|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 03/09/2005 : 14:16:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Yes in fact Dave, the search for Gravitons continues to this day, unsucessful. They are building some monster g-decector somewhere though.
Well, I knew that someone was working on a gravity wave detector, but I didn't know - until reading the Wikipedia entry - that gravity waves are predicted to be just big coherent collections of lots of gravitons. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Hal
Skeptic Friend
USA
302 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2005 : 14:43:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Hal
I'm very new here, but Lawrules almost seems to have studied at the same, ahem, institutions as another prominent poster
That thought occurred to me after the third post in this thread. They both confessed, and obviously share, a lack of understanding of the English language, and contextual comprehension. The logical mistakes that Lawrules has made, is more similar to Hovind/AiG kind of creationists though. It sets Lawrules apart from latinijral.
Good point. The statement that really raised my suspicions was:
quote:
With all the respect that you deserve, but it appears that for some of you Hawking is perfect and he is not.
which is reminiscent of latinijral's obsession with Randi and the JREF, the purported "sacred cows" of the skeptic community. |
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King Jr.
 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2005 : 15:20:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hal
I'm very new here, but Lawrule almost seems to have studied at the same, ahem, institutions as another prominent poster (http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/pop_profile.asp?mode=display&id=1541). Am I missing something here? Apart from the entertainment value, I find the opposition of illucid fantasy and reasoned response in these threads to be genuinely instructive. Is this poster for real, or is he a rhetorical invention of the SFN?
No. Lawrules is a genuine person. The SFN frowns on sock-puppetry. We get enough kooks and people unfamiliar with the workings of science to not have to invent any.
Welcome to the SFN. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Lawrules
New Member
26 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2005 : 13:55:03 [Permalink]
|
Well, I recognize that I'm far behind your comments and questions, however I will catch up with everything concerning this topic about Relativity.
Dave W,
1)- The theory indeed did not pass the test. That is a fact. No one can deny that, there are lots of credible witness who portrait the validation of the theory of Relaitivity as controversial.
2)- That fact alone invalidate the theory and all its consequences. Observations made before and after 1919 have gave disparate measurements but 1.7 seconds arc of displacement of the stars located near the Sun. That invalidates the theory of Relativity as well.
3)- Your calculations about how "younger" an astronaut gets by traveling at 5 mps are great, however, as I pointed above, the calculations made by Einstein did not included the negative biological effects caused by the outer space in humans, because Einstein was indeed an ignorant about those consequences. He may thought that the traveling of humans in space was similar to travel from New York to California in a train. David, you must understand the impossibility of such calculations, there were made in base of imaginations instead of facts. Do not expect better in traveling at faster speeds, the negative biological consequences will always exist. The outer space is not our natural environment.
4)- It is not true that words take decades to be included in dictionaries. That was years ago in a different world were computers weren't available. Today, new words or new meaning of words are presented to the Real Academies of the languages of the world to be reviewed and approved or discarded. Did Hawking present his aplication for his word "evaporate" as black holes expelling radiation or whatever? Please, provide the evidence. You must understand that his papers to the journals and his book were published years ago already, and that new meaning of the word "evaporate" should be approved already. I know that nobody noticed his mistake until I mentioned here.
5)- I admire your great abilities in mathematics, and I should like to add something which maybe is unknown for you. Check in any web searcher the words "cosmological consideratiions". You will read that the web sites, specially encyclopedias,will tell you that thanks to "einstein" such idea is the pioneer of our new view of the universe, and such and such.
I congratulate to those for they ignorance. With all my respect, please allow me to post what Einstein said about it.
This is Einstein talking with Moszkowski in Berlin, 1917:
"The whole universe has a diameter of about 100 million light years, in round numbers. That amounts to about 700 trillion miles {the British trillion of 10^18). It follows from the mathematical calculations which I have presented in "Cosmological Considerations Arising from the General Theory of Relativity," in which the figure I have just quoted is not given. The exact figure is a minor question. What is important is to recognize that the universe may be regarded as a closed continuum as far as distance measurements are concerned."
Well, I must say that his 100 million light years is like to say that the earth is flat...no question about it.
His ignorance was obvious, his calculations were based in the small universe sighted in his days. Today, the universe is calculated as 12 to 14 billion light years.
You must admit the ignorance of Einstein or admit that the universe has expanded 12 billion light years since 1917.
