Home | Community | Message Board

Avalon Magic Plants
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


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, 6 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: cleeen]
    #7221078 - 07/25/07 06:59 AM (16 years, 6 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


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, 6 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban


Folding@home Statistics
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, 6 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban


Folding@home Statistics
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, 6 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


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, 6 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAcyl
cyanidepoisoning
Male User Gallery

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, 6 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.


--------------------
:scrambled:

1 ,2


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


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, 6 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban


Folding@home Statistics
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, 6 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. :shrug:

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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban


Folding@home Statistics
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, 6 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


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, 6 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie


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, 6 months ago)



Diploid FTW  :rocket:



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)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban


Folding@home Statistics
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, 6 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


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, 6 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


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, 6 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 19 days
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: Diploid]
    #7225136 - 07/26/07 05:11 AM (16 years, 6 months ago)

> Another "comparative mythologist", whatever that means.

English major (with an inflated sense of self-titlement).


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 19 days
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: cleeen]
    #7225162 - 07/26/07 05:39 AM (16 years, 6 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSymmetryGroup8
It's about theFLOW!
Male


Registered: 02/25/07
Posts: 506
Last seen: 16 years, 7 days
Re: The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics [Re: Seuss]
    #7225620 - 07/26/07 09:19 AM (16 years, 6 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!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


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, 6 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblecleeen
Stranger
 User Gallery


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, 6 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Astronomy and UFO's Ego Death 700 2 01/16/07 02:26 AM
by Murex
* Astronomy Bully 762 3 10/03/07 09:32 PM
by ToTheSummit
* For all the astronomers/stargazers ToTheSummit 958 8 10/13/08 07:04 PM
by PhanTomCat
* Solar System May Be Unique After All, Astronomers Say
( 1 2 all )
ivi 4,500 21 08/23/04 07:53 PM
by Asante
* Australian astronomers expect Martian invasion Psilocybeingzz 3,494 19 06/04/07 07:41 PM
by ArcofaJourney
* 20 light-year wide particle accelerator spotted by astronomers MarioNett 2,190 18 04/16/05 11:06 AM
by Aeolus1369
* The Feynman Lectures on Physics Annom 1,290 6 10/24/07 01:50 PM
by RoosterCogburn
* Non-math oriented book about current particle physics freddurgan 1,312 13 11/01/07 08:17 PM
by and0rr

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner
3,395 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 15 queries.