Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

a reply to: ImaFungi


I know your so much smarter than Hawkings right?

Stephen Hawking notes in his 2010 book The Grand Design: "If the total energy of the universe must always remain zero, and it costs energy to create a body, how can a whole universe be created from nothing? That is why there must be a law like gravity. Because gravity is attractive, gravitational energy is negative: One has to do work to separate a gravitationally bound system, such as the earth and moon. This negative energy can balance the positive energy needed to create matter, but it’s not quite that simple. The negative gravitational energy of the earth, for example, is less than a billionth of the positive energy of the matter particles the earth is made of. A body such as a star will have more negative gravitational energy, and the smaller it is (the closer the different parts of it are to each other), the greater the negative gravitational energy will be. But before it can become greater than the positive energy of the matter, the star will collapse to a black hole, and black holes have positive energy. That’s why empty space is stable. Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can." (p. 180)

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: dragonridr

"Argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ab auctoritate), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.[1]

In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.[2] The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:

A is an authority on a particular topic
A says something about that topic
A is probably correct

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence,[2][3][4][5] as, while authorities can be correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,[citation needed] they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.[6]"

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

"Argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ab auctoritate), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.[1]

In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.[2] The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:

A is an authority on a particular topic
A says something about that topic
A is probably correct

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence,[2][3][4][5] as, while authorities can be correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,[citation needed] they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.[6]"

Watch his lecture he explains it to you if theres someyhing wrong with his math or questions you have just let us know.

a reply to: dragonridr

All ive been doing the past few pages is letting you know what is wrong with his ideas. You have been performing the logical fallacy of appealing to authority, because, you refuse to comprehend the undeniable statements I make, and in turn, continue to spout statements which yes, as self contained entities of play, may corroborate themselves, but are fated to be seen as false in the face of absolute truth. The theory that something can come from nothing is fiction, it is false. A square is a sphere with 3634 36 degree angles and is always a blue crunchy fish. We can make stuff up and create a fictious scenario in which these statements are true. But when compared to objective reality we find they are impossible. I am not just denying your statements from ignorance, for fun, or because I have an ulterior motive, I understand what is meant by the statements, I have used a lot of words in my last few replys to you, that have expressed the ways in which his statements can be correct. It seems you continue to believe that an absolute pure area of nothing can birth, not only a speck of something, but all somethings. This is false, forever.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

All ive been doing the past few pages is letting you know what is wrong with his ideas. You have been performing the logical fallacy of appealing to authority, because, you refuse to comprehend the undeniable statements I make, and in turn, continue to spout statements which yes, as self contained entities of play, may corroborate themselves, but are fated to be seen as false in the face of absolute truth. The theory that something can come from nothing is fiction, it is false. A square is a sphere with 3634 36 degree angles and is always a blue crunchy fish. We can make stuff up and create a fictious scenario in which these statements are true. But when compared to objective reality we find they are impossible. I am not just denying your statements from ignorance, for fun, or because I have an ulterior motive, I understand what is meant by the statements, I have used a lot of words in my last few replys to you, that have expressed the ways in which his statements can be correct. It seems you continue to believe that an absolute pure area of nothing can birth, not only a speck of something, but all somethings. This is false, forever.

Ok show us why in physics its not allowed what experiment or proof shows us a universe cannot be created through a quantum fluctuation leading to an imbalance and creating matter? I have to read papers all the time and as i tell students make the argument but to just say its wrong isnt a proof its just merely your opinion.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

"Argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ab auctoritate), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.[1]

An argument from authority is not a logical fallacy if the person's authority is relevant. That would be like accusing your surgeon from arguing from authority when he tells you how he's going to replace your knee cap.

Fact of the matter is, many posters here have taken the time and patience to respond to your questions with factual information yet you dismiss it with nothing more than hubris and temper tantrums. I'm surprised the thread has continued for so long tbh.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi


I know your so much smarter than Hawkings right?

Stephen Hawking notes in his 2010 book The Grand Design: "If the total energy of the universe must always remain zero, and it costs energy to create a body, how can a whole universe be created from nothing? That is why there must be a law like gravity. Because gravity is attractive, gravitational energy is negative: One has to do work to separate a gravitationally bound system, such as the earth and moon. This negative energy can balance the positive energy needed to create matter, but it’s not quite that simple. The negative gravitational energy of the earth, for example, is less than a billionth of the positive energy of the matter particles the earth is made of. A body such as a star will have more negative gravitational energy, and the smaller it is (the closer the different parts of it are to each other), the greater the negative gravitational energy will be. But before it can become greater than the positive energy of the matter, the star will collapse to a black hole, and black holes have positive energy. That’s why empty space is stable. Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can." (p. 180)

en.wikipedia.org...

is Gravity a force field or space curvature ??

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

"Argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ab auctoritate), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.[1]

An argument from authority is not a logical fallacy if the person's authority is relevant. That would be like accusing your surgeon from arguing from authority when he tells you how he's going to replace your knee cap.

Fact of the matter is, many posters here have taken the time and patience to respond to your questions with factual information yet you dismiss it with nothing more than hubris and temper tantrums. I'm surprised the thread has continued for so long tbh.

Thanks for your contribution. I notice out of my maybe 100 responses on the thread this is the one you respond to. Congratulations, you are great.

Theoretical physics is very similar to surgery. Great job.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

All ive been doing the past few pages is letting you know what is wrong with his ideas. You have been performing the logical fallacy of appealing to authority, because, you refuse to comprehend the undeniable statements I make, and in turn, continue to spout statements which yes, as self contained entities of play, may corroborate themselves, but are fated to be seen as false in the face of absolute truth. The theory that something can come from nothing is fiction, it is false. A square is a sphere with 3634 36 degree angles and is always a blue crunchy fish. We can make stuff up and create a fictious scenario in which these statements are true. But when compared to objective reality we find they are impossible. I am not just denying your statements from ignorance, for fun, or because I have an ulterior motive, I understand what is meant by the statements, I have used a lot of words in my last few replys to you, that have expressed the ways in which his statements can be correct. It seems you continue to believe that an absolute pure area of nothing can birth, not only a speck of something, but all somethings. This is false, forever.

Ok show us why in physics its not allowed what experiment or proof shows us a universe cannot be created through a quantum fluctuation leading to an imbalance and creating matter? I have to read papers all the time and as i tell students make the argument but to just say its wrong isnt a proof its just merely your opinion.

If nothing = nothing. and something = something. Something, can not be created out of only nothing.

No matter how much nothing you have. It always equals nothing. Now if your talking about all the stuff, all the something in the nothing. All that stuff can make something. Yea we agree. Nothing make something, no. You are always wrong claiming that. There are many intelligences all over the world and universe right now, in the past, and in the future, that would be disgusted by your ignorant statement, I am one of them. Everyone else who is intelligent, is also one of them.

looks more and more like I'm right ( and always was! )
no expanding Universe and no Big bang
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: KrzYma
looks more and more like I'm right ( and always was! )
no expanding Universe and no Big bang
www.abovetopsecret.com...

But...but...but... if we use occams razor, and peer reviewed papers, and not critically thinking much, this is proof that you are wrong.

a reply to: ImaFungi

time will tell

I guess there is nothing left to really say but, All hail ImaFungi! Science Prophet of the modern age Nothing shall ever be uttered that is not true. All that came before is a lie.

It is a pretty interesting way of refusing to debate or even possibly comprehend, let alone denying ignorance.

I can only say that this thread has become an impressive 50 something pages long. In terms of topics it went from the moon and back and then out to fairy land and back again. Thread of the year in my opinion, but also one of the saddest

originally posted by: ErosA433
I guess there is nothing left to really say but, All hail ImaFungi! Science Prophet of the modern age

Nothing shall ever be uttered that is not true. All that came before is a lie.

It is a pretty interesting way of refusing to debate or even possibly comprehend, let alone denying ignorance.

I can only say that this thread has become an impressive 50 something pages long. In terms of topics it went from the moon and back and then out to fairy land and back again. Thread of the year in my opinion, but also one of the saddest

All I ever did was ask questions . And yes, as which by you are so offended, claimed a falsity to an answer, which I, with perfect logic, perfect in that, noone can falsify it, and on this thread noone attempted to.

All I did was question the knowledge of science, so that those who 'contained such knowledge', would struggle and/or succeed in relaying that knowledge. To see how well these 'knowers knew' and in turn by observing and analyzing, reading, and learning, their responses, I too would learn about the current location and density and breadth of mans most fundamental knowledge.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: ErosA433
I guess there is nothing left to really say but, All hail ImaFungi! Science Prophet of the modern age

Nothing shall ever be uttered that is not true. All that came before is a lie.

It is a pretty interesting way of refusing to debate or even possibly comprehend, let alone denying ignorance.

I can only say that this thread has become an impressive 50 something pages long. In terms of topics it went from the moon and back and then out to fairy land and back again. Thread of the year in my opinion, but also one of the saddest

All I ever did was ask questions

.

That's the problem. You didn't do enough work and learning to understand the answers, and were more concerned with making aggressive and poor imitations of medieval scholastic assertions about 'nothing' or other irrelevant nonsense (with naive philosophy and excess attachment to naive unexamined internal linguistic assumptions) instead of learning physics.

Before trying to understand quantum field theory, much less advanced cosmology, start with core physics. As I've repeated multiple times, The Feynman Lectures on Physics.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: ErosA433
I guess there is nothