|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 02/24/2003 : 19:29:41
|
OK, time to throw away all our physics books....
quote:
Shockingly this new theory has so far explained every great mystery of science it has been applied to.
And...
quote:
Relativity is Obsolete!
http://www.thevortextheory.com/
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2003 : 10:31:10 [Permalink]
|
Almost 100% clearly little more than a book-sale.
A big contrast with the Mirror Matter thing that I (probably wrongly) posted over in the Astronomy Forum. He's selling a book too but he's also a real physicist in an Australian university and gives plenty of details fo free on the Web. 
Uh....and, BTW, there just might be something important in the notion of "Mirror Matter". |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
 |
|
|
riptor
Skeptic Friend
Germany
70 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2003 : 02:43:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Shockingly this new theory has so far explained every great mystery of science it has been applied to.
I love this kind of lies, formulated in a way that makes them true. :D |
Hail the Big bearded Jellyfish up in heaven above. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2003 : 11:45:02 [Permalink]
|
From the web site:quote:
If you draw a picture of one of the principle pieces of matter such as a proton, electron, or neutron, no scientist in the world can point to its mass.
Gee, if you "draw a picture" of any of those, that picture will consist of, at best, a fuzzy circle. Every scientist in the world can point to where the mass is. This kind of nonsense immediately sets off the crackpot sensors, and it only gets worse:quote:
Up until the latter half of the 20th Century, it was believed that the mass of matter and the volume of matter were directly related.
When the idea is generalized like that, it is false.quote:
For example, the more matter that is packed into a constant volume the more massive it is.
Well, that part is true.quote:
However, with the discovery of quarks within protons and neutrons, this idea is no longer valid.
Quarks are fantastically small yet possess most of the mass of protons and neutrons. This creates a problem because electrons, whose sizes are absolutely enormous in relation to quarks, possess less mass than quarks, destroying the relationship between mass and volume.
Which is wrong on so many levels. For one thing, the size of an electron is given by an upper bound, and nothing else, as far as I know. Their true size has not been determined. Secondly, even if the bit about size were true, electrons aren't made of quarks, so there's no reason to believe that their mass should be relative to a quark's mass. Thirdly, the argument denies that the density of matter is not a constant - in fact, to state the above, one must assume that all subatomic particles are equally dense! That's ludicrous.
Finally, it is clear that the author is treating the model we have for sub-atomic particles and their properties as if it were reality. For all we know, protons are shaped like the monolith from 2001: A Space Odessy but act as if they're little spheres. It doesn't matter (haha!), it's just math.
But with talk about "drawing a picture," it's clear that the author has mistaken the map for the terrain. And by saying "Einstein was wrong," and totting up the Nobel Prizes before they're awarded, he's guaranteed to get lots of points on the Crackpot Index.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
