|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics
#7207815 - 07/21/07 08:10 PM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
THUNDERBOLTS OF THE GODS
The Thunderbolts Project calls into question not only countless modern scientific assumptions, but also the billions of dollars of big-science government and corporate funding that continues to preserve and entrench questionable theories - elevating them to the status of doctrine - while systematically excluding legitimate alternatives that threaten the status-quo. Alternatives that may represent the future of science.
The Thunderbolts Project offers remarkably simple explanations for 'black holes', 'dark matter', the electric sun, comets that are NOT made of ice, planetary scarring and many other 'mysterious' phenomena.
It proposes that much of the currently observable phenomena of deep space can be intelligently explained by already known principles of electricity. High school students get it immediately. A doctorate in higher math is not required.
-------------------- It's a beautiful lie .. It's a perfect denial . Such a beautiful lie to believe in So beautiful, beautiful it makes me .. Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus! Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight. Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: cleeen]
#7208816 - 07/22/07 01:14 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
more.. radio talkback recordings
[url=http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q="The+Saturn+Myth"&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv]parts 1-8[/url]
Edited by cleeen (07/22/07 01:29 AM)
|
delta9
Active Ingredient


Registered: 10/28/04
Posts: 5,390
Loc: California
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: cleeen]
#7212858 - 07/23/07 02:47 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not so sure about this video... I'm three minutes in and it states, "It is possible that the predominant force that holds the universe together is not gravity" - but haven't we known for sometime that gravity is a relatively WEAK force and that there are many many other forces acting upon our universe simultaneous for a good (relative) minute now?
Seems to me thus far that the competing assertions in the video are trumped up to make their presumptions seem more valid.
-------------------- delta9
|
delta9
Active Ingredient


Registered: 10/28/04
Posts: 5,390
Loc: California
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: delta9]
#7212890 - 07/23/07 03:21 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
So far so good, though, it's an interesting comparison of two different kinds of Cosmology. I must say I even LIKE it, because plasma is a very interesting state of matter that really does not get a lot of mention. Interesting theories.
-------------------- delta9
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: cleeen]
#7212915 - 07/23/07 04:08 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I'm torn on this sort of thing. On one hand, as Feynman said (paraphrased), if it is complex, then we probably don't really understand how it works. On the other hand, there are a lot of 'moonbats' out there that haven't taken calculus, but still think that physics should work at their level of understanding.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
SymmetryGroup8
It's about theFLOW!



Registered: 02/25/07
Posts: 506
Last seen: 16 years, 3 months
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: Seuss]
#7213493 - 07/23/07 10:38 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Certainlly interesting. Although I'm not enough of a physicist to judge the validity of their claims.
From what I understand is that although gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces but due to the distances and masses involved gravity matters on a galactic level. That is, it is the forces that creates the stars. They seem to dispute the claim that gravity and nuclear fusion is the process behind the creation of stars.
They seem to imply that the structure of the universe is not due to gravity or the curvature of space but due to electromagnetic forces. That the electromagnetic forces is responsible for the structure of the universe. Not some complicated minding bending ultimate theory of gravitation and electromagnecticnuclear force...
Or something like that. I feel asleep halfway through. And I really DO NOT KNOW what the fuck I just said.
-------------------- Be like water my friend!
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: SymmetryGroup8]
#7213913 - 07/23/07 01:24 PM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
yes yes .. watch it again . we almost gave up ourselves but went back to it and followed it through . At first it seems wacky to have a new theory of something like this , but go with the flow .. listen to what is being said .. to be honest hawking'sand einstein's theories allways seemed bizarre, scary and alien to me
What they are purporting is that
the universe the galaxy etc is all a electrical continuum ..
that our sun is a electric sinkhole (thats why its hotter above the surface than at ground zero)
There are a lot of intuitive and significant paradoxes in einsteinian physics .. this theory accounts for almost all of them
look at the 'unexpected' bright flash when those objects hit Jupiter .. an arc simply explains this ..
look at the great scars on some of the planets .. these are indicative of arcing blasts not sudden cold state volcanology
Look at the hubble pictures they are demonstrating great vast descriptions of plasma fields ..
-------------------- It's a beautiful lie .. It's a perfect denial . Such a beautiful lie to believe in So beautiful, beautiful it makes me .. Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus! Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight. Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: cleeen]
#7213969 - 07/23/07 01:42 PM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Here's the talkback links again - should work this time Its a good chat and explains certain things even better
Thunderbolts of the Gods Pt.1
[url=&q=the+saturn+myth+thornhill&total=8&start=0&num=100&so=3&type=search&plindex=7]Thunderbolts of the Gods Pt.2[/url]
Thunderbolts of the Gods Pt.3
Thunderbolts of the Gods Pt.4
Thunderbolts of the Gods Pt.5
Thunderbolts of the Gods Pt.6
Thunderbolts of the Gods Pt.7
Thunderbolts of the Gods Pt.8
Quote:
Added: July 15, 2007 David Talbott is a comparative mythologist whose work offers a radical new vantage point on the o... more info David Talbott is a comparative mythologist whose work offers a radical new vantage point on the origin of ancient cultural themes and symbols. His research has been the primary catalyst behind the "Saturn Model," and is the subject of the feature documentary, "Remembering the End of the World." He is the author of The Saturn Myth and co-author (with Wallace Thornhill) of Thunderbolts of the Gods.
Wallace Thornhill is an Australian physicist. His lifelong investigation of "The Electric Universe" offers a revolutionary view of solar system history, the nature of the Sun, the behavior of comets, and stellar and galactic evolution. He is the co-author, with David Talbott, of Thunderbolts of the Gods and The Electric Universe.
The two were both inspired by the theories of Immanuel Velikovsky who proposed that the planet Venus was once a comet that caused havoc as it came through our solar system.
While Velikovsky believed that this event took place around 1500 BC, Talbott suggested that his chronology was off and the cataclysm occurred much earlier, during the first civilizations of humankind, and was documented in stone artifacts and mythology.
Thornhill outlined a scenario in which Mars was hit by a gigantic "thunderbolt" of electrical discharge when a large object came near it. Evidence for this includes an impact "scar" on the planet's surface that is over 300 miles wide, he said. Thornhill also argued that electricity is the strongest force in the universe, surpassing gravity and magnetism. Electricity connects one part of the universe to another and can offer a coherent way of understanding the cosmos.
March 11th, 2007
-------------------- It's a beautiful lie .. It's a perfect denial . Such a beautiful lie to believe in So beautiful, beautiful it makes me .. Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus! Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight. Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: cleeen]
#7215147 - 07/23/07 06:58 PM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
to be honest hawking'sand einstein's theories allways seemed bizarre, scary and alien to me
Could you elaborate on what theories of hawking's you are referring to?
Quote:
There are a lot of intuitive and significant paradoxes in einsteinian physics .. this theory accounts for almost all of them
I would like to see an example of this if you could, thanks
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: SymmetryGroup8]
#7215651 - 07/23/07 09:03 PM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
the four fundamental forces
Actually, electromagnetism and the weak force were shown to be aspects of a single underlying electro-weak force by theory in the late 60s and apparently confirmed by the discovery of the Z boson at Fermilab in the 80s.
We're currently down to three fundamental forces: the strong force, the electro-weak force, and that pesky gravity thing.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
trendal
J♠



Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: Diploid]
#7215731 - 07/23/07 09:27 PM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Technically don't the weak and EM forces only unite at a certain energy level?
As far as I know...it's still customary to talk of the weak and EM forces as being separate, because they are so on all but the largest of energy scales.
I thought the strong force had been unified with the electroweak, too?
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
Edited by trendal (07/23/07 09:30 PM)
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: DieCommie]
#7216786 - 07/24/07 02:47 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
to be honest hawking'sand einstein's theories allways seemed bizarre, scary and alien to me
Could you elaborate on what theories of hawking's you are referring to?
There are so many instances that i generally turn a deaf ear to them now , generally i can submit that Hawking clearly has a deductive gift being able to deal with complex calculations bu that it is my impression that the assumptions he begins (einsteinian) with are not good enough .. but looking at Hawkings website certain things for instance present themselves .. e.g.
Quote:
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics
This is a paradox is it not .. ? Physics but without any laws of physics .. thats hocus pocus then isn't it ? and isnt hocus pocus per-se invalid in physics ?
If you would like to listen to a more competent discussion of the paradoxes of einsteinian cosmology you would be better to watch/listen to the accounts of Thornhill and Co via the links .. its my opinion that they present some very significant examples of paradoxes ..
What i wonder is .. if the Sun is a discharging node , then what does that make the Earths electrical polarity value .. neutral ? or would the Earth be charged similarly in alignment with the universal electric field ?..
-------------------- It's a beautiful lie .. It's a perfect denial . Such a beautiful lie to believe in So beautiful, beautiful it makes me .. Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus! Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight. Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: cleeen]
#7216883 - 07/24/07 04:37 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
> Physics but without any laws of physics
Look at it from a different view point... for example, if there were no atoms before the big bang, then the laws of physics that govern the behavior of atoms wouldn't matter (or exist). Replace "atoms" with whatever other "thing" that didn't exist before, or immediately after, the big bang.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: Seuss]
#7216998 - 07/24/07 06:18 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
But considering there is no proof of the bigbang yet it seems a bit early to be throwing away the book of reality already don't you think ?
Thats the thing that gets me is how (as the thunderbolts crew state so well) the laws that govern reality as we can know it get thrown away to justify an intellectual position that hasn't been proven ..
Simply put doesn't the big bang theory with everything being nothing and then created as if by God seem a bit thin to base a theory of life as we know it on ? ..
Einstein didnt believe in his equations as much as the book learning experts that followed him .. significant -yes .. all explaining no .. that was einsteins great search and he never claimed to have quite made it , yet nowadays we have these theoretical cosmologists making patchwork theories on the hoof to apparently explain by way of blinding brilliance and more often Baffling Hubris that what is apparently quite wrong and unjustified wrong is in fact right ..
-------------------- It's a beautiful lie .. It's a perfect denial . Such a beautiful lie to believe in So beautiful, beautiful it makes me .. Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus! Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight. Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: cleeen]
#7217042 - 07/24/07 07:09 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
there is no proof of the bigbang
How do you account for the cosmic background radiation?
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
SymmetryGroup8
It's about theFLOW!



Registered: 02/25/07
Posts: 506
Last seen: 16 years, 3 months
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: Diploid]
#7217501 - 07/24/07 10:51 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, both CBR and Cosmological Red-shift indeed suggests the big bang.
Also you may want to look up quantum loop gravity theory, there has been some new findings for this theory.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/07/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/
So the singularity may not be a singularity....LOL.
-------------------- Be like water my friend!
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: SymmetryGroup8]
#7219883 - 07/24/07 08:14 PM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SymmetryGroup8 said: Yes, both CBR and Cosmological Red-shift indeed suggests the big bang.
Personally i am so much more comfortable with the term "suggests" .. it seems much more accurate to me .
From the point of view of the Thunderbolts crew the red-shifts are also the result of newer "stars" heated as i recall to lower temperatures ..
CBR .. would this also be possible to attribute to another causative phenomena if the initial assumptions were allowed to vary ? .. i.e. beyond the semi-religious assertion that the BigBang occurred ..
Q.does CBR actually prove that the BigBang occurred or does it simply assert that CBR exists ..??
After all , naively and boldly said as this is , couldn't CBR actually represent a continuum that exists independently of the BigBang ..
The entire assumption of the BigBang is unproven , yes? .. Yet a whole lot of data that is not conclusive is being re-worded to assert that the BigBang is correct ..My question is Why ? .. is it because Theoretical cosmologists are the divine spreaders of truth and light or is it more likely that they are just following the proven behavior of scientific revolution and are currently in the phase of self-justification and denial of alternatives ?
Seems to me more likely that the theoretical cosmologists are becoming ever more fanciful with their new propositions to support these fundamental unproven assertions ..
Quote:
".. They also said that artificial sweeteners were safe , WMD's were in IRAQ , and Anna-Nicole married for love .."
-------------------- It's a beautiful lie .. It's a perfect denial . Such a beautiful lie to believe in So beautiful, beautiful it makes me .. Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus! Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight. Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: cleeen]
#7219983 - 07/24/07 08:48 PM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
The entire assumption of the BigBang is unproven , yes?
No offense intended, but it's WAY more supported by the evidence than the yahoo ideas you're coming up with. 
Stars heated to lower temperature? Eh?
Redshift has nothing to do with a star's temperature. A star's temperature can be calculated from theory, then from direct measurements of where it falls with respect to the main sequence, and independently from its luminosity ratio compared to a Cepheid, and again from its mass as determined by its influence on its surroundings, and many other obliquely related measurements that all independently converge on the same temperature.
When all these disparate methods of estimating a star's temperature agree, and the spectral lines are all shifted exactly the same distance toward the red from where they should be, it is then accepted with high confidence by everyone who knows what they're talking about that the temperature is known and the redshift is due to recession.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
Acyl
cyanidepoisoning


Registered: 12/13/05
Posts: 4,472
Loc: N.W.T.
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: Diploid]
#7220889 - 07/25/07 03:20 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
The fact that scientists were able to guess and FIND that the radiation produced by the 'big bang' would be so red-shifted that it would have turned into microwaves is incredible eh?
That to me is pretty compelling evidence.
--------------------
1 ,2
|
Acyl
cyanidepoisoning


Registered: 12/13/05
Posts: 4,472
Loc: N.W.T.
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: Acyl]
#7220894 - 07/25/07 03:25 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Ofcourse plenty of the data is going to be inconclusive, theyre theories about the origins of the universe. Think about that.
A theory holds its ground until it cant explain something it is supposed to, so far the ones youve been questioning have been doing quite well.
Disproving an entire theory by a small (unreasonable imo! ) reasonable doubt is not going to take us anywhere.
--------------------
1 ,2
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: Acyl]
#7220996 - 07/25/07 05:52 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Stars heated to lower temperature? Eh?
Dont know what you mean exactly Diploid, but the thunderbolt crew mention that our sun has a surface temp of about 6ooodegrees and a atmospheric temp of about 20.000degrees (as i recall) which does not they say correlate with the sun as a nuclear furnace but does correlate with the sun being a site of intense electronic discharge ..
They also mention in the talkback radio discussion that red stars thought to have been far away were infact not so far away but were cooler temp stars and showed in the red spectrum .. first i've heard of it but interesting theory i reckon .
Quote:
The fact that scientists were able to guess and FIND that the radiation produced by the 'big bang' would be so red-shifted that it would have turned into microwaves is incredible eh?
That to me is pretty compelling evidence.
To be honest i dont understand that , tho i guess its pretty straight forward stuff once explained .
Would have thought that red-shifting was only with regard to radiation that was moving away in theory and surely everything on this side of the supposed point of origin of the bigbang location would be moving towards us not away thus not re-shifting , but as i say i dont profess to understanding that issue . Perhaps you can explain ?
-------------------- It's a beautiful lie .. It's a perfect denial . Such a beautiful lie to believe in So beautiful, beautiful it makes me .. Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus! Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight. Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.
|
trendal
J♠



Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: cleeen]
#7221078 - 07/25/07 06:59 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Dont know what you mean exactly Diploid, but the thunderbolt crew mention that our sun has a surface temp of about 6ooodegrees and a atmospheric temp of about 20.000degrees (as i recall) which does not they say correlate with the sun as a nuclear furnace but does correlate with the sun being a site of intense electronic discharge ..
Actually the chromosphere reaches temperatures of about one million degrees. This has to do with the transition of helium nuclei to ions, and the escape of radiation.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: trendal]
#7221301 - 07/25/07 09:07 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Sounds good to me trendel.. cheers
Here is a letter regarding the concerns some have about the BigBang (BB) theory ..
Quote:
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.
Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.
What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.
Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.
Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.
Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific enquiry.
Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.
Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.
Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.
Initial signers: (Institutions for identification only)
Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany) Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil) Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University (Russia) Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA) Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, Cambridge (UK) Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA) Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA) Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA) Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India) Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA) Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA) Thomas Jarboe, Washington University (USA) Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA) Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA) Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA) Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics(retired) (Canada) Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova (Italy) Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA) Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France) Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India,France) Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maring (Brazil) Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA) R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA) Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France) Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France) Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA) Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA) David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK) Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA) Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA) Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland) Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil) John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (USA) James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)
-------------------- It's a beautiful lie .. It's a perfect denial . Such a beautiful lie to believe in So beautiful, beautiful it makes me .. Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus! Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight. Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: cleeen]
#7221608 - 07/25/07 10:37 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Would have thought that red-shifting was only with regard to radiation that was moving away in theory and surely everything on this side
Space itself is 'stretching', for lack of a better word.