You have no other choice.
As you can see, his theories are good for nothing. with all my honesty and the respect that you deserve, I will reply your concerns and comments in an orderly way. I think that I have been replying to comments without the respected information.
I have every point of yours in the introduction of the Law of Perception. I will post later on two more pages of the introduction and answer your questions after that.
I beg for your patience, and thank you for keeping this conversation in the best attitude of learning together about science, because I think, that is what we want to learn about in these forums.
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2005 : 13:56:39 [Permalink]
|
| Wow you are so deluded its astonishing. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2005 : 14:11:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Wow you are so deluded its astonishing.
My thoughts precisely. It must feel really great to consider one's self superior to not only Hawkings, but Einstein and the gang.
On another matter, though, I wonder how one goes about contacting Mr. Hawkings... |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
| Edited by - Siberia on 03/10/2005 14:13:15 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2005 : 14:23:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules
1)- The theory indeed did not pass the test. That is a fact. No one can deny that, there are lots of credible witness who portrait the validation of the theory of Relaitivity as controversial.
The idea that a single test validates or invalidates a theory is a symptom of your ignorance of the process of science, Lawrules, and not a proper criticism of relativity in any form.quote:
2)- That fact alone invalidate the theory and all its consequences.
This is false. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it will always be false.quote:
3)- Your calculations about how "younger" an astronaut gets by traveling at 5 mps are great, however, as I pointed above, the calculations made by Einstein did not included the negative biological effects caused by the outer space in humans, because Einstein was indeed an ignorant about those consequences.
The negative biological consequences are simply not relevant to the validity of relativity. There are no negative biological consequences to an atomic clock, and they validate relativity each and every day.quote:
Do not expect better in traveling at faster speeds, the negative biological consequences will always exist.
I didn't say "faster speeds," I said constant acceleration. Biologically, constant linear acceleration is no different from gravity.quote:
The outer space is not our natural environment.
And you simply ignored my point(s) about different environments.quote:
4)- It is not true that words take decades to be included in dictionaries.
And I pointed out that "black hole evaporation" is a term included in Wikipedia, without the implication that black holes are liquid. You can continue to argue this if you'd like, but unless you tell us how Hawking context implies liquidity, you're going to be going nowhere.quote:
I know that nobody noticed his mistake until I mentioned here.
Because it wasn't a mistake, except in your own mind. You have not presented a single article by a professional physicist or cosmologist which disputes Hawking's invention of a new meaning for "evaporate."quote:
5)- I admire your great abilities in mathematics, and I should like to add something which maybe is unknown for you. Check in any web searcher the words "cosmological consideratiions"...
This is Einstein talking with Moszkowski in Berlin, 1917:...
Well, I must say that his 100 million light years is like to say that the earth is flat...no question about it.
His ignorance was obvious, his calculations were based in the small universe sighted in his days. Today, the universe is calculated as 12 to 14 billion light years.
You are obviously scientifically ignorant of the facts.
The universe is calculated to be 12 to 14 billion years old, but due to expansion, it was recently calculated to be about 148 billion light years across.
And gee, Einstein didn't even agree with what's now called "the Big Bang" theory, and thought that the universe exists in a steady state. That's four things Einstein was wrong about (five if you include his 100-million-light-year figure). None of them invalidate either theory of relativity.
Why are you so intent on making such ad hominem logical fallacies?quote:
As you can see, his theories are good for nothing.
As you are ignorant of, his theories are in use in GPS. They correctly predict the orbit of Mercury. Satellites are being launched these days which will test even more of the predictions of Einstein's relativity theories.quote:
I beg for your patience, and thank you for keeping this conversation in the best attitude of learning together about science, because I think, that is what we want to learn about in these forums.
I don't see any intent to learn on your part. People have been offering you information and counter-examples to just about everything you've posted, yet you persist in your fallacious arguments and villification of Einstein.
I must say, however, that I've learned quite a bit from my fellow posters who've provided solid answers to your points. So I'll thank you for that, but shake my head at your attempts to portray yourself as someone trying to learn this science. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2005 : 14:33:10 [Permalink]
|
Lawrules said:
quote:
3)- Your calculations about how "younger" an astronaut gets by traveling at 5 mps are great, however, as I pointed above, the calculations made by Einstein did not included the negative biological effects caused by the outer space in humans, because Einstein was indeed an ignorant about those consequences.
