Comment Wall
You need to be a member of Ashtar Command - Spiritual Community to add comments!
Comments are closed.
A disheartening video filmed in downtown San Francisco shows how troves of homeless drug abusers have turned the streets into open-air drug markets, with intoxicated users congregating in large groups appearing to resemble…
How To Start Feeling Qi In Your Body
How To Start Feeling Qi In Your Body Master Mantak Chia is the Creator of the Healing Tao, Tao Yoga, Universal HEALING TAO System and the director of the Universal HEALING TAO Center and Tao Garden Health Spa & Resort in the beautiful northern…
Read more…🔥The Song Of The 7 Sisters🔥
🔥The Song Of The 7 Sisters🔥 The Pleiadians were among the primary seeders of the emotional body in humanity. Not the physical body (that came from other streams). Not the intellect (that came from yet others). The heart—the capacity to feel, to…
Read more…3-Step Heart Activation With Melanie Beckler
3-Step Heart Activation With Melanie Beckler Opening the heart chakra is essential on the spiritual path; it is a shift in how you relate to yourself and the world around you. When the heart is open, you move from a place of contraction and stress…
Read more…A Vision for Sheer Happiness All Day
A Vision for Sheer Happiness All Day Today's Vision is a gem! It comes to you from Yezdi Thanevala in Mumbai, India. Thank You, Yezdi - and here is it! Imagine getting up in the morning one day and throughout the day, you get smiles from just…
Read more…Latest Activity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K_IY0Ajjbo"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfsqTHbGVQs"
Comments
https://rumble.com/v2d5i3q-ep.-3020b-trump-promises-to-totally-obli...
Not so with Einstein's GR!! In GR the claim that 'the earth curves the space where the moon is' has no corresponding statement in Einstein's Field Equations (EFE)! The 'curved space' mathematics donnot even allow us to relate a vector on earth to a vector in moon! Instead, EFE only tells us how matter curves space in situ!! To allegedly describe 'curvature at a distance', we use the equation describing curvature in situ albeit with mass=0!! Its nonsense!!
Note that to relate the curvature at a region r away, the GR equations should have contained both M and r, just like in Newt's law. It should say 'at distance r from a matter of mass M, the spacetime should be curved by such and such amount'. Such a statement raises the question as to how we can determine a distance r within a curved space! We must know how the space is curving in order to know how the space curves!! Its an impossibility!
GR does not even relate effect to its alleged cause! This is to say it doesn't relate 'curvature in moon' to the earth, let alone explain how the earth can perform such a magic of 'bending the spoon'! In the so called Schwarzchild solution, they just say 'the matter is
zero', and then goes on to merely calculate a type of 'curvature' in Riemannian geometry without telling us what it is that is causing such a 'curvature'. The space is merely ALLOWED to curve that way in the vicinity of a massive object, or even a completely empty universe for that matter! It isn't specifically bent so by the matter!
Nevertheless, they, somewhere attribute to gravity some source of energy that is so huge that it is greater than the sum of all energies from all the stars in a galaxy!! This is the cosmic jets! So if gravitational energy can release all that energy, why can't it power the sun?
It can!!
https://scitechdaily.com/images/Spiral-Galaxy-Spin.gif
If you calculate the gravitational energy due to the sun shrinking a tad, you find that it is enough to give out the sunlight we see! Thanks to the sun's immense gravity!
If the problem of unleashing the fusion energy was only due to instability of plasma, then you expect the fusion to keep outputting a significant energy, albeit briefly. The problem will not necessarily be 'inputting more energy than the output'.The problem will solely be 'getting steady energy output'. It will be like trying to light fire outside in a windy day. Though the flame keeps burning out, it is clear that there is some energy coming out of the fuel.
So the only way to link their 'instability' explanation to the 'more ignition energy' explanation is to say that some of the energy that they input is used to 'stabilize' the plasma. This makes some sense became they are trying to 'hold plasma in the mid air'. Since it is gaseous, they are trying to exert some pressure on it to prevent the gas from expanding away. Then 'instability' will be what causes the plasma to expand out requiring more energy to hold it together within a given volume.
From this, you can now note that saying that 'the plasma is more unstable than we thought' is an indirect way of saying 'it requires more energy to hold the plasma than we thought'. This in the end means they downplay the energy needed to 'press' the plasma together for them to fuse. The 'instability' is just due to expansion of the hot plasm. Expansion, in turn, is due to coulumbic repulsion. So it is true that more energy is needed to overcome the coulumb forces, hence to 'stabilize' the plasma.
"Again RL-they have results claiming fusion energy-what else could it have been?"
It could have been the likes of what they say Fleishmann and Pons 'discovered', or the 'E-cat' or whatever. They like dismissing non-mainstream researchers on an arm chair. But why should we think they are different? It is themselves who gauge themselves, anyway. They are both players and referees all at once!
But let me explain what I really think it could have been. If you force two magnets together, they will bounce off, re delivering the energy you fed in. Likewise when the scientists measure the energy from fusion, they don't subtract the energy they usef to force the particles against their earlier, electrostatic repulsion. They assume that this energy they feed it does not go into performing the work against the electrostatic force!
the thing is that there is definitely a fusion energy. Every force, including gravity, has s corresponding energy, eg hydroelectricity in the case of gravity. But like in hydroelectricity, we need to 'lift up' the water in order to unleash the energy. If we ignore the sun's task in heating the water upwards, dubing it 'ignition', we can amuse ourselves that hydroelectricity is a 'free energy'.Likewise these scientists can be erroneously doing work in the particles, which is released as fusion energy once the particles reaches the critical point where nuclear force is stronger.
https://www.ashtarcommandcrew.net/forum/topics/it-s-as-bad-as-we-th...
-
1050
-
1051
-
1052
-
1053
-
1054
of 1877 Next