or the subjugation of women.. as well as all the other $hit-c0ckery they inherited during their time, so please spare me the inherent arrogance in assuming that because a lot of "smart" people say something its right. you act as if there is a consensus among all scientists and there just isn't.. you may not hear about it much but many esteemed researchers actually disagree with the mainstream.

    glad you bring it up, I do have problems with the big bang and think it also didn't happen.. Alton c harp's work and others in the field are challenging the big bang theory. more in depth they are challenging the redshift hypothesis which the whole thing is based on, because they have found galaxies with widely different redshifts actually connected to each other. and there are also other aspects of redshift and light that suggest they are not a very good indicator of distance. do a youtube search for "the big bang didn't happen", a comprehensive documentary that actually runs through a lot of the problems with the theory.

    from my own philosophical perspective, the big bang violates the basic law of thermodynamics, creating something out of nothing, and ever since its inception, we have been running all wild with ideas of "other universes" which is a rather $illy notion when the definition of the universe is "everything that exists". so there is something other than everything that exists.. lol.. oh well..

    btw. i love your ad hominem attacks as opposed to actually facing what i'm saying you just huff and puff and try to put me down.. good job buddy.. Lawl

  84. Waldo
  85. Waldo

    @ Prince know it all and never did a d*mn thing

    Why debate with someone like you? First of all you are not worth the effort, and secondly it would not matter what evidence I put forth. Besides, you do know how to use google right? There are hundreds of physical observations and experiments that prove relativity, all you have to do is look. I have seen your thick headed way of debating, simply deny, deny, deny, and stick to your cock eyed theories no matter what is said or proven. well, longevity has nothing to do with being right- the last man willing to still be argueing doesn't win as you seem to think. If you really think you know better than Einstien and Hawkings then no one here is going to sway you. Believe whatever you like pal, I will try and not lose sleep over it. You will be just one more amongst the sea of scientifically challenged people that don't get it.

    Now, go ahead and get your last word, another thing people like you always have to have. Simple and predictable, at least you are consistant.

  86. princeton
  87. princeton

    more personal attacks I see... o k

    "If you really think you know better than Einstien
    and Hawkings"
    well. if there are observations that contradict their theories and beliefs.. then its nothing to do with me personally, but what has been observed. they are simply human and are capable of error.. astronomers and physicists have been wrong before.

    "There are hundreds of physical observations and experiments that prove relativity, all you have to do is look"
    yea, I have and seen virtually every doc on the topic and dug into it pretty extensively, even used to agree with them at one point.. but those same observations I believe can be explained better with other theories..
    just because some observations confirm a certain theory does not preclude other observations from falsifying it.

    I will ignore everything else you said about me.. it is beneath me to get into that kind of stuff.. i just wanted to share my opinions.. there are hundreds of scientist, several documentaries and many people here who agree with you.. I feel compelled to at least share my perspective and what I have learned through my explorations in the hopes of maybe helping someone else.. My perspective may ultimately be correct.. but I guess to you I am just being a loudmouth when you have the whole mainstream behind you.. oh well.. thanx again for ur brilliant assertions.

  88. Waldo
  89. Waldo

    Heres some more folks you obviousely think got it wrong, The Goddard space flight center at NASA. Heres how they answer your questions about the zero volume issue.

    Our intuitive sense of volume breaks down in the strong gravitational region in a black hole. So while the "size" of a black hole is given by the radius of its event horizon, it's volume is not determined by the usual 4/3*pi*r3. Instead, relativity makes it more complicated than that. As you pass the event horizon, the spatial direction 'inwards' becomes 'towards the future'-- you WILL reach the center, it's as inevitable as next Monday. The direction outsiders think of as their future becomes a spatial dimension once you are inside. The volume of a black hole, therefore, is its surface area times the length of time the hole exists (using the speed of light to convert from seconds to meters). Since a black hole last practically forever, the black hole's volume is almost infinite. (This is also a way of explaining the fact that you can pour stuff into a black hole forever and never fill it up. Another reason why black holes never fill up is that the radius of the event horizon increases as the mass of the black hole increases.)

    Heres what they have to say about the Hawking Radiation you scoff at.

    At the center of a black hole is a point where the laws of physics break down. This point is called a 'singularity'. These singularities are hidden, or 'clothed' by the black hole, so that the effects of the breakdown cannot be observed by people outside.
    However, small black holes are known to decay by the process known as 'Hawking Radiation'. It is currently a matter of debate as to whether the singularity disappears along with the black hole that clothes it, or whether you are left with what is called a 'naked singularity'.

    Now they observed this happening in a paticle acclerator, so dont tell me how they just make stuff up.

    Actually I think this one is the best answer for how zero volume and infinite density exist, from the same experts that we trust to put people in outer space, on the moon , and on to mars soon. Surely they know a little bit about what they are doing, no?

    This is indeed difficult to grasp. Actually at the center of a black hole spacetime has infinite curvature and matter is crushed to infinite density under the pull of infinite gravity. At a singularity, space and time cease to exist as we know them. The laws of physics as we know them break down at a singularity, so it's not really possible to envision something with infinite density and zero volume.

    This same page talks about all the evidence that black holes exist as well, but I am sure you are not going to care. Like you said "you drank that cool aid". This is why I don't bother, you are never going to change your mind cause you don't want to. That would mean that the powers that be got something right, and I know you can't stand to think that. A rebel without a cause, that puts himself above genuises without pause.

    In your honor I watched Thunderbolts of the Gods again tonight, a documentary about the theories you say are correct- still a bunch of rubish if you ask me. And you say you don't believe in relativity because of a few contradictions. This theory has less proof and less scientists that buy it, it doesn't explain gravitational lensing, red shift, relative time- all proven beyond a doubt by physical observations to exist and all explainable with relativity. I think it is pretty apparent that you believe what ever is not the main stream consensus, for that reason alone.

    Not trying to reopen the arguement with you, i just didn't want you saying I didn't offer any proof or referrences again. Darn, now you have to come back and get that last word again, sorry.

  90. Ramus
  91. Ramus

    I cant say I'm utterly convinced by this idea but - It is suggested that particles gain mass at the speed of light which would shift them to the blue end of the spectrum. This means that the further you go back in time the redder particles appear leading scientists to believe they are moving away. Obviously if the red shift is merely less massive particles then our universe is virtually static and the bb theory has a serious problem.

  92. princeton
  93. princeton

    "Darn, now you have to come back and get that last word again, sorry."
    you know, to me it seems like the only reason you throw lines in there like that is because you just can't stand for anyone to disagree with you. Its a pretty subtle way of trynna tell me to shut up.. as if there is a problem with responding to your statements with my own.. to you i should just remain quiet right? I enjoy debates (not arguments, we are not a couple) and I like my ideas challenged which is why i never scorn or get upset at people responding to them...

    I am glad you actually provided something in response to the ideas themselves, but see.. it also seems to me that you feel what you wrote is completely incontrovertible as if you have the final say and know it all.. like if i find some problems with the response especially with statements like "in a singularity the laws of physics break down" I am just stubborn and don't respond to evidence.

    to even make such a statement to me signals that either the laws of physics need to be reworked so they NEVER break down (the whole point of science is consistency) & singularities or what they are observing is actually something else.

    glad you call thunderbolts of the gods rubbish.. and although I feel the same way about the contradiction laden response you gave, I will treat it with a bit more respect than that and point out the problems with it.

    If you want to see more in depth what is wrong with big bang theory & relative time .. i recommend the work of bill gaede (youtube bgaede), stephen crothers and watch the doco "the big bang never happened"
    @ youtube /watch?v=1yTfRy0LTD0
    disproof of time dilation @ eurojournals com/ejsr_44_4_10.pdf

    but see, these sources I give are meaningless if the base logical contradictions are ignored. your response and many physicists treat time as a physical dimension, which is incorrect in every sense. this simple error results in all the convoluted science fiction explanations for simple physical phenomena.

    also @ ramus
    you should also check out gravitational redshift which pretty much means that particles that enter gravitational fields actually shift toward the red. that means the light that travels further in space to arrive to us is more likely to have entered strong gravitational fields and it would make sense that objects further away will tend to be more redshifted than nearer objects. this along Alton C. Harp's twin galaxies pretty much put a heavy dent in the big bang theory, along with the inacuracy of the background radiation predictions.. the electric universe model's prediction of the cosmic background radiation was much more accurate than the big bang model.

    I guess I'm just stubborn that way waldo.. oh well..

  94. Waldo
  95. Waldo

    @ Princeton

    You don't unnderstand red shift at all. The reason it ocurrs is that when an object is moving away from us it stretches the light waves and the longer wave lengths appear red, objects moving toward us compress the light waves and they appear blue. The faster an object is moving the more intense this effect is.The same thing happens with sound and it is called the doppler effect. Gravitational fields cause gravitational lensing, or the bending of space/time fabric and distortion as a rsult in the visual field. Learn what you are discounting please, and you say science makes things up?

  96. Ramus
  97. Ramus

    There is an another explanation of redshift which I stated above and it has been put forward by scientists. Although I do not have much faith in the theory you should open your mind to other possibilities, that is how science progresses after all. Personally I think that until good explanations of dark matter and dark energy are put forward the whole bb theory is in the wind.

  98. Waldo
  99. Waldo

    @ Ramus

    I didn't read your post before posting my reply to Princeton. I will be glad to check out the theory, right off though I can't imagine why gaining mass, would shift them into the blue spectrum. This sounds like a different take on relativity though, as it theorizes the faster you move the more mass you gain. It goes on to theorize that the speed of light is like a cosmic speed limit as it would increase mass to the infinite and as a result require infinite energy to propell the object. I do have an open mind, I simply am not so open minded that I disregard evidence and the work of genuises in favor of lack of evidence and the work of unknowns.

  100. Waldo
  101. Waldo

    By the way, why is the fact the Princeton called relativity fantasy not closed minded? He can condemn what he likes but if I support something that is considered the previaling theory I must be closed minded, rubbish. Maybe I support it because I have done the research and my open mind told me it was the most logical and correct thing to believe. I am not attacking you, but this is very common. To condemn is considered open minded but to support makes you a sheep for some reason. Many things accepted by the majority are accepted for a good reason, not because everyone is brain washed. Don't get me wrong, brain washing occurrs very frequntly, but it should not be assumed about every majority supported theory or assertion. Maybe in the future the electrical theory will be main stream, at that point people will say those that buy it are brain washed. We all have a obligation to think critically, and that means accepting what we see fit as truth and what we deem as rubbish as false.

    I will admit I have been some what tough on Princeton, we have always disagreed and I simply can not buy the theories he puts forth about law, physics, economics, politics, or medicine and probably many more things. How can someone support such unpopular opinions about each one of these subjects and then claim not to simply go against the grain when ever possible? I am not saying no one supports the same theories, but none of them are main stream and I believe that is for good reason. It hints at someone simply set on being unconventional, but maybe thats not the case. I will apologize for being so rude, I should not let it get under my skin. If these are truly his opinions and he is not just disagreeing to be different or unconventional, then I shouldn't pick at him about it even if I do disagree.

  102. princeton
  103. princeton

    you know, the way you characterize me is akin to individuals who claim homosexuals are that way just because they want to be despite the ridicule and turbulence it brings, with no reference to the facts that they themselves had no choice over their own sexuality.

