Any stargazers out there...?

[NeoMatrix]

Interesting how peoples analytical skills come into disparity, including my own assumptions about those.
Technicians by nature are an analytical bunch,they observe technical faults, they assess those faults, an apply a fix where possible.
If the fix doesn't work, their own analytical reasoning questions WHY! the fix didn't work.
To naturally "question" a given problem,is an innate instinct for most Techs worth their salt.
As a Technician myself, it is my natural instinct to question what I feel is not right.


Technician Analytical Skills 101.
--------------------------------------
Indoctrinate Science: Earth has a rotating molten core magnetic field.
Analytical Tech: My Engineering experience proves B/S.: YouTube.
htttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CggulqRHAPY
(You tube video showing what happens to magnetic field when heated.)


Indoctrinate Science: The Sun/Earth fixed gravity attracts "ALL" objects.
Analytical Tech:Cyclic yearly meteorite shower means stationary rocks in solar system.
Periodic stationary meteor showers("immuned" Suns gravity) List of meteor showers - Wikipedia.
htttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_meteor_showers.
Why is gravity NOT obeying indoctrinate science an attracting the entire meteor fields toward the Sun?


Indoctrinate Science: The Sun is a Fixed-Gravity-Attract-Magnetic-Field-Hydrogen-Gas-Burning Sphere.
Analytical Tech: 1.) Magnetic fields DO NOT! work in a hot environment (See above video).
2.) Heat does not travel through the vacuum of space.
3.) Igniting a ball of hydrogen gas creates "one" big explosion.
4.) All objects in solar orbit are NOT attracted to the Suns "G.r.a.v.i.t.y". (See above )
I state B/S to indoctrinated science burning ball of gas that "randomly attracts" objects.
The Sun cannot be Hot, inside or out...


Indoctrinate Science: NASA Science Tells Public Truths.
Analytical Tech: Who were the Technical minds behind NASA and first moon landing?
YouTube
htttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qTZj69j_zc
(Youtube movie about African American women who were the real Technical minds behind the NASA moon landing.)
Nice movie with Kevin Costner...

.
.
Indoctrinate Science: [more]
Analytical Tech:...[???]
.
.

[My favourite]
Indoctrinate Science: The atom electron is both "a particle" an "a wave".
Analytical Tech:Congruent quip. A cat is both a Feline and an African Elephant.
Which of the above B/S statements are students required to interpret as fact?
True to fact,I can pamper a cat, without the required superposition from Schrodinger.
The electron is a Wave...

[NeoMatrix]

There's no such thing as "angular orbital velocity,"

[snip]

htttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_velocity
Angular velocity - Wikipedia

[NeoMatrix]

I am not an astrophysicist, nor could I ever hope to do the math required to prove my statements, but I don't have too, the work has already been done for me and I can simply post a link to the NASA website..https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/d...et-orbits.html. I would hope that most reasonable people can agree that NASA would be considered an expert in this field. What you are doing is posting some questionable theories and backing them up with "here's an artists conception of what I am saying. or here's a youtube animation proving my statement. or here's some "Doc Brown" character explaining the 1.21 jigawatt (and I am pronouncing with a J) theory..this all proves I'm right..You can't even say "this is what I think", you say with only a few exceptions everyone else is wrong, and even the guys you think are right don't know the whole story, but of course, you do. You seem to grab on to the most unlikely explanation of whatever you find and go with that..ie..scientists are seeing galaxies that appears to be expanding faster than light..This does not mean they are, it just means they haven't found a reason why we (from our little corner of the universe) see it that way. You want to shut me up??? Post the math that shows how anything with mass can exceed the speed of light!!! Or tell me how if the suns magnetism is a part of how planets stay in orbit, how Venus works w/o a magnetic field? The biggest magnets in the world wont attract or repel a dirt clod.

Re. Not an Astrophysicist.
Nor am I...

Re. Perplexed
You contradict yourself in your own above statement. You state you believe in only NASA. Then state a few sentences later that you disbelieve NASA's own Hubble document about faster than light galactic planes...

Should I attempt to reason with your above block of statements any further?

Re. You want to shut me up.
No, not all...
I have no interest when people start hiding behind or controlling a topic via censorship quip.


To be frank...I've actually lost any further interest in this forum.

[copier addict]

Re. Not an Astrophysicist.
Nor am I...

Re. Perplexed
You contradict yourself in your own above statement. You state you believe in only NASA. Then state a few sentences later that you disbelieve NASA's own Hubble document about faster than light galactic planes...

Should I attempt to reason with your above block of statements any further?

Re. You want to shut me up.
No, not all...
I have no interest when people start hiding behind or controlling a topic via censorship quip.


