More Evidence Einstein Was Wrong

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Density doesn't matter.

Are you saying that energy output in a system does not depend on concentration of ingredients for the reaction?

Oh boy, in this case ignorance is not a figure of speech, it's almost pulpable. If you ever finished high school, you didn't even get chemistry right. And you don't seem to have the smarts to compensate for not knowing the basics.

And this guy is calling Einstein a retard.

I noticed you didn't comment on the neutrino counts which blatantly falsify h-he fusion.

What's retarded is believing the standard model when every observed feature of the Sun refutes it.

Density doesn't matter when you have a large enough particle velocities. Tenuous plasma at high enough energies can produce fusion.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

I don't believe in plasma cosmology, but I'd like to give it a fair chance. Can someone explain, in as few words as possible, how is body attraction explained in plasma cosmology?

reply to post by buddhasystem


Man Mnemeth had been giving you guys, so much evidence to show that there are holes in modern physics; the evidence is there. They need to introduce models they observe instead of making theoretical assumptions based on math. Like string theory, stupidest thing ever. General relativity is all theoretical; it has never been applied to help things in the modern world. We basically use physics used before Einstein’s time in applied physics courses. There is a lot of believable information on that thunderbolts site, and they want you to debate them. I haven’t seen any of you on there yet. Go ahead, and debate in an intelligent way. Half the arguments on here are just ad hominem attacks.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Rather, an intense theoretical effort to discover new properties that solar neutrinos 'must have' has occurred. As a result of this effort, it was announced (June 2001) by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) in Canada that neutrinos have mass and can change 'flavor'. This supposedly accounts for why they have not been fully observed previously. However, several important questions remain to be answered about the methodology that was used by the SNO researchers in arriving at their conclusions.

I find Scott's explanation to be somewhat misleading by implying the findings which solved the missing neutrino problem are entirely theoretical.

Sun's Missing Neutrinos: Hidden in Plain Sight

''We've solved a 30-year-old puzzle of the missing neutrinos of the Sun,'' said Dr. Arthur B. McDonald, director of the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, near Sudbury, Ontario...

Neutrinos come in three types (physicists call them flavors): electron neutrinos, muon neutrinos and tau neutrinos, named according to the subatomic particles they usually associate with. Muon and tau particles are heavier particles that otherwise act like electrons. The neutrinos produced by the Sun are all electron neutrinos.

If all the neutrinos reaching Earth from the Sun were of the electron variety, then the neutrino rates measured by Super-Kamiokande and Sudbury should match up. But Super-Kamiokande detected more. Since the Sun produces only electron neutrinos -- the production of muon and tau neutrinos require higher-energy events, like matter falling into black holes or an exploding star -- that means some of them must change into muon or tau neutrinos.

''It's the first direct evidence for the changing of solar neutrinos from electron type to another type,'' Dr. Klein said. Most physicists had considered neutrino morphing to be the most likely explanation for the missing neutrinos.

So the fact that the neutrino counts in the Super-Kamiokande and Sudbury detectors didn't match up is not just theoretical, it's real observational evidence.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Density doesn't matter when you have a large enough particle velocities. Tenuous plasma at high enough energies can produce fusion.

Both temperatures and densities achieved in the Tokamak are many orders of magnitude higher than these in the corona, and yet the Tokamak doesn't even break even.

In an operating fusion reactor, part of the energy generated will serve to maintain the plasma temperature as fresh deuterium and tritium are introduced. However, in the startup of a reactor, either initially or after a temporary shutdown, the plasma will have to be heated to its operating temperature of greater than 10 keV (over 100 million degrees Celsius). In current tokamak (and other) magnetic fusion experiments, insufficient fusion energy is produced to maintain the plasma temperature.

With all your fetish for things electric, you are so lazy you didn't get simple fact straight. Calling Einstein a retard is, of course, a lot simpler... Except it does backfire.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by Maddogkull
Mnemeth had been giving you guys, so much evidence to show that there are holes in modern physics; the evidence is there.

Scientists admit there are holes in modern theory. The term "dark" in "dark matter" and "dark energy" is an obvious admission of some holes in our knowledge.

However, I can point to these holes and make any number of claims such as this flawed logic:

Mainstream physics is flawed because it can't explain dark matter and dark energy.

Mainstream physics also says that pigs can't fly.

As soon as mainstream physics comes up with the correct explanations for dark matter and dark energy, they will realize that pigs really can fly

You can substitute whatever absurd argument you like for flying pigs in that flawed logic, such as fusion occurring in the corona of the sun instead of the interior, or a number of other claims from plasma cosmology.

Just because we don't understand what dark matter is, doesn't mean pigs can fly, but this is analogous to the argument from plasma cosmologists. Don't fall victim to it.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by Maddogkull
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Man Mnemeth had been giving you guys, so much evidence to show that there are holes in modern physics; the evidence is there. They need to introduce models they observe instead of making theoretical assumptions based on math. Like string theory, stupidest thing ever. General relativity is all theoretical; it has never been applied to help things in the modern world.

You see, Mnemeth is dragging people like you into the sticky realm of false knowledge, where ignorami feel free to call Einstein a moron and string theory "stupidest thing ever", without ever having to go through a University level class in physics.

You further attest to your ignorance by saying "General relativity is all theoretical; it has never been applied to help things in the modern world."

Here we go:

To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy.

Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion.

Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.

The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time. This kind of accumulated error is akin to measuring my location while standing on my front porch in Columbus, Ohio one day, and then making the same measurement a week later and having my GPS receiver tell me that my porch and I are currently about 5000 meters in the air somewhere over Detroit.

The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system. For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, they slowed down the ticking frequency of the atomic clocks before they were launched so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations. Further, each GPS receiver has built into it a microcomputer that (among other things) performs the necessary relativistic calculations when determining the user's location.

Stop lecturing physicists, you may just look moderately smart.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I know, but there are a lot of great simulations based on observation of plasma characteristics in space. Like the similarities of plasma filaments and how the galaxies show signs resemble these things The galaxy is 99% plasma. How can anyone understand this. You should really debate the people on those forums, please I want to see it.

reply to post by Arbitrageur



Scott addressed that in the rest of his article

There simply is no way that a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel can reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel. The only way such conclusions can be made is when observations have been made at more than one place along the path! Further measurements (MiniBooNE 2007) have found no evidence to support the SNO 2001 announcement.

Clearly, although the fusion model is beloved by its advocates, an objective analysis of the Sudbury and MiniBooNE experiments reveal that the missing neutrino problem still remains very far from being solved. And unless it is, the fusion model stands completely falsified.

reply to post by buddhasystem


There have been people on the thunderbolts forums showing, how these things have been explained wrong to people. You can search it up on Google. I am trying to get you the right article from the site, but it seems like the forums are not working for me, the link. So I will try to post it when the forums go back up.

reply to post by buddhasystem


GPS clocks can be can be accounted for in a simpler fashion using Lorentz steady state relativity.

GPS clocks prove nothing.

reply to post by buddhasystem


There are people like Lawrence Krauss, who are physicists who think string theory is the stupidest thing ever. It is 100% math. All theoretical, not a least bit based on something observed; nothing. Now how can you believe in something that we have not observed at all? When you apply math and observation to the real world, then it becomes logical. To base everything on math, is just assumptions. Hence string theory is not based on observational experiments, so it cannot be valid.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Maddogkull]

Originally posted by Maddogkull
Like the similarities of plasma filaments and how the galaxies show signs resemble these things

The galaxy is 99% plasma. How can anyone understand this.

You should really debate the people on those forums, please I want to see it.

That's the reason Don Scott is subjected to such harsh criticism by the scientific community, because he thinks that if something looks like something else, that's what it is.

Read his rebuttal about one such claim from his website here:

www.thunderbolts.info...

IT LOOKS LIKE 'X’ SO IT MUST BE 'X’
TB condemns my pointing out that a similarity in appearance of certain objects might indicate they have a common cause, e.g., the Grand Canyon and Lichtenberg patterns formed in grass by lightning strokes. He then goes on to say that Mark Twain “noted how the [Mississippi] river course would change, with no reports of giant electric arcs.”

There are many morphological characteristics of the Grand Canyon that are enigmatic for 'standard' geologists. Different from the Mississippi (and similar to Lichtenberg patterns), it has no delta, it is narrow at both ends, and its tributaries are as deep at their beginning points as they are when they join the main stream; many such tributaries join at right angles to the central valley. And, of course, it is a mile deep. Also, there is the old saying: "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck……."

Do you really find that argument persuasive? That because the grand canyon looks like a lightning shape that it was formed by lightning? I've personally been to the grand canyon and I could see the erosion at work in various stages which formed the grand canyon, and I saw nothing electrical.