    I don't hold the beliefs I do because I want to be "different" or like to disagree.. and its funny, because I agree and have no problem with the vast majority of the scientific theories & research out there.. but when faced with logical contradictions.. i have no choice but to challenge what is proposed... I am not worried about you disagreeing with me on many topics.. you are not the first and won't be the last.. my qualm is with the logical contradictions themselves and how they are completely ignored by the mainstream..

    "gravitational redshift" is not something I made up.. a simple Google search will prove this & its not the same thing as the Doppler effect which produces the same effect on light, but is a different mechanism.

    Alton c. harp's observations if you care to look into them actually refute the whole basis for the big bang theory, but again, they are ignored and he has been attacked by the mainstream for sharing his discoveries.. there are also many other contradictions & observational disproofs of the big bang theory. (as if there is something like "the age" & "birth" of a universe in which we know for a fact energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed..

    you outright called the thunderbolts of the gods and electric universe rubbish with no reference to what was actually wrong with the theories 9except for they are not mainstream, while I have actually pointed you in the direction of and explained several contradictions with the big bang, black holes, relativity, and their inability to explain physical phenomena to the point that 95% of our universe is made up of some unobserved undetectable substances with mysterious forces (dark energy/matter) in order they make sense.

    I mean if this is not grand failure of mathematical models of the universe without reference to logic and physical observations, then I don't know what could be.. My main aspiration for the greater part of my life was to become a scientist & I understand that theories are derived from observations.. these mathematicians got it backwards and work to fit observations into their mathematical models, conjuring up fantastical "particles" and "forces" when the math doesn't add up.. you study the field yourself, so you know this is the case.. they admit it all the time and pass it off as if there is nothing wrong with it.

  104. princeton
  105. princeton

    another interesting thing to think about is that the Doppler effect can be used to explain sound because they are definitively waves, but light is still for the most part unknown and unexplained by the mainstream physicists.. sometimes its a wave, sometimes its a particle, but in reality it cannot possibly be both and I believe its more than likely something else altogether which displays those characteristics.

    Light is something a little stranger than usual and when talking about the astronomical distanced covered by the light observed, there is a lot of room for something very different to be going on.

    On a personal note, I just believe there is something wrong with a universe in which everything is flying apart (due to mysterious undetectable forces).. intuitively i could feel the error in that view, and it was all made that much more obvious by halton Arp's twin galaxies, gravitational redshift, and the logical contradictions of basing theories of stellar phenomena on gravity, a force 10^39 times weaker than electromagnetism...

  106. Ramus
  107. Ramus

    Lets all agree on 1 fact :
    We don't know everything...... yet. Next year a theory may come out that is neither big bang or steady state and we are all wrong. But this is the nature of science. Don't let difference of opinions hamper intellectual thought. Wouldn't it be weird if you are both right! lol.
    My thoughts on Princetons last comment about gravity being weak. Dark energy only interacts with gravity so maybe the sheer mass of the stuff outweighs its short comings in force.

  108. princeton
  109. princeton

    I am with you on the intellectual exploration.. no need to take disagreement personally, that is how we learn and grow in many ways.

    in response to your response.. this demonstrates exactly what I was talking about when saying that the mathematicians conjure up fantastical entities and mysterious forces when the math does not add up. dark matter is theoretical and worse, undetectable!.. why resort to that when electromagnetism, which can be used to explain the same phenomenon, is an observed & proven fact?

  110. Waldo
  111. Waldo

    @ Princeton

    I never said you made up red shift, but it is very similar to the doppler efect. In fact that is the way they explain it to people to make it more intuitive, by saying listen to a car when it passes and you can hear the way an object moving away from you stretches the wave lengths making it more low pitched and a object moving toward you compresses theses same waves and sounds higher pitched. The issue we are running into here is that there are two different ways to explain redshift, one is to use the doppler effect and is the basis for why they believe the universe to be expanding. The other is electromagnetic redshift and is a relatavistic effect as well that referrs to the same phenomenon and is also the reason they think the universe is expanding. So like Ramus said, we are both right in a way, though you use it to discount what myself and most scientist use it to prove. Heres is an explanation online from Wikipedia.

    Redshifts are attributable to the Doppler effect, familiar in the changes in the apparent pitches of sirens and frequency of the sound waves emitted by speeding vehicles; an observed redshift due to the Doppler effect occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer. Cosmological redshift is seen due to the expansion of the universe, and sufficiently distant light sources (generally more than a few million light years away) show redshift corresponding to the rate of increase of their distance from Earth. Finally, gravitational redshifts are a relativistic effect observed in electromagnetic radiation moving out of gravitational fields. Conversely, a decrease in wavelength is called blue shift and is generally seen when a light-emitting object moves toward an observer or when electromagnetic radiation moves into a gravitational field.

    So again I apologise as what you said was correct, though you use it to discount what it really proves in most scientists and physcists minds. I also referr you to the last of my post above where I stated if these are your real opinions then I shouldn't pick at you. Let it go man, no need for the homosexual insults. I have never said homosexuals chose their sexuality and I am in no way predjudiced against them. I think you make your mistake by considering anything unintuitive to be false, this is simply not so. But if thats what you want to believe then go for it. I don't think you can explain many things in an intuitive manner because we simply have no intuition when it comes to the vast sizes and distances of the universe. Thats why I say it is all relative and this is what makes it seem unintuitive.

    I will say this though, if you insist on calling people sheep and brain washed simply because they believe the prevailing theories about some things you will always run into arguements. You have no idea who I am, and in reality I am about as unconventional as they come when it comes to many things, just not physics. In that particular field I believe the prevailing theories to be correct. You have insulted me in this manner on many threads in the past, I used to use a different name on this site so you may not know it was me. Don't make a guess publicly either please. I changed my name because I was getting death threats from where I live due to somethings I said about religion on this site. So, I would appreciate it if you do not disclose who I am as I would guess by now you have figured it out.