Thinking in terms of "this side of where the Big Bang happened" is naive physics that has been known to be incorrect for many decades.
If your Thunderbolt boys are describing the universe that way, they're at about half way though high school physics and have no business second guessing Einstein or Hawking.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: cleeen]
#7221700 - 07/25/07 11:00 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors.
That's right, and it's one reason we're building the Large Hadron Collider and other experiments in high energy physics to find these things that have never been observed before. We'll know for sure in a few more years, but dismissing the Big Bang Theory and all the evidence we DO currently have is way jumping the gun.
Big Bang might be refuted some day, and that would be a pretty cool and surprising result, but from what we know so far and the new things we're learning every day, it doesn't seem likely.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: Diploid]
#7224017 - 07/25/07 09:11 PM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Diploid said: But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors.
That's right, and it's one reason we're building the Large Hadron Collider and other experiments in high energy physics to find these things that have never been observed before. We'll know for sure in a few more years, but dismissing the Big Bang Theory and all the evidence we DO currently have is way jumping the gun.
Big Bang might be refuted some day, and that would be a pretty cool and surprising result, but from what we know so far and the new things we're learning every day, it doesn't seem likely.
oK .. i find the BB discussion interesting myself too but considering the subject of this thread it seems best to follow std forum procedure and discuss these specific matters in a thread dedicated to them . So without further Adue i will start a new thread on the subject ..
BTW personally i thought you would be more interested in tackling the more specific issues of the nature of comets and other close world events where more evidence can be discussed <shrug>
-------------------- It's a beautiful lie .. It's a perfect denial . Such a beautiful lie to believe in So beautiful, beautiful it makes me .. Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus! Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight. Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.
|
Acyl
cyanidepoisoning


Registered: 12/13/05
Posts: 4,472
Loc: N.W.T.
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: cleeen]
#7224033 - 07/25/07 09:15 PM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Cleen, read a brief history of time by stephen hawking.. its a good book.
As planets move farther away from us the EMR they emit in our direction is slightly elongated due to the doppler effect. It was estimated that the radiation produced at the time of the big bang (some of which is still making its way to our planet) will have turned into microwaves which can be detected by specialized antenae. These microwaves have been found everywhere.
From this, and the velocities of the planets giving off radiation physicists were able to estimate how long ago the big bang should have occured.
Can someone correct me on this if ive got it wrong? Im not a physics nut and some of the jargon flies over my head sometimes.
--------------------
1 ,2
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: Diploid]
#7224050 - 07/25/07 09:19 PM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Diploid said:
Space itself is 'stretching', for lack of a better word. .. yes words in this modern cosmology hocus pocus sure do seem to be rather inept dont you think?
You make it sound so very very certain Diploid .. How fast exactly is it stretching in the BigBang theory ?
Oh and i guess the stretching is basically impossible to measure apart from deductive calculation from "the big bang"
Thinking in terms of "this side of where the Big Bang happened" is naive physics that has been known to be incorrect for many decades.
oK and it was my "naieve" opinion like i said .
If your Thunderbolt boys are describing the universe that way, they're at about half way though high school physics and have no business second guessing Einstein or Hawking.
excuse me but "Bollocks" Diploid .. this a is still a democracy and all citizens have a right to their opinion and to make that known .. perhaps you tend towards putting any alternate opinions to the sword as has been seen in the historical record but i must say its a rather immature position to take .
BTW since you seem so well versed in the Cosmology i must ask why you are calling on me to explain the things that the Thunderbolt ("the electric universe") crew seem to account for quite well in their versions .. am i right therefore in suggesting that you havent even viewed read or otherwise entertained the actual material the Thunderbolts crew presented in the Links above ?
I often wonder why people ask rather redundant questions in threads as tho they havent even visited the material .. am i right in assuming that you haven't checked out the versions linked to above.. or are you just unable to comprehend the High School physics?
-------------------- It's a beautiful lie .. It's a perfect denial . Such a beautiful lie to believe in So beautiful, beautiful it makes me .. Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus! Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight. Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: cleeen]
#7224138 - 07/25/07 09:34 PM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
this a is still a democracy and all citizens have a right to their opinion
I never said otherwise. You can make any kind of kooky unsuported claims you like. Hell, you can even say that in 2012 reptilians from the Orion Nebula will invade the Earth.
But that won't make it true. 
why you are calling on me to explain
Because you're the one making claims that go contrary to a thousand years of scientific evidence. If you're going to do that in a science forum, you better be able to back it up with more than links to nut job web sites. How about a link to a peer-reviewed science journal instead of a Google video? That would make me sit up and listen.
i must say its a rather immature position to take
Wasn't it you who said Einstein and Hawking are wrong and when DieCommie asked you what exactly they're wrong about, you replied with:
Quote:
There are so many instances that i generally turn a deaf ear to them now
You're blindly buying into your pet anti-establishment dogma group, Thunderbolts, who is not a group of scientists but a video production company. And you reject Einstein and Hawking, but you can't even tell us what Einstein and Hawking said or what you disagree with.
And you're calling ME immature?
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: Diploid]
#7224326 - 07/25/07 10:23 PM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
While I'm at it, let's take a look at this Thunderbolt team you're so impressed with:
From their web at: http://www.thunderbolts.info/team.htm
Amy Acheson (1946 - 2005) Editor of the electronic newsletter THOTH for several years and author of numerous articles. An amateur astronomer, she was best known for her accurate and persuasive summaries of the work of Halton Arp and Wallace Thornhill. When Amy died in July 2005, the Thunderbolts team lost one of its most distinguished members. Nope, a writer is not a scientist.
Mel Acheson With university training in astronomy, his wit and insight will give you both a chuckle and something to think about. His editorials were a regular feature in the electronic newsletter THOTH. He is now a regular contributor to the Thunderbolts Picture of the Day (TPOD) "University training in astronomy" translates into "He took a 100 class once". Not a scientist.
Michael Armstrong Long-time student of "catastrophism," and lecturer on the Electric Universe, he is publisher/producer of video and newsletter work on the science of catastrophics and the Electric Universe. Nope, a publisher is not a scientist.
Dwardu Cardona A premier comparative mythologist, catastrophist researcher, and author of numerous articles on the roots of world mythology, he is currently the editor of "AEON, A Journal of Myth, Science, and Ancient History" and author of the recently-released book, "God Star." "Comparative mythologist"?? ROFL
Ev Cochrane A comparative mythologist with a deep interest in the cosmic symbols of early cultures. He is currently publisher of "AEON, A Journal of Myth, Science, and Ancient History." He has published two books Martian Metamorphoses, and The Many Faces of Venus. Ditto.
Donald Scott Retired professor of electrical engineering at the University of Massachusetts/Amherst, known for his cogent presentations on the "electric sun." In addition to his lectures, he has been emcee of several conferences on cosmic catastrophe." Author of An Introduction to Circuit Analysis — A Systems Approach. Don Scott website: www.electric-cosmos.org An engineer. Smart guy. Turns out I actually know him. He's an amateur astronomer I've run into before because I am one too.
See? I shot these pics:

But he's never published anything that refutes Einstein, Hawking, or even Newton. He does sell books, which figures why he's in bed with the Thunderbolt Video Production company.
David Talbott Comparative mythologist whose work offers a radical new vantage point on the origin of ancient cultural themes and symbols. His research has been the primary catalyst behind the "Saturn Model," and is the subject of the feature documentary, "Remembering the End of the World." Author of The Saturn Myth and co-author (with Wallace Thornhill) of Thunderbolts of the Gods. Another "comparative mythologist", whatever that means. He isn't a scientist, but he does sell lots of videos.
Wallace Thornhill Australian physicist. His work on "The Electric Universe" provides the broadest synthesis of electrical principles to date. It offers a new vantage point on solar system history, planetary cratering and scarring, the dynamics of the sun, and the nature of galaxies. Wal is a senior editor for the Picture of the Day feature on www.thunderbolts.info. His website is: www.holoscience.com Wow, someone with a real physics degree. Finally. He never finished his masters though, let alone a PhD. Until he finishes school, he's in no position to refute his teachers.
Ian Tresman Long-time planetary catastrophist and contributor to numerous Internet forums and resources. For many years he has been a principal in the British "Society for Interdisciplinary Studies," a forum for discussion of catastrophist research. A "planetary catastrophist"! NOW I'm impressed!
These are the people whose word you take on faith over the likes of Einstein and Hawking???
WTF?
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: Diploid]
#7224358 - 07/25/07 10:32 PM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Faith .. no . just basic intuitive common sense .
The fact of the matter is i have long held differences of opinion from einsteins works and hawkings style , i just assumed i was an isolated island of difference of opinion , and am relieved to find that others share these concerns .
I just find that the deductions of the principles i find intuitively highly questionable demonstrate certain apparant absudities especilly in terms of reductions to the abusrd
nice photos btw,, i'd really enjoy to be able to do that - greatwork !!
-------------------- It's a beautiful lie .. It's a perfect denial . Such a beautiful lie to believe in So beautiful, beautiful it makes me .. Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus! Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight. Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: Diploid]
#7224367 - 07/25/07 10:35 PM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|

Diploid FTW 
edit:
Quote:
I just find that the deductions of the principles i find intuitively highly questionable demonstrate certain apparant absudities especilly in terms of reductions to the abusrd
wow. I am certainly no master of the English language, but I think I can make out from this that you dont believe Einstein because it goes against your intuition? Is that correct?
Edited by Qubit (07/25/07 10:40 PM)
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: cleeen]
#7224502 - 07/25/07 11:18 PM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Faith .. no . just basic intuitive common sense
Yes, it's faith. It's faith because you blindly accept what they say even though they can't defend their position with a real science paper. Instead, all they do is sell mumbo jumbo new age videos to gullible people who know nothing about physics and who are incapable of enough critical thought to wonder why no peer-reviewed science journal even acknowledges them.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: DieCommie]
#7224650 - 07/25/07 11:57 PM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
edit:
Quote:
I just find that the deductions of the principles i find intuitively highly questionable demonstrate certain apparant absudities especilly in terms of reductions to the abusrd
wow. I am certainly no master of the English language, but I think I can make out from this that you dont believe Einstein because it goes against your intuition? Is that correct?
Personally yes thats a fair assumption , i read stuff by einstein and i just dont understand why people think its all that important . His thought experiments seems like fools gold tome , i just turn away from it because i dont like it . There are reasns for this underlying my opinions but i am not the sort of person who introspects like that to diagnose exactly why i think someone else is aparently misguided .
Thats the beauty of forums and discussions imo in that these theings can be expanded upon in a way that is natural . I have no doubts as yet as to the validity of my position , and becoming aware of the alternate opinions and their scientific and actual evidential basis is significant .
Its not at heart a discussion about me or you or any other personality ..its a discussion of scientific validity which is the basis of all scientific progress . And it is ultimately a discussion of, i believe, the actual living process of scientific revolution .
-------------------- It's a beautiful lie .. It's a perfect denial . Such a beautiful lie to believe in So beautiful, beautiful it makes me .. Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus! Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight. Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: Diploid]
#7224651 - 07/25/07 11:57 PM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Diploid said: Faith .. no . just basic intuitive common sense
Yes, it's faith. It's faith because you blindly accept what they say even though they can't defend their position with a real science paper. Instead, all they do is sell mumbo jumbo new age videos to gullible people who know nothing about physics and who are incapable of enough critical thought to wonder why no peer-reviewed science journal even acknowledges them.
I believe they can defend their position with a scientific paper, but scientific papers are only a reflection of evidence not a proof of it. Ultimately the proof of a thing is not in the number of scientific publications but in the reality of the thing and the relative faults of each explanation given.
Its intuitive common sense in my view from my perspective in general but the discussion isn't about me . Its a discussion of actuality and our approximations of it and the faults that necessarily lie within the process of approximation .
Is there any single matter of evidence relating to the Electric Universe theory that you believe actually proves it is false Diploid?
-------------------- It's a beautiful lie .. It's a perfect denial . Such a beautiful lie to believe in So beautiful, beautiful it makes me .. Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus! Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight. Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: Diploid]
#7225136 - 07/26/07 05:11 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
> Another "comparative mythologist", whatever that means.
English major (with an inflated sense of self-titlement).
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: cleeen]
#7225162 - 07/26/07 05:39 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
> Its intuitive common sense
Science (or more accurately, nature) is seldom intuitive to common sense.
> but scientific papers are only a reflection of evidence not a proof of it.
We had this discussion on the forum before, a few years ago. The word "proof" has a different "strength" in all three of common usage, scientific usage, and mathematical usage. In science, very seldom does "proof" mean "absolute".
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
SymmetryGroup8
It's about theFLOW!



Registered: 02/25/07
Posts: 506
Last seen: 16 years, 3 months
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: Seuss]
#7225620 - 07/26/07 09:19 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
seriously dude. If what you say is supported by strong evidence, well, just wait, it will be accepted by the scientific community...I have hmmm faith, in the scientific community.
-------------------- Be like water my friend!
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: Seuss]
#7225736 - 07/26/07 09:49 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said:
Quote:
> Physics but without any laws of physics
Look at it from a different view point... for example, if there were no atoms before the big bang, then the laws of physics that govern the behavior of atoms wouldn't matter (or exist). Replace "atoms" with whatever other "thing" that didn't exist before, or immediately after, the big bang.
Well technically the laws of physics would have to pre-exist the matter wouldn't they .. fits so nicely with the creationist model the laws being created perhaps a day or two before the material , which is fine especially if you accept another a-priori being that this whole dimension of reality was created especially for the occassion . i.e gods behind the scenes setting the whole thing up .
But is it actually supported by the evidence they say it is - i dunno , it just seems a bit too thin and suspicious to me .
-------------------- It's a beautiful lie .. It's a perfect denial . Such a beautiful lie to believe in So beautiful, beautiful it makes me .. Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus! Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight. Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: SymmetryGroup8]
#7225828 - 07/26/07 10:13 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
24 December 2006 The Electric Sky—Interview with the author
Q: Can you tell us in just a couple of sentences the most important ideas in Plasma Cosmology. A: Interplanetary space, interstellar space, and intergalactic space are all filled with ions and electrons (electric charges) – we call this Plasma. Our space probes have measured it. Radio telescopes tell us there are vast magnetic fields there too – and long filaments of moving charges (electric currents). These filaments make up a vast stringy spaghetti-like structure of interconnected paths upon which stars and galaxies form and which are surrounded by magnetic fields. The electromagnetic forces that exist in this environment vastly overpower gravitational forces.
Q: So you are saying that stars and planets are somehow formed by electric currents? What about the “accretion disks” that astronomers say condense down into stars and planets. A: These long filaments are called “Birkeland currents” and they have a property of being able to squeeze clouds of matter together - this is called the “z-pinch” effect. It’s not magic – it is a well-documented phenomenon that we see in the laboratory. On the other hand, “accretion disks” are one of those off-the-cuff inventions thrown out by astronomers to a gullible public. You can’t make accretion disks accrete in lab experiments or in computer simulations. If our solar system is the result of an “accretion disk” then answer this question: Neptune’s moon Triton travels “backward” in its orbit around Neptune. In other words, if we look down on the north poles of both Neptune and Triton, the planet rotates in the usual counter-clockwise direction, but its moon travels clockwise in its orbit. Clearly, if both these bodies were formed from the same rotating “accretion disk,” their angular momentums should not be in opposite directions. At least five of the smallest moons of Jupiter also exhibit this same “strange” behavior. Venus rotates backwards on its axis. How did it get that motion from an accretion disk that made all the other planets rotate the other way? And how can a swirling cloud of dust and matter "accrete" (get smaller)? Such a shrinking process would increase its rotational velocity - just like a twirling ice skater who brings her arms in closer to her body in order to spin faster.
Q: Have plasma cosmologists such as you made any predictions that have been successful? Astronomers have made lots of successful predictions. A: Oh really? Name one. They claim they have. But they haven’t. Take for example the results of helioseismology – astronomers claim they have “probed the Sun” and found that their models “predict” the oscillations and resonances occurring in the Sun with fantastic accuracy. Not true. First, nobody can “probe” the Sun. We can’t get at it – it’s too hot. What astronomers did is sit here on Earth and observe fluctuations in the light coming from the Sun. They then made up a set of mathematical equations that produces the same sort of oscillating signal. It is easy to make up the mathematical model AFTER you see the data. That’s not a prediction. If their equation has enough terms they can get 100% correspondence with the data. That’s a posteriori DESCRIPTION not a PREDICTION. Do you remember the “Deep Impact” experiment a year or so ago – NASA threw a block of copper into a comet. They said this head-on collision was going to produce a crater on the comet and the photographs they would take of the shape of this new crater were going to tell us what the comet was made of. A colleague of mine, Wal Thornhill, made a real prediction: Because of the properties of the plasma surrounding the Sun (sometimes called the “solar wind”) Wal suggested that the onrushing comet would be at a different voltage from the block of copper. Therefore, just before the physical collision, there would be a spark discharge, a flash that would precede the main collision. This is exactly what happened. NASA said “What you see is something really surprising”. They could not explain it. The reaction of mainstream astrophysics – even after Thornhill’s prediction had been so singularly correct, so on the mark – was an abrupt, off-hand rejection: “It’s complete cobblers,” said Dr. David Hughes, comet expert and professor of astrophysics at Britain’s University of Sheffield. “Absolute balderdash. Electricity on the surface of a comet? Forget about it. It’s not a contender.” Those who refuse to learn are doomed to continuing ignorance. In 1996 the European Space Agency’s ROSAT satellite observed x-rays being emitted from Comet Hyakutake. Astronomers were again “surprised.” A non-electrical “dusty snow-ball” would not do that. But x-rays are expected from a high-voltage double layer such as would enclose a comet’s plasma sheath. So we are gaining more and more evidence that comets are good examples of an electrical phenomenon – mainstream astronomers not only do not believe it – they get downright insulting to anyone who mentions the idea. How does your dentist produce x-rays? Does he throw snowballs around his office?
Q: Well, given your feelings about accepted astronomical theories, what do you think about the Big Bang? A: Let me return the compliment – It’s complete cobblers, it’s balderdash. One of the fundamental assumptions on which the Big Bang hypothesis is based is that if light coming from an object in deep space exhibits a property called “redshift”, then this object must be extremely distant and also be going away from us very rapidly. They say they observe this very often and this is why the universe is expanding away from the point where the Bang happened. A very well-known astronomer (he was Edwin Hubble’s assistant), Halton C. Arp, has taken dozens of images of objects that have very different redshift values that are connected together. If they are physically connected by bridges of matter, then they cannot be at vastly different distances from us. He even has an image of a high redshift quasar that is in front of a low redshift galaxy. If the high redshift object is closer to us than the low redshift galaxy, then that disproves the “redshift = distance” basis of the Big Bang. There are many other deficiencies in the Big Bang theory. The density of the universe predicted by the BB theory, when the density of light elements like lithium, helium and deuterium are considered, are self contradictory. Big Bang proponents like to say the measured temperature of the Cosmic Background Radiation proves the BB Theory. What they don’t tell you is that one of the most famous BB proponents, George Gamov, predicted that the temperature of the CMB would be 50 Kelvin. Many other estimates in the range 2.8 to 7 Kelvin had already been made by non-BB astrophysicists. When the temperature was finally determined (3Kelvin), Big Bangers immediately claimed that was what they "had said all along." It wasn’t. That is a lie. Everyone else had gotten closer to the right answer – their guess was 16 times too large. For the BB to be correct, 96% of the matter in the universe has to be invisible and not measurable. A cosmology that leaves 96% of the universe unexplained is something less than a riotous success.
Q: We often hear about Missing Matter and Dark Energy. What are they? A: They are examples of those “invented fictional entities” I mentioned. • Missing matter was invented because there isn’t enough real matter in the outer reaches of galaxies to account for how they rotate if the only mechanism you are willing to consider is gravity. • Dark Energy is a force that “has to exist” if the expansion of the universe is to be explainable by Einstein’s General Relativity. • WIMPs, MACHOs, neutron stars, and the “strings” in String Theory are similar fabrications. All of these are Fictional Ad hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Efforts to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories – FAIRIE DUST.
-------------------- It's a beautiful lie .. It's a perfect denial . Such a beautiful lie to believe in So beautiful, beautiful it makes me .. Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus! Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight. Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: cleeen]
#7225898 - 07/26/07 10:32 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Nobel Prize for Big Bang is a Fizzer29 October 2006
If Arp and others are right and the Big Bang is dead, what does the Cosmic Microwave Background signify?
The simplest answer, from the highly successful field of plasma cosmology, is that it represents the natural microwave radiation from electric current filaments in interstellar plasma local to the Sun. Radio astronomers have mapped the interstellar hydrogen filaments by using longer wavelength receivers. The dense thicket formed by those filaments produces a perfect fog of microwave radiation%u2014as if we were located inside a microwave oven. Instead of the Cosmic Microwave Background, it is the Interstellar Microwave Background. That makes sense of the fact that the CMB is too smooth to account for the lumpiness of galaxies and galactic clusters in the universe. We cannot "see" them through the local microwave fog.

Here we see the improvement in resolution between COBE and the WMAP project. The pie chart shows the constituents of the universe based on Big Bang cosmology. The most important result from WMAP is the filamentary structure and (red) hot spots in the microwave background. Images courtesy of NASA.
Ironically for the Nobel jury, the death notice for the Big Bang has been provided by the unprecedented accuracy of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, or WMAP project, which was designed to map the CMB. Rather than "pinpoint when the first stars formed and provide new clues about events that transpired in the first trillionth of a second of the universe," the more detailed map matches the unique heated plasma signature of interactions between local interstellar hydrogen filaments. So it is, with a sigh of utter relief, we can dispose of all the whimsical nonsense accompanying the Big Bang hypothesis%u2014the invisible dark matter, the dark energy, the expanding universe (whatever that meant) and creation of matter from nothing. (And cosmologists can don sackcloth and ashes and admit their profound ignorance%u2014while pigs perform aerobatics overhead and the Nobel committee ask for their prize money back.) Nobel Prize for Big Bang is a Fizzer
-------------------- It's a beautiful lie .. It's a perfect denial . Such a beautiful lie to believe in So beautiful, beautiful it makes me .. Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus! Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight. Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: cleeen]
#7225943 - 07/26/07 10:47 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
A Real 'Theory of Everything'01 January 2006
The electron is not a fundamental, point-like particle.4 It must have structure to provide its dipole magnetic field. There must be orbital motion of charges within the electron to generate the magnetic dipole. The transfer of electrical energy between the charges in their orbits must be resonant and near-instantaneous for the electron to be a stable particle. The same model applies to the proton and the neutron. This model satisfies Einstein's view that there must be some lower level of structure in matter to cause resonant quantum effects.
...
The notion that matter can be annihilated when normal matter meets antimatter is a confusion of language. Matter can neither be destroyed nor created nor can matter be exchanged for energy. Einstein's E = mc2 refers to mass, a property of matter, not matter itself. The mathematical relationship represents the restructuring of resonant systems of charge. What seems to happen in "annihilation" is that the complementary resonant charge structures of a particle and its antiparticle combine so that almost all of the internal energy is radiated away and the combined charges form a new collapsed particle of low internal energy.
The most collapsed form of matter is the neutrino, which has a vanishingly small mass. However, the neutrino must contain all of the charges required to form two particles – a particle and its antiparticle. This symmetry explains why a neutrino is considered to be its own anti-particle. A neutrino may accept energy from a gamma ray to reconstitute a particle and its anti-particle. "Empty space" is full of neutrinos. They are the repositories of matter in the universe, awaiting the burst of gamma-radiation to expand them to form the stuff of atoms. The weird "zoo" of short-lived particles created in particle accelerators and seen in cosmic rays are simply unstable resonant systems of charge.
...
This simple electrical model of matter has the great virtue of reducing all known forces to a single one – the electric force. However, it has a price. We must abandon our peculiar phobia against a force acting at a distance. And we must give up the notion that the speed of light is a real speed barrier. It may seem fast to us, but on a cosmic scale it is glacial. Imposing such a speed limit and requiring force to be transmitted by particles would render the universe completely incoherent. If an electron is composed of smaller subunits of charge orbiting within the classical radius of an electron, then the electric force must operate at a speed far in excess of the speed of light for the electron to remain a coherent object. In fact, it has been calculated that if released, the subunits of charge in the electron could travel from here to the far side of the Andromeda galaxy in one second!
We have direct evidence of the superluminal action of the electric force, given that gravity is a longitudinal electric force. Indeed, Newton's celebrated equation requires that gravity act instantly on the scale of the solar system. It has been calculated that gravity must operate at a speed of at least 2x1010 times the speed of light, otherwise closely orbiting stars would experience a torque that would sling them apart in mere hundreds of years. Similarly, the Earth responds to the gravitational pull of the Sun where it is at the moment, not where the Sun was 8 minutes ago. If this were not so, the Earth and all other planets in the solar system would be slung into deep space within a few thousand years. Gravity is therefore an electrical property of matter, not a geometrical property of space.
...
What about time? With all bodies in the Milky Way galaxy communicating their positions effectively in real time through the electric force of gravity, it means there is a universal time. There can be no time distortion or time travel – something that common sense always told us.
...
What about black holes? They are a mathematical fiction, a near-infinite concentration of mass, required to explain concentrated sources of energy seen at galactic centers, by employing the weakest force in Nature – gravity. It is the high-school howler of dividing by zero. Plasma cosmology shows that where electrical energy is concentrated at the center of a galaxy, gravity can be ignored in favor of far more powerful electromagnetic forces. The collimated jets of matter coming from that focus are also replicated to scale in plasma labs. The jets are inexplicable if a black hole is supposed to be a cosmic sink for matter.
...
The electrical relationship between matter and mass allows us to understand how quasars can be newborn objects that have low mass and brightness and high intrinsic redshifts. With time, their mass increases and their intrinsic redshift decreases in quantum jumps. This shows that quantum effects also occur on a galactic scale. It is another powerful argument for the near infinite speed of the electric force. The electrical nature of the universe reveals the currently accepted life story of stars as an elaborate fiction. Stars do not self-immolate. Plasma cosmologists identify cosmic electrical power lines of unknown origin that shape galaxies and light the stars in our small corner of the universe. These findings about intrinsic redshift and electric stars explodes the big bang myth: The universe we can see is not expanding; it is only a small part of the universe that is of unknown extent and unknown age.
-------------------- It's a beautiful lie .. It's a perfect denial . Such a beautiful lie to believe in So beautiful, beautiful it makes me .. Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus! Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight. Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: cleeen]
#7226009 - 07/26/07 10:58 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Cleen, that's enough cluttering the forum with cutting and pasting unsupported nonsense from the same non-science web site.
If you can't defend your ideas yourself or with a link to a peer-reviewed science journal, then stop posting.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: Diploid]
#7226046 - 07/26/07 11:06 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
LOL .. stop acting like an arrogant rude spoilt child Diploid , these are important matters .   you do take nice photos tho 
i like the discussion of an instantaneous universe and electrons particles that can span galaxies in moments myself
peer reviewed blah blah .. WMD blah blah .. closed minds blah blah .. big money blah blah .. arrogance blah blah
-------------------- It's a beautiful lie .. It's a perfect denial . Such a beautiful lie to believe in So beautiful, beautiful it makes me .. Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus! Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight. Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.
|
Diploid
Cuban


Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: cleeen]
#7226053 - 07/26/07 11:07 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
This thread has been closed.
Reason: Waste of space cluttering the forum with cut/paste.
|
|