If you really find his rebuttal persuasive then I'd be wasting my time elaborating on why he's wrong about drawing the same conclusions about why "IT LOOKS LIKE 'X’ SO IT MUST BE 'X’ " doesn't fly in his other arguments either. I think he's a few french fries short of a happy meal to think the grand canyon was formed by electricity since it looks electrical, don't you? And he's the champion of this theory?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I think it is a rational argument.

I see nothing irrational about it given what we know about high energy discharge events.

His argument about the grand canyon is only a small subset of the evidence in favor of EDM being the cause of many topological surface features.

Analysis of Earth features is difficult because of erosion, but when we look at other bodies that have no atmosphere, we can see very clearly that EDM can explain the observations in more concise manner than standard theories.



[edit on 9-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Oh dear, Oh dear...

IF THERE WERE ANY PROOF before of a "religous" agenda, this post makes it perfectly clear:

His argument about the grand canyon is only a small subset of the evidence in favor of EDM being the cause of many topological surface features.

What we have here, folks...is a SCAM!!!

It is an attempt, utilizing a whole bunch of "pseudo-speak" to attempt to "tie-in" with a whole other bunch of (apparently) "pseudo-science"... EVERY attempt by the OP to "explain" just digs him(her)self deeper and deeper,,,,,

reply to post by weedwhacker


EDM stands for electrical discharge machining.

A common industrial process.





[edit on 9-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Read his rebuttal about one such claim from his website here:

www.thunderbolts.info...

IT LOOKS LIKE 'X’ SO IT MUST BE 'X’ ...snip

If you really find his rebuttal persuasive then I'd be wasting my time elaborating on why he's wrong about drawing the same conclusions about why "IT LOOKS LIKE 'X’ SO IT MUST BE 'X’ " doesn't fly in his other arguments either.

"IT LOOKS LIKE 'X’ SO IT MUST BE 'X’ ".....

I shiver in fear when I think what plasma cosmologists would say about this picture:



[edit on 9-7-2010 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
His argument about the grand canyon is only a small subset of the evidence in favor of EDM being the cause of many topological surface features.

Well I was aiming my arguments more at the fence-sitters trying to decide what's really true. In your case, I think your mind is made up and you'd have a pretty bad case of cognitive dissonance to admit Don Scott is wrong about the grand canyon being electrically formed, while claiming he's right about other plasma effects.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
"IT LOOKS LIKE 'X’ SO IT MUST BE 'X’ ".....

I shiver in fear when I think what plasma cosmologists would say about this picture:

Or this one, looks like a basketball with a light bulb inside:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a4233c433a22.jpg[/atsimg]
Hey maybe the sun is really a giant basketball with a light bulb inside?

"IT LOOKS LIKE 'X’ SO IT MUST BE 'X’ ".

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I never said Don was wrong. In fact I said his argument is rational.

You're trying to paint him as a crack pot, which he is obviously not.

As an electrical engineer, he's very familiar with EDM processes.

The people who know next to nothing about discharge machining are people like yourself.

I would say the "if it looks like X, it must be X" argument applies to you more than to Scott.





[edit on 9-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

A few facts about the Grand Canyon that refute the notion it was carved out by flowing water alone.

www.thunderbolts.info...

A few basic facts are necessary to gain a perspective. The Grand Canyon is surrounded by an elevated landscape with the canyon running through it from east to west. The underlying rock strata in the region rises and falls over an area known as the Kaibab Upwarp, while the river descends through an elevation differential of 2100 meters. Water does not flow up over a mountain range nor does it run sideways along sloping terrain, so all theoretical models that insist on water erosion propose that the entire area was slowly uplifted at the same rate as the river eroded the canyon. This process is said to have taken place in a time span of between four million and 400 million years.

The geological models also incorporate natural dams across the river channel that caused reversals in the river flow and were then subsequently breached, allowing the river to resume its previous course. However, a pertinent objection to that theory is that there is no evidence water flowed back into the ends of the giant side channels that join the chasm with the river. Perhaps the most significant challenge to the prevailing theories is the disappearance of almost 1300 cubic kilometers of material that is supposed to have been washed downstream—there is no large delta at the mouth of the Colorado River containing the debris.

Proposing EDM as a mechanism for creating the Grand Caynon is more rational than the conventional explanation.