    The best thing for you and I to do is agree to diagree and move on, this is never going to be settled or remain civilized. So have a nice day, and once again I am sorry for the insults.

  112. Waldo
  113. Waldo

    @ Princeton

    In fact the whole theory of gravitational redshift comes directly from the theory of relativity, so I really don't know why you accept it but not the rest of the theory. Here again is more proof of what I am saying.

    "In the theory of general relativity, there is time dilation within a gravitational well. This is known as the gravitational redshift or Einstein Shift.[37] The theoretical derivation of this effect follows from the Schwarzschild solution of the Einstein equations which yields the following formula for redshift associated with a photon traveling in the gravitational field of an uncharged, nonrotating, spherically symmetric mass..."

    This is how Einstein explained red shift when you look at light as a particle instead of a wave. To say that it can't be both is very intuitive, but incorrect. If you shine light through two slits about an inch apart and place a surface behind it you see very plainly a wave interference pattern. Here is another proof for that assertion, you can do this experiment at home very easily by the way.

    "In quantum mechanics the double-slit experiment demonstrates the inseparability of the wave and particle natures of light and other quantum particles (wave–particle duality). The setup used by Young, and by Newton, differs from the modern version; they passed a beam of light over a thin object such as a slip of card (in Young's case) or a hair (in Newton's case).[1][2] More recently a point light source illuminates a thin plate with two parallel slits, and the light passing through the slits strikes a screen behind them. The beams emerging from the two slits are coherent, in phase, as they are derived from the same source. The wave nature of light causes the coherent light waves passing through the two slits to interfere, creating a pattern of bright and dark bands on the screen. (However, at the screen the light is always found to be absorbed as though it were composed of discrete particles, photons.)[3][4]"

    Electrons are another particle that displays duality, this is not proven with math or made up assertions but with observations that can not lie. The very nature of electricity is that of a wave and a particle at the same time. In fact all particles have this ability to act as particles in some circumstances and waves in others. Here is a quote from another online source to back up that assertion.

    "... aimed a beam of electrons at a crystal, and observed the electrons that were reflected off it. Now a crystal consists of atoms arranged in nice straight rows (or some other very orderly pattern). If the electron beam can behave as a wave, then as the wave is reflected off the crystal, the rows of atoms should have the same effect as the slits in Young's experiment. The result is that instead of the electrons being scattered from the crystal randomly, the reflected electrons exhibit an interference pattern like the light in Young's experiment.

    Anyway, Davisson and Germer did the experiment, and this is exactly what they found. The electron beam was reflected like a wave, rather than like particles. In other words, they found, as de Broglie had speculated, that wave­particle duality is a property not only of light (photons), but of matter as well. Electrons, protons, alpha particles, and anything else that physicists might discover."

    Now if these experiments do not prove to you that things in the quantum world or things that are very large such as galaxies and stars act unintuitively then nothing I suppose will. You have the right to keep what ever opinion you want, I am just trying to show you that we people that believe these things do not do so because we are brain washed nor do they simply make things up for the convenience of it. We believe because their are observable proofs that bnack up the mathematics, and they come up with things like dark matter because it is the best explanation for what they observe.

  114. Waldo
  115. Waldo

    @ Princeton

    Sorry, I know I said we should move on but I can't let the assertion that things can not be particles and waves go. How do you explain the different colors of light if you think of it strictly as a particle. Light clearly acts like both a particle and a wave, a great example of why to say things must be intuitive or non contradictory to our brains to be correct is a incorrect and unprovable assertion. If you can explain the different colors of light and the interference waves created by light shining through a slit then I might entertain your assertion.

    All light is is a form of electromagnetic radiation which clearly acts like a wave and a particle. Redshift being able to be explained through the doppler effect as well as through the gravitational reshift is a good example of how we know this, as are the observations I posted above.

    We also have proof of the big bang being reality, background radiation we hear as white noise through the radio or see on the TV, the fact that the universe is expanding intuitively tells us that it must have come from a single point at some time. Here is a piece of an essay I enjoyed reading a few days ago from a physicist that, like yourself, doubted the big bang and expansion but has now seen the light as he says. He gives several observable proofs for the theories in this part of the essay.

    "(2) Expansion is Confirmed by Multiple Lines of Evidence.

    There are five independent lines of evidence that all converge on a common conclusion: the universe began between 14 and 15 billion years ago in a superheated state where even atoms could not form, and has rapidly expanded and cooled ever since.[5]

    The first and most important piece of evidence is the observation of redshifts, which can only be explained by assuming that every galaxy cluster in the universe is moving away from every other: the more distant, the greater the speed. Though many scientists have shown or argued that some redshift has other causes, these explanations do not account for even a significant fraction of the observed objects, or of the observed redshift overall, which is simply too enormous to be accounted for by any other known means. The most obvious contrary explanation is that something to do with the space the light passes through causes the frequency to decay, but this has been soundly refuted by two observations. First, the expansion rate is accelerating, which only a change in velocity can explain (since the rate of a space-caused decay could not change but would have to be constant).[6] Second, many observations of redshifted objects have been made whose light is split by a gravitational lens. These studies show that even when light coming from the same object traverses different distances, the redshift remains the same.[7] So light is not decaying as it passes through space. The redshift must originate with the object, and only velocity can explain that.