Oh fer crisakes!!!
PAY ATTENTION. The idea that space travel can cause biological damage from radiation (or anything else) has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the time dialation effect.
If the twin that went into outerspace, in the twin paradox, died from excessive radiation exposure his corpse would be younger than his brother when he returned to Earth.
Do you understand the twin paradox is just and easy way (for most people) to demonstrate the time dialation affect, it really has nothing to do with health.
I recommend that you take some physics courses at your local community college.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
belt
New Member
USA
17 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2005 : 14:54:33 [Permalink]
|
Or biology courses...To compare and contrast. How relativity has anything to do with biology (as it pertains to health) is beyond me).
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2005 : 16:30:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I recommend that you take some physics courses at your local community college.
Shouldn't he start with high-school physics? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2005 : 20:48:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Your calculations about how "younger" an astronaut gets by traveling at 5 mps are great, however, as I pointed above, the calculations made by Einstein did not included the negative biological effects caused by the outer space in humans, because Einstein was indeed an ignorant about those consequences. He may thought that the traveling of humans in space was similar to travel from New York to California in a train. David, you must understand the impossibility of such calculations, there were made in base of imaginations instead of facts. Do not expect better in traveling at faster speeds, the negative biological consequences will always exist. The outer space is not our natural environment.
The extent of the stupidity contained within that statement is absolutely staggering. You are seriously suggesting that the adverse biological effects of low grav environments are evidence that contradicts the temproral effects of time dilation, aren't you? Unreal.
quote:
Shouldn't he start with high-school physics?
What he should start with is a return to gradeschool grammar in his native language, where they can teach him that words have more than one definition and that those definitions can change. Then he should take a few more English language classes if he wants to participate in English language debate.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Lawrules
New Member
26 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2005 : 16:08:39 [Permalink]
|
Lawrules here is some more experimental results from the real world:
These are taken from http://astro.physics.sc.edu/selfpacedunits/Unit57.html
I have reviewed your web site reference. Did you notice how nice are the caricatures? I like the color of those cartoons.
Well, don't you think that the image of the arc of displacement of the star seeing in it is the real displacement. Read that the figure clearly says that such drawing is "exaggerated" to show the deflection. In the real world, the arc of displacement cannot be distinguished with your naked eyes, you need to compare the position of the affected stars by the reflection of their images in the atmosphere of the Sun with other stars located further from the Sun.
The theory of Relativity also is invalidated because instead of using six other fixed stars positions as references of comparison, only five were used with the African expedition plates. The validation was a complete fraud. No doubt about it.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second prediction is the deflection of light in a gravitational field as shown in the text Fig. H 19-31d. Since the effect is so small in the solar system, it can only be detected for light that just grazes the Sun. This is shown in Fig. 57-6. Solar eclipse expeditions took photographs that verified this prediction. Nowadays, with radio telescopes, we can measure this effect very accurately since the Sun occults several quasars and pulsars each year.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me, but please read that such figure says that the drawing has been exaggerated to show you the deflection. That drawing is not valid. There is no such evidence of quasars and other similar things, what is a fraud from its beginnings it is fraud forever. It is amazing that even knowing that the theory of Relativity was validated with fraud in 1919 you still believing in that lie. Amazing.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The third prediction of the theory is light should lose energy as it climbed out of a gravitational field. The gravitational red shift of light was first measured in the spectra of cool red dwarf stars. Accurate measurements were made on the Earth's surface by sending light up and down a tower. The Mossbauer Effect, which allows the frequency to be measured very accurately, was used.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAit a second right there, first the theory uses the language that it is not light the affected by gravity but the affected and distorted space-time will cause the deviation of light.
Please, change your words and use the proper way to describe such imaginary event of light slowed by the distortion of space-time affected by gravity.
Do not make shorcuts, use the proper construction of sentences when you mention about such phenomena. I can tell you that after repeating it in that way, you are gonna stop believing in what you say without my intervention.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The General Theory not only predicts a deflection of light as the light passes near a gravitating body, it also predicts that it should take the light longer to pass through the region near the star. Since then, the experiment has been repeated with other space probes and with the signals from the few pulsars that are occulted by the Sun.[...] The pulsar timing signals, like the signals from the space probes, arrive slightly later than they would have if the Sun were not present. The results are in agreement with the predictions of the General Theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First things first.
I will tell you why. In order to validate a theory, you must do the tests not only once but several times. The theory of Relativity was validated with fraud with one test only. That is against the scientific method.
You can savbe your other predictions, because in order to be validated, the main prediction established by Einstein himself was the 1.7 seconds arc of displacement.
In the real world, that deflection did not happen. By consequence, the evidence that space-time exists was invalidated.
Of course that a fraud validated the theory of Einstein, still, his space-time is nothing but imagination because the 1.7 secods never was observed...never. That is a fact, and facts rule in science.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the evidence indicates that Eistein was right and you are wrong.
I don't think so, I am skeptic. The 1.7 seconds of arc never was observed, but disparated displacements of 0.8 seconds, 1.3 seconds, 1.9 seconds, 2.1 seconds, and so and so. 1.7 seconds itself never was observed, neither a closed one less tham 0.5 seconds to validate that theory. That theory is scientifically invalid, but fraudeulently validated.
By the way Lawrules said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clocks do not measure the passage of time. There is not a direct or indirect connection between clocks and any imaginary passage of time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you elaborate on this I must not fully understand what you are saying. You see when I was late to a meeting I tried to tell my boss that I stopped wearing a watch because clocks have nothing to do with measuring the passage of time but he didn't buy it.
Sure, my pleasure.
You see, since ancient epochs, there is a belief that time is a physical dimension. The foundation of this belief is found in philosophy, and you know that very recently science and philosophy have demarcated limits between them. Philosophy still talking about science but in it there is not the need to demonstrate anything. In Science is different, you must demonstrated what you say, otherwise, your words are philosophy or whatever.
No one has demonstrated the existence of time as a physical dimension. No one.
Please, I invite you to make a review of Newton's and Einstein's writings, they won't define time with their correspondent factual evidence. Both talk of time as if time exists, but they don't have a single base foundation to support that idea.
Time, scientifically speaking, is just the "reference data obtained by the comparison of motion between things". This definition can be proved with factual evidence without doubts. This is a realistic and scientific definition of time which can be tested as many times you want, and the definition stays forever.
About clocks. Please go to a factory where clocks are made.
What you will see is that clocks are the calibration obtained from dividing the duration of the rotation of the earth into 24 parts, each on of those 24 parts into 60 parts, and each one of those 60 parts inoto 60 parts again. THat is all what clocks are.
This calibrated functional work will provide you a data. You call this data as hours, minutes, seconds. This method of comparison is similar to weight or longitude. Those as well are standard data used to be "compared" with other things. Actually, the weight doesn't measure anything until you "compare" it with something else.
Then, time is another measurement, with its correspondent units of measurement.
You notice that there is not a single |
|
|
|
Lawrules
New Member
26 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2005 : 16:32:44 [Permalink]
|
I quite disagree with your position, because without the establishment of rules, instead of science you are enclosed in a world of chaos.
Seriously, if you are incapable of grasping this very basic concept of langauge (that words can have multiple meanings, and that word meanings can change/expand over time) then there is no point in discussing things with you. If we can't even agree on what the basics of language are, then there is no way we will ever agree on specific word definitions. And, if we can't agree on definitions, then the entire concept of discussion and debate is rendered meanigless.
Manipulation of words won't make people as being right. IT beome meaningless to you by convenience, not so by reality and facts.
How long will take for you to understand that in science you just cannot talk as if you were saying poems?
Please, forget about it. I am skeptic. Laws are laws, rules are rules. Science does not accept assumption as reality, what is an assumption stays as an assumption. I clearly told you that you must make contact with Hawking and let him to explain where that idea of "evaporate" comes from.
Actually, the closest interpretation is that black holes are made of liquid and evaporate, because expelling radiation is not found as a scientific definition of "evaporation". Your interpretation is different, but you are not Hawking. This matter must be resolved by listening what Hawking says about it. You might understand that my proposition is the wise solution to this controversial use of the word "evaporate".
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take a digital quartz watch, compare its functional work with a similar one for a week. After being sure that both work well and they are set at the same data, put one of them in the freezer compartment of your refrigerator.
Check both clocks data everyday. The clock in the freezer will start to give a disparate data. In an experiment made with my little boy for his school science project, the clocks slowed at a rate of 6 seconds per day.
Then, clocks are affected by changes in their environment.