To be frank...I've actually lost any further interest in this forum.

You have twice ignored my request for an explanation of your statemens, but you demand others completely explain theirs.
You seem to simply post the silliest theories you can find online and feel no need to provide any evidence to back them up.

[emujo2]

Re. Not an Astrophysicist.
Nor am I...

Re. Perplexed
You contradict yourself in your own above statement. You state you believe in only NASA. Then state a few sentences later that you disbelieve NASA's own Hubble document about faster than light galactic planes...Again, you go directly to the national enquirer of science magazines for your data. try this instead for a more levelheaded explanation.http://www.stsci.edu/ftp/science/m87/press.txt

Should I attempt to reason with your above block of statements any further?

Re. You want to shut me up.
No, not all...
I have no interest when people start hiding behind or controlling a topic via censorship quip.


To be frank...I've actually lost any further interest in this forum.

I guess this is good for both of us..I guess we'll just have to wait for the aliens to land and show us what the truth is.

[theengel]

htttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_velocity
Angular velocity - Wikipedia

I stand corrected... although you'd said "angular orbital velocity" as opposed to "orbital angular velocity"

Anyway--my explanation still applies.

Analytical Tech:Cyclic yearly meteorite shower means stationary rocks in solar system.

That's because comets and meteors create their own little changes as they orbit the sun. Explosions from expanding ice. Collisions with other objects. And yeah--even the not-so-powerful solar winds. These things cause particles to slow down or even stop. So there is a trail of small particles in the exact shape of the comet's orbital path. I think if you could take a closer look at these objects, you'd find that they are all moving as well--not stationary. They're just moving at different speeds.

2.) Heat does not travel through the vacuum of space.
3.) Igniting a ball of hydrogen gas creates "one" big explosion.
4.) All objects in solar orbit are NOT attracted to the Suns "G.r.a.v.i.t.y".

2 - No, but energy does. Light waves, gamma rays, xrays, etc.,. And once it reaches the earth, it is transformed into heat and other things.

3 - The sun is one big explosion. But it's so massive that it takes time. Besides--what is going on in the sun is not "ignition". If you light hydrogen here on earth, you are oxidizing it. The sun isn't oxidizing. It's not burning anything. You're looking at nuclear fusion... not burning.

4 - I don't know what G.r.a.v.i.t.y is, but if something with mass is orbiting the sun, it is attracted to the sun's gravitational pull. That's what an orbit is.

Again--your questions either have simple explanations, or they aren't valid questions. Like the 'ignition' of hydrogen.

It's not that there's anything wrong with asking, but challenging the accepted science of something, the way you do it, makes it sound as if there's some sort of conspiracy or something. Maybe it's not the way you say it--maybe it's just the way I read it. But see--other people are reading it that way as well. I'm only pointing this out because it makes you come off sounding silly, when really, you're just seeing something that doesn't make sense to you and raising the question.

In science, one thing I've figured out, is that if something doesn't make sense to me, then it is I who is missing (or not understanding) some crucial part of the equation. But in this day and age, it doesn't take a whole lot to get answers. You just have to do some research. Just don't start with the notion that what you don't understand must be a lie... cause it's usually not.

[NeoMatrix]

Okay...... (One step at a time).

Lets assume we're in a tech training classroom environment for the moment....

Did anyone the take time to watch the below video....??????

htttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CggulqRHAPY
htttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CggulqRHAPY
YouTube
The above You tube video show what happens to a magnetic field when its heated.

A magnetic field is a magnetic field. There is no such thing as different variety magnetic force field properties.
A magnetic field(s) does NOT come in various flavours. The magnetic field of a speaker magnet is
the same magnetic field properties of the Sun,the Earth, the moon and all the other planetary magnetic fields.

[#1] Lets assume that there is a forum consensus with understanding magnetic fields of force...............

Re. Aetheric fields and magnets lines of force.
The magnetic field lines of force penetrating from a magnet are shaped in torus/donut/vortex field of force.
A magnetic field cannot generate its vortex magnetic lines of force without a carrier medium of some sort.
Example:
A whirlpool,tornado,cyclone cannot generate a scalar/vortex field of force with out an air or water medium as its carrier medium.

...Carrier Medium.
The magnetic field carrier medium "is the aetheric field"(electric type fluid) that surrounds each planet.
The aetheric field (electric fluid) around each planet allows for the formation of planets magnetic field lines of force.
The planetary body cannot have a magnet force field without an aetheric fluid carrier medium to create the lines of force of the magnet field. The aetheric field(electric type fluid) of planet Earth extends 407200km in radius out from the planet. A body devoid of aetheric fluid will suddenly crystallize an become brittle. It is the reason some asteroids an meteorites are crystal structured.

...Michelson-Morely
The aetheric field around each planet is the same aetheric field(electric type fluid) around Earth that the Michelson-Morley aether experiment failed to find. Michelson-Morley failed to find the aetheric field around earth because they did not reason that the aetheric field around each planet is travelling at the same angular velocity as the planet. Had they used a focal laser beam from outside the earth, the experiment would have discovered the phase shift light properties their experiment was hoping to locate. Indoctrinated-science therefore rejects the aetheric field around planets, but at the same indoctrinate-science then accepts the vortex magnetic lines of force produced within a carrier medium of say a cylinder permanent magnet.

[#2] Is there a forum consensus that there must be some carrier field that produces a magnetic field?

[Revision.Thread #133]
Any stargazers out there...?
Previous thread you tube videos showing the scalar/vortex magnetic lines of force of a permanent magnet.

[copier addict]

Okay...... (One step at a time).

Lets assume we're in a tech training classroom environment for the moment....

Did anyone the take time to watch the below video....??????

htttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CggulqRHAPY
htttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CggulqRHAPY
YouTube
The above You tube video show what happens to a magnetic field when its heated.

A magnetic field is a magnetic field. There is no such thing as different variety magnetic force field properties.
A magnetic field(s) does NOT come in various flavours. The magnetic field of a speaker magnet is
the same magnetic field properties of the Sun,the Earth, the moon and all the other planetary magnetic fields.

[#1] Lets assume that there is a forum consensus with understanding magnetic fields of force...............

Re. Aetheric fields and magnets lines of force.
The magnetic field lines of force penetrating from a magnet are shaped in torus/donut/vortex field of force.
A magnetic field cannot generate its vortex magnetic lines of force without a carrier medium of some sort.
Example:
A whirlpool,tornado,cyclone cannot generate a scalar/vortex field of force with out an air or water medium as its carrier medium.

The magnetic field carrier medium "is the aetheric field"(electric type fluid) that surrounds each planet.
The aetheric field (electric fluid) around each planet allows for the formation of planets magnetic field lines of force.
The planetary body cannot have a magnet force field without aetheric fluid carrier medium to create the lines of force of the magnet field. The aetheric field(electric type fluid) of planet Earth extends 407200km in radius out from the planet. A body devoid of aetheric fluid will suddenly crystallize an become brittle. It is the reason some asteroids an meteorites are crystal structured.

re. Michelson-Morely
The aetheric field around each planet is the same aetheric field(electric type fluid) around Earth that the Michelson-Morley aether experiment failed to find. Michelson-Morley failed to find the aetheric field around earth because they did not reason that the aetheric field around each planet is travelling at the same angular velocity as the planet. Had they used a focal laser beam from outside the earth, the experiment would have discovered the phase shift light properties their experiment was hoping to locate. Indoctrinated-science therefore rejects the aetheric field around planets, but at the same indoctrinate-science then accepts the vortex magnetic lines of force produced within a carrier medium.

[#2] Is there a forum consensus that there must be some carrier field that produces a magnetic field?

Sorry, until you answer my previous questions I will not consider your theories to be legitimate.

[theengel]

The above You tube video show what happens to a magnetic field when its heated.

A magnetic field is a magnetic field. There is no such thing as different variety magnetic force field properties.

First off, you're just flat out wrong. Magnetic fields can be created in different ways--and while the fields themselves might behave the same, changing the materials that created them would definitely change the field.

I didn't watch the whole video. I wonder if they tried heating the piece of steel (the one NOT magnetic) and then tried putting it against a permanent magnet. If they did, I can tell you that the two wouldn't have been attracted. When you're heating steel, you know it's hot enough to harden by putting it against a cold magnet. The heat doesn't do anything to the field, it keeps the ferrous metal from being effected by the field. In other words, it's the metal that changes... not the magnetic field. It has to do with the way the carbon lines up molecularly.

This is part of your problem. You see things and immediately make assumptions on it, and you don't seem to bother yourself with all the other facts that have been flat-out proven a long time ago.

The reason I'm pointing it out, is because this is EXACTLY what flat-earthers do. They make wild claims, based on things they don't understand. And it's not just that they don't understand them--it's that they don't even bother to find out about them. They immediately jump on the assumption that they're being lied to. And they NEVER just look to find out.

[theengel]

I went back and watched the video. They illustrated what I had stated... but they said it in a way that was misleading. The hot steel wasn't attracted to a magnet--but they put it like, "the heated steel was no longer magnetic." The problem is, the steel never was magnetic. It was attracted to magnets.

The heat is not what affected any of the magnetic fields. The heat affected the magnets. These are two different things.