    The five independent lines of evidence for the universe's age are as follows:

    First, taking into account all known factors, including the recently-confirmed acceleration of the cosmic expansion rate, scientists have shown that if you rewind the observed behavior of the known universe, it all comes together in a tiny, superheated state about 14.5 billion years ago.
    Second, we have confirmed that the oldest stars in our own galaxy are between 12 and 13 billion years old. Though Pickrell (cf. n. 5) notes that these "were probably not among the universe's very first stars," they would have formed no more than a billion years after the cosmos itself began to form. Though this only proves an age for our galaxy, not necessarily the universe, the result of 14 billion years perfectly matches the most recent calculation of the projected start-point for the universe's observed expansion.
    Third, the most distant galaxy yet observed, based on the most precise and accurate observations to date, lies between 12 and 13 billion lightyears away, and thus is just as old as ours.
    Fourth, the observed interstellar abundance of certain radioactive elements, calculating backwards from their known rate of decay, entails that they must have been produced at least 12 to 13 billion years ago, about the time we would expect them to have formed if the universe began about 15 billion years ago.
    Fifth, the current calculated age of various globular clusters beyond our galaxy is no more than 15 billion years. This corroborates an age of the universe of about 15 billion years.
    These five facts, especially in combination with all the other "evidences" ennumerated in this essay, would be a remarkable coincidence if the universe didn't in fact originate between 14 and 15 billion years ago. So it probably did."

    The gravitational lensing he referrs to is another proof of the portion of the relativity theory that says spacetime is bent and changed by large gravitational fields. The theories put forth in Thunbder bolts of the Gods does not explain any of this stuff in a satisfactory way, in fact it totally ignores a lot of it. This is why i call it rubbish, just as most physicists and scientist do. It does explain the shape of certain entities in outer space, and i am sure it has some relevance in that manner, but it in no way disproves relativity. I will say that scientist that disbelieve in the theories should not be shunned or denied telescope time. That is unfair and contradictory toward the very spirit of scientific research. But, I didn't cause those things and should not have to bear the brunt of peoples anger because it happens.

    You know, I am enjoying this finally. Maybe we can remain civilized and discuss these things.

  116. Waldo
  117. Waldo

    @ Princeton

    I just found a web site dedicated to exposing this whole eletrical theory for the sham that it really is, that is if you are interested. Here is a tid bit for your preveiw:

    "A thermonuclear reaction of the type assumed to be powering the Sun must emit a flood of neutrinos. These neutrinos have not been found after thirty years of searching for them. A series of grandly expensive experiments have failed to find the necessary neutrino flux. Wouldn't a normally intelligent scientist now stop and go back and ask if perhaps some other mechanism might be at the root of this energy production?

    Mainstream science has consciously turned a blind eye to the possibility of any other energy producing mechanism in the Sun. Instead, presently there is great activity trying to explain how the flood of neutrinos that "must be there" remains invisible. It is suggested that neutrinos must come in various "flavors", some of which are unobservable.

    End Quote

    (1) Despite Scott's red-font claim to the contrary, after 30 years of looking for them, scientists have found that they can observe the fully expected flux of neutrinos from proton-proton (p-p) fusion. That is, the flux of neutrinos observed at the expected energy, for neutrinos from that fusion reaction, is as predicted by standard models.

    (2) A "normally intelligent scientist", upon obtaining a result that appears inconsistent with theory would, first and foremost, make sure that the apparently unexpected results were complete, and correct. Next, he would make sure that the alleged theoretical expectations were the real theoretical expectations, and that there was no mistake there either. Only then would the scientist consider calling into question the validity of fundamental assumptions in the theory, such as fusion in the solar/stellar interior. Scott, on the other hand, would skip the bother of verifying his results, and jump to the instantaneous conclusion that all of known physics must be wrong and must be replaced. That would be both illogical and unreasonable.

    (3) Mainstream science does not "turn a blind eye" to the possibility of other energy generating mechanisms. Rather, they reject the notion for good, solid reasons. They are called, in a word, physics. In order to reject the fundamental theory of fusion in the stellar interior, it would be necessary, to all at once sweep away literally everything known about hydrodynamics & magnetohydrodynamics, thermodynamics, gravitation, nuclear physics, statistical physics, and electromagnetism. Such a grand restructuring of all knowledge certainly would be motivated only by a "problem" of the most profound significance, and the solar neutrino problem simply isn't one of those. So, the obvious alternative is to investigate the physics of solar models and neutrinos. in the course of that investigation it was discovered that the solar models were very good, but that the phsyics of the neutrinos was flawed. So, in the end, a fundamental presumption was overturned by the significant solar neutrino results, it just wasn't the fundamental assumption that the champions of the electric sun wish that it were.

    (4) The "flavors" that Scott speaks of are not just a suggstion, and the classification of all particles in "flavors", neutrinos included, pre-dates the solar neutrino problem. Furthermore, the "alternate" flavors are not "unobservable", they are only unobservable with the current detectors. They are designed to detect electron neutrinos, which is what all stellar nuclear reactions create. However, if some of those neutrinos change on the way from (or through) the sun, into tau neutrinos, then they will pass through the detectors. Once tau neutrino detectors are built, then those neutrinos too will be observed (or not observed)"

    You can get to the site easily, go to the Thuderbolts of the Gods documentary and look at post number 33, there is a link there that will take you right to it.

    It goes on in this same fashion, giving the ridiculus statements made by Scott then refuting them with sound science. After reading this site I am more convienced than ever that this electrical universe theory is pure rubbish. Besides the whole connection to mythology just throws me, there are much simpler ways to explain the similarities of mythological archeatypes than discounting the entire feild of physics, which this electrical universe stuff does.

    The reason that these formations look alot like the electromagnetic formations in the labratory have been known for sometime now. All stars, planets, and galaxies produce magnetic fields, and these fields do influence the shape of the galaxie or plasma environments around stars. But to postulate that they control the entire universe and can explain everything is ridiculus and not supported by the very physics that governs the natural phenomenon around us everyday. Scotts assertion that the current theories do not predict the shapes and phenomenon we see in outerspace is false. Everything is not explained of course, but much more is explained and predicted by the standard models than by this electric universe model. For sure the shapes of nebula and galaxies is predicted and explained.

  118. princeton
  119. princeton

    great post and I agree.. i was wrong to call you a sheep but you do come at me pretty aggressively and always assume I am anti-science just because i disagree with some scientists.. on the contrary, I love science, but apply critical thinking and adhere strictly to the basic rules of logic, (not intuition)... regardless what observations scientists make, if the explanations and theories are not consistent and logical, allowing for "breakdowns" of the laws of physics, I think they still have a lot of work to do and start looking around for better explanations to satisfy my curiosity.. this is in no way a rejection of science but quite the opposite, countless observations are rendered meaningless if their interpretation is not rooted firmly in logic and inconsistent. our present level of communication allow anyone to access such observations and attempt a different rationalization.. and challenge the "experts" theories.

    Great post about light.. I suggest you check this video out, which demonstrates how a variation of the slit experiment actually proves light is neither a particle (i never claimed it was a particle) or a wave. you can check it out here
    youtube /watch?v=yOwTV-HgDUo

    so what you are saying is that electromagnetic fields 10^39 times stronger than gravity (which is still an unexplained phenomena ) cannot be responsible for the shape and motion of objects. even GR proponents admit the standard model cannot account for what we observe, which is what prompted the creation of dark matter and dark energy, so I don't understand how the standard model explains and predicts more than electromagnetism in the EU model, which is a well understood and known phenomenon.

    I brought up gravitational redshift even though its part of GR because it flies in the face of the very belief that the only explanation for stellar redshifts is that all galaxies are flying apart from each other.. it would seem according to Grav. redshift that something else that would account for what's observed is the fact that as light passes strong gravitational fields, it is shifted and the further light travels in space, the more such fields it will likely enter.. just that they acknowledge and entertain Grav. redshift tells that the big bang theory is far from fact, but also reveals that alternatives are not sought & contradictions ignored.

    I also didn't get into the mythology connections of thunderbolts much either but believe there is tremendous value in their theories.

    I will check out the page you suggested

    p.s. I didn't say anything about you directly about homosexuals.. I was just pointing out that saying I am just a contrarian who is always opposed to the mainstream because it gives me some form of pleasure is similar to the way homosexuals are treated.. that's all, no insult intended.

  120. princeton
  121. princeton

    "For sure the shapes of nebula and galaxies is predicted and explained"

    not so.. as I must state again.. dark matter and energy have been conjured specifically because according to GR and the standard model, the math just does not add up without the injection of mysterious forces and undetectable particles.

    and you also have completely illogical and contradictory explanations for what is at the center of galaxies (black holes) and time dilation (as if time was a physical object) along with the bending of nothing or "fabric of space-time" whatever that means.

  122. princeton
  123. princeton

    @waldo again
    am glad you're finally enjoying this.. I don't disagree to piss ppl off.. just have to be honest with what I believe to be true based on my studies and research.

    you are right, this video does not go over every thing that is wrong about relativity.. actually "bgaede" on youtube and stephen crothers do a much better job.. I think this video's purpose was to illuminate the fact that many unknowns in science can easily be explained by plasma and EM phenomena.. another great video if you care to check it out covers the cosmic background radiation in greater detail here
    youtube /watch?v=1yTfRy0LTD0
    love to hear your thoughts

  124. Waldo
  125. Waldo

    @ Princeton

    Yes electromagnet force can account for the shape of plasma in outerspace, but not solid matter nor the movements of galaxies or stars. If gravitational redshift were the only cause of redshift it would remain constant, but it doesn't. They observe increasing redshift as time goes by as the galaxies are getting further and further away from us. Dark matter and energy have nothting to do with shape of nebula or galaxies. It accounts for why the universe is expanding at the rate it is and why it does not collapse into a singularity, it also accounts for the amount of gravitational lensing observed. Time dialation is proven fact, right here on earth with very specific clocks a difference in time flow can be detected with only a differnece of a few feet from the center of earths gravitational field. GPS satelites also experience time dialation and mechanisms have to be installed to correct this or they would be out of sink constantly with clocks here on earth, as a result their GPS information would be incorrect. All of this can be read about with a simple google search.

  126. Waldo
  127. Waldo

    @ Princeton

    A simple experiment was performed to prove Einstiens theory of spacetime being bent. At a certain point they knew a star would be behind the sun, the relativity theory however predicted this start would still be visible as the suns massive gravitational field would bend spacetime in such a way as to direct the light from this star around the sun- making it visible. They set up for the experiment and low and behold, it was visible. That is just one experiment that proves it. Gravitational lensing that is very clearly visible in hubble deep fields is another, the massive gravity of galaxy clusters bends the light that passes by and it comes out looking like some kind of weird curved streak. They have checked the optical propeties and concluded they were fine, leaving the explanation that the bending of spacetime directs the light from distant stars and galxies into this bent shape. Just to make sure they took the amount of gravitational lensing and used it to estimate the mass of the galaxy clusters responsible. They got the same mass as the other scientists got that used a different method to estimate the amount of mass contained in these clusters. These kinds of matching results are strong evidence for the bending of spacetime. Here are the reports of Edington's experiments to prove Einstiens theory by recording the bending of light from stars around the sun in an eclipse.

    "After the war, Eddington travelled to the island of Príncipe near Africa to watch the solar eclipse of 29 May 1919. During the eclipse, he took pictures of the stars in the region around the Sun. According to the theory of general relativity, stars with light rays that passed near the Sun would appear to have been slightly shifted because their light had been curved by its gravitational field. This effect is noticeable only during eclipses, since otherwise the Sun's brightness obscures the affected stars. Eddington showed that Newtonian gravitation could be interpreted to predict half the shift predicted by Einstein. (Somewhat confusingly, this same half-shift was initially predicted by Einstein with an incomplete version of general relativity. By the time of the 1919 eclipse Einstein had corrected his calculations.)

    Eddington's observations published the next year[2] confirmed Einstein's theory, and were hailed at the time as a conclusive proof of general relativity over the Newtonian model. The news was reported in newspapers all over the world as a major story."

    Here is a posting from wikipedia supporting the relativity theory by Einstein.

    "Many predictions of general relativity differ significantly from those of classical physics, especially concerning the passage of time, the geometry of space, the motion of bodies in free fall, and the propagation of light. Examples of such differences include gravitational time dilation, the gravitational redshift of light, and the gravitational time delay. General relativity's predictions have been confirmed in all observations and experiments to date."

    Thats fairly conclusive I would say, "ALL obsevations and experiments to date" have supported Einstiens theory of realtivity. A rather strong but true statement. This why I don't understand the assumption that this theory is accepted due to brain washing or made up mathematics.

    You accept gravitational redshift, right? Well then you also support the slowing of clocks by gravitational forces or time dialation as this is one way they measure gravitational redshift. Here is the findings reported of an experiment to measure time dialation or gravitational redshift.

    "Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity makes a number of counterintuitive predictions about the workings of gravity, and experimentalists nearly 100 years after the theory was developed continue to confirm those predictions with increasing accuracy. A new paper co-authored by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu measures the gravitational redshift, illustrated by the gravity-induced slowing of a clock and sometimes referred to as gravitational time dilation (though users of that term often conflate two separate phenomena), a measurement that jibes with Einstein and that is 10,000 times more precise than its predecessor.As reported in the February 18 issue of Nature by Holger Müller of the University of California, Berkeley, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Achim Peters of Humboldt University of Berlin and Chu, cesium atoms, which oscillate with a characteristic frequency, are shot through a gauntlet of laser beams. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) The first beam diverts the atom onto one of two paths, one being slightly higher than the other, with equal probability. A second and third laser act to reunite the paths [see diagram above], producing what is known as an atom interferometer.

    In quantum-mechanical terms, the cesium atoms can be thought of as a matter wave. The first laser splits the wave into two waves propagating simultaneously along both paths that the atom could take, while the third and final laser splices them back together into a single wave. If the wave components remain unchanged along their respective paths, the wave will emerge whole once it is recombined. But if one of the waves is waylaid on its path, it will be out of phase with its counterpart, yielding destructive interference when the two are recombined. By monitoring the interference after recombination, the researchers can trace the phase difference induced by the waves traveling along different paths.

    In the case of the cesium atoms, the researchers found that the waves traveling along the two trajectories oscillated a different number of times. That is just what is predicted by general relativity, which holds that clocks close to Earth tick more slowly than those at higher elevations—even a fraction of a millimeter higher in elevation."

    I could post thousands of other experiments and findings but I am sure Vlatko might be getting a little tired of all this copy and paste. To deny relativity at this point is just insane if you ask me, no insult intended.

  128. princeton
  129. princeton

    I don't know if I made this clear, but I already know about almost everything you just posted, have watched all the documentaries and have studied the subject..

    My main attack is not at the observations, but the rationalizations and explanations (theories) for those observations... Quantum physicists and relativists will admit and basic analysis proves that there is a lot wrong with their explanations, for reasons I have already mentioned..

    like I said before, It doesn't matter how many experiments you do, if your conclusion is that 95% of the universe is undetectable, I cannot take that conclusion seriously and in my mind, its back to the drawing board. If you then propose that space/time is a physical object that bends and this is your explanation of why objects are attracted to each other.. again, that is crossing the lines of what is an object and what is a concept, especially when you step over electromagnetism which explains similar phenomena without overreaching and/or logical contradictions.

    a few questions!

    how does electromagnetic force not apply to solid matter? i thought metals were affected by magnetic fields..

    how does dark matter/energy have nothing to do with the shape of stellar objects, but it is the reason the universe holds its shape.. I know Dm/E is purely mathematical and created because gravity as explained by relativity did not add up and there must be more to universe, along with adding big bang to the mix, creating the necessity for some force to compensate. (i don't remember exactly which way)

    thanx also, but I already know about time dilation and have heard all the conventional arguments as well as observations.. I used to spit them out myself to friends and family in amazement, but I was recently reminded of the fact that time is a concept, not an object and cannot be dilated or stretched... think about these quotes:

    “ Time dilation is the phenomenon whereby an observer finds that another's clock which is physically identical to their own is ticking at a slower rate as measured
    by their own clock..” [wikipedia*org/wiki/Time_dilation]

    “ It is clear from this description that the effective slowing of these clocks has no effect on time itself, but only upon the instrumentation or processes by which we
    choose to measure time.” [renshaw*teleinc*com/papers/clock2/clock2*stm]

    for an in depth run through of the many contradictions with not just time dilation butthe whole relativity

    see I am at a disadvantage in this discussion, because you have the full support of "authority" behind your claims and your stance is popular and well documented, while the detractors like myself rely on "underground" sources that have no other merit but the logical consistency of their arguments and critical analysis of scientific experiments & observations. check it out if you like!

  130. kyle
  131. kyle

    when the big bang happened there would have been no such thing as gravity, wouldnt there being no gravity allow things to play out differently then if we tried to recreate the big bang on a planet with a gravitational pull, i think energy would have been able to form together and create a solid object if there was no gravitational pull

  132. tyrone
  133. tyrone

    easily one of the most mind blowing documentary's I have ever seen. It's hard to imagine some of the things they talk about in this film.