The atomic clocks are made of matter. Matter is indeed affected in outer space. A fact which give us great surprises, for example liquid metals which won't mix on earth, can be mixed in outerspace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bwaahahahaaahahahah!
Oh... man. That's great. I haven't had this much of a chuckle in days.
Please, keepem comming.
Well, you really don't have to heard it anymore, you just need to put a watch in the freezer compartment of your refrigerator and verify my words. Simple as that.
My words will be proved correct, your watch's data will slow and time dilatation has nothing to do with. Your watch's data will be faster and time cointraction has nothing to do with.
I will show you a device which indeed can measure the passage of something physical, the anemometer. The anemometer data will increase or decrease in accord to the fast or slow flowing of air.
That is a device which really measure the passage of something physical. Clocks are just devices calibrated to a determinated functional work: tic, tic, tic, tic...
On the other hand, just check the words "liquid metals in space" in a research tool in the web, and my statements are correct again. Matter shall suffer variations when is exposed to a different environment. No exceptions. The changes might be minimum in ceratin cases, but it shall happen.
Atomic clocks are made of matter, by consequence, atomic clocks functional work is affected as any other clock when are exposed to a different environment.
|
|
|
|
Lawrules
New Member
26 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2005 : 17:27:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For an unknown event -which after all this discussion, and you must recognize this- which is nothing but an imaginary event, the use of the word evaporate is simply irrelevant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great! Then why are you arguing that Hawking must have meant that black holes are liquid? It is crystal-clear from his writing that it's not what he meant, but you're trying to discredit all of science using this straw man argument. It's obviously relevant to you.
With all the respect that you deserve, but you have not proved that such imaginary black holes are science.
This is not as simple as you want to see things. I asked in my first postings to prove the last theorem of Fermat x^n + y^n = z^n using grains of rice, in other words, tranlasting those numbers in a physical event which can be tested, analized, evaluated, and more. There is no reply to my requirement.
The reson is simple, mathematics alone won't say anything valuable without the physical realization of what the numbers say. Besides that, an explanation must be given to support what numbers say. In other words, mathematics is not the language of science, mathematics is just a method used to explain an event.
Facts is the language of science because without facts science is mute.
I'm not discrediting science, I'm posting here the current situation of some theories of science. A theory is just an attempt to explain a phenomena, a theory is not the rule, a theory is not permanent, theories come and go.
Laws of science stay regardless of what happen in the physical universe, and the laws of science -not me- actually show that the theories of relativity are nothing but imaginations. Remember that their approval was made in 1919 with fraud. Please, never ever forget that, the theory of Relativity was validated with fraud. Actually, looking at that theory from the legal point of view, that theory is ilegally recognized as scientific.
No, you're missing the point.
Einstein's theories are in use every single day today. The "foundation" of them is the mathematics, which in a perfect world would give us perfect measurements, but we understand that our measuring tools are imprecise. The math is not.
You've been given many examples of special and general relativity in action, and have yet to state a convincing argument which posits an alternative mechanism which duplicates the results of Einstein's equations.
In other words, you're saying - in effect - "Einstein was wrong, but all of his mathematics work out correctly in real life for other reasons having nothing to do with space-time and/or gravity." This has, of course, very little practical difference from "Einstein was right."
Look, I have it in my introduction but I will post an advance of it as a comment so you please think about it.
Ptolomey was an ancient scientists. He measured lots of things, between them, the orbits of planets, the moon and...yes...and the sun.
His measurements about the "size" and the "orbit" of the Sun around the earth are amazingly correct, they fit very well with the observations made by Ptolomey.
However, the Sun is not as small as Ptolomey said, neither the Sun orbits around our planet. Neither the Sun is as hot as Ptolomey thought it was. Ptolomey based his calculations in an illusion. The coincidences are great, but still based in an illusion.
The existence of time as a physical dimension is just an illusion, because we do perceive motion and changes, and we notice that motion and changes have certain periods of duration. Since ancient epochs, the first scientists used a "cycled motion" as a standard motion to be compared with the changes and motion of other things. To this comparison those men called it "time".
To say that such reference data obtained by the comparison of the motion of physical means is a "physical dimension", that is an illusion. An illusion created by motion and distance.
Ptolomey's mathematical calculations were right only if the illusion of the Sun orbiting around the earth was real, but it is not. The calculations still correct but reality is different. The explanation to those calculations say that those are correct inside the illusion, but confronting those calculations against reality, even when those numbers are correct, the events are explained more properly with more accurate methods. Then, you can use the numbers of Ptolomey if you want to assume that the sun orbits around the earth, but such is pseudo-science.
The same happen with the theories of Relativity and other theories implying time as a physical dimension, they fit greately with the illusion that time is a physical dimension, and actually your eyes see that the calculations fit, however, you also see that the sun orbits around the earth.
Because in reality, Einstein was wrong in a few places. He was wrong to insist that the randomness in QED shouldn't be there. He treated much of his family poorly. And if he was insisting that one instance of one experiment would disprove both special and general relativity, he was wrong about that, too.
So, why don't you tell us why you consider Einstein to be infallible on that point?
I really don't get into private lives unless is necessary, for exampole the guy was a retarded but people thought that he was not. Then, you must investigate his actions, reactions, words, etc. About how he handled his life as a husband and father, I strongly disagree to get into such matters, because that has nothing to do with science.
The point here is to recognize that without the fraud commited by Eddington in 1919, the world should be free of lots of imaginations which are wrongly considered as scientific theories. Unfortunatelly, the fraud was commited and today you and lots of people have inherited such ideas as something valuable in science.
Think about that. I'm not having a single benefit with this, not fame, not money, not a single recognition. However, this research is "impartial". This means, that no one takes sides in this research.
Facts are the rule, and only facts will disprove the veracity of the statements.
Very soon you will understand better about it after reading why the muons appear to last longer when are exposed to high speeds, and you will have the opportunity to compare the explanation given by the relativists and the explanation obtaining by describing what is a muon.
I'll hope, at least for you to think about it.
My best wishes to you Dave. |
|
|
|
Lawrules
New Member
26 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2005 : 17:57:11 [Permalink]
|
I know that at least one of the peer-reviewed journals practise anonymous review. This is done to ensure that the person submitting the paper have no influence on the review process. It has worked pretty well except in one case, unrelated to our discussion.
In answer to your question: No, we can not tell you who made the review. We only know that it was done by other experts in the same or closely related field. They obviously had no problem with the re-definition of the term.
I asked you about the reviewing of Hawking words because in another forum of science a student of physics made a complaint about Hawking's personality as an arrogant child with enough power to ignore any person who ask questions about possibilities other than his ideas about time and other topics. Hawking not only ignored him but he reacted as if this student was an "enemy of science".
Unfortunatelly I don't have the quotation and the web site, I read it about two years ago when I was surfing reading forums.
That is why I asked you about such review, because it appears that nobody has reviewed his words.
You keep saying that Black Holes are imaginary. Can you elaborate on that? The term refers to a sphere around the singularity from which nothing can escape. In a sense, this sphere is imaginary since nothing in it really exist except in a transitional state. If you mean that Black Holes really does not exist, why do you insist they are liquid?
I am not the one who say that the black holes are made of liquid. Please, read my words ver carefully. Read the whole context of my sentences, do not separate one sentence from another. What I said is that it appears that a new characteristic has been added to the black holes by Hawking when he said that black holes "evaporate".
Reading the whole context, I stated that such phenomena is nothing but imagination because its beginning is just that, the idea created by Michell of an imaginary event of a star 590 times greater than the Sun with its correspondent average of density...pulling its own light with the power of its own gravity. That is the beginning of that imagination.
The rest is just the development of the same imagination with some upgrades obtained from other imaginations.
I will compare the development of the imagination of black holes as a children's program where the tv host asked a riddle. Warm as water, Soft as kittens, Always better, When they fittens.
Who knows how, a child said from the back of the group, "the fish!!!".
"No", said the tv host, "it is not the fish", then, another child cried "The shark!!!"...
"No", said again the tv host, "it is not the shark". Another child cried from a different place of the group, "The whale!!!"
That is how the imagination of black holes has developed through the years, an imagination which started as black speheres first. I strongly recommend you to read Michell's ideas about those stars 590 times the size of the Sun. He did not imply the need of "collapsing", neither the neeed of the existence of a warped space-time, and more. He just made his calculations in base of abstract mathematics.
Michell's ideas are "The fish!!!", the other ideas added to the original black speheres as black holes are "The Shark!!!", and "The Whale!!!", which are the wrong answer to the riddle. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