  134. Ncarr
  135. Ncarr

    Waldo and princeton....SHUT UP

  136. hall
  137. hall

    I think there is at CERN a subliminal patronage to the meme of creationism or at least it’s a good rouse for funding, whilst many cherished religious notions have been obliterated through incontrovertible proof, flat Earth, Sun and stars orbiting Earth etc, a somewhat puerile need persists to support the religious notion of a singular God induced event as the origin of all things, postulated in the language of physics as “the big bang” thereafter follows obsessive focus and attempt to deconvolve what is undoubtedly an imaginary point of origination,
    Why didn’t they give me a call before wasting all this money as grandma could have told them that “there ant no such thing a Higgs Bozon”.
    Well , as has been observed with all past great civilizations that by the time that the great public buildings and institutions were established, as in the monuments the history books are stuffed with, the creative period in society was over ,I think the same can be said for physics and cern.

  138. Superbuggg
  139. Superbuggg

    According to an article by author Olaf Thomas Raabe, the LHC at CERN does actually create a mini-black holes - but they remain stationary at their created position relative to the sun i.e. the earth swings away and the mini-black hole stays put! However, one year later when the earth swings around again and is nearby the lingering mini-black hole thingie, a huge explosion can be caused either in the atmosphere or terrestrially. Raabe even asserts that due to the nature of the LHC these anomalous massive explosives are not only logged as happening in the future, but also having happened in the past!

    Added to this list of extraordinarily unlikely explosions is that massive sink-hole which appeared in Guatemala in 2010.

    Watchers of this documentary... do you think Olaf Thomas Raabe could be right? And could the CERN LHC actually be seriously dangerous?

  140. astromann
  141. astromann

    Dr Brian Cox lacks total credibility because of his insistence that the moon landings occurred. The same probably applies to all those other 2000 scientists who have sold their souls to politics

  142. Clay Morgan
  143. Clay Morgan

    According to Stephen Hawking, mini black holes are short lived as they evaporate instantly. I have not read Olaf Raabe's article, but from what I've gathered from your post it seems both paranoid and inaccurate. I wouldn't count on a micro black hole to sustain itself for one Earth year.
    If I get around to reading Raabe's article my opinion of the matter may change, though this Hawking guy knows a thing or two about the dangers of the cosmos and especially of black holes =)

  144. norman keena
  145. norman keena

    okey five minutes: can't take it. narrative shite

  146. Aaron Thibeault
  147. Aaron Thibeault

    After watching and absorbing as much of the research on big bang theory, I have one of my own. .. So there is a parallel universe, in existence long before ours. There is a catastrophic event, Maybe a Giant Star implodes or something. When it does it creates a Black Hole / Wormhole,(aka singularity) that just drags all this matter through this immense gravity well formed by the event in the other universe. I'm sure its full of holes, but it explains where all the matter came from. I have a real hard time believing that at just the moment of the big bang, all the matter was spontaneously produced just because of the energy at that moment. It had to come from somewhere.

  148. anuragawasthi
  149. anuragawasthi

    everything that we know is within our universe, and everything within our universe is moulded by conditions of time, space and causality. ... To know the truth we have to get beyond the
    limitations of this universe; it cannot be found here.

  150. Denisse Flores
  151. Denisse Flores

    I swear I've had that same idea!

  152. drew harding
  153. drew harding

    Yes Aaron and if the information came from another universe parallel to ours, and that is what gave us matter. what gave the other universe parallel to us ITS matter? That chain reaction cant go on forever, the matter has to start somewhere. Where did the other Universe thats parallel to us come from then?
    If information (or matter as we know it) comes from another universe then basically everything we know about physics is bull. because where did the other universes information come from to then pass it on to us, it would be a giant chain reaction with no start or end.
    and im sorry to tell you, But there is a start and an end.

  154. Barbara Thurman-Becquiot
  155. Barbara Thurman-Becquiot

    Thank you for your patience. One year later and the LHC is making major leaps. Be reassured that your clear explanations as a researcher are not falling into "deaf ears".

  156. Categorical Imperative
  157. Categorical Imperative

    Where do u wanna go bud?

  158. moh_sell
  159. moh_sell

    WTF, spending all that money in an experiment while people are starving to death every where in the world

  160. dinesh kumar
  161. dinesh kumar

    i like to ask one question billion of people who dont get basic needs like good food etc u people r wasting the money,,,,,,,,,,,, 1 thing i like to tell all that wht ur self telling that you have found it it's already found without so much of wast of time ,money,name etc you people not only equal to .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of them,,,,,,,,,,, so dont wast money, help people sorry human being,,,,,,,,,,,,

  162. Malchik
  163. Malchik

    I love reading posts by people who -- most likely do not give a dime to charity -- complain about where research money is going.


  164. DeLima-Paradis
  165. DeLima-Paradis

    It is quit telling to me and should be to all of us how we are still unable to talk about man-made, high-tech innovations without fighting each other over its intrinsic value. It is and has always been our innate inability to fear the unknown to be the very reason why we intrinsically begin to tear down the value of science with its many sided theoretical applications; and to do so because they are seemingly well beyond our perception of reality. The knowledge gained from expensive constructs like the LHC are often unimaginable and thus demonized by many due to their lack of foresight. Their current paradigm of human-value with that of the cost-benefits of high-technology is often beyond their current understanding of life and their existence beyond the here and now. However gross man perceives the cost of knowledge it is imperative that we forge ahead if our species is to gain insight into the product that is and will be our evolutionary path.

Leave a comment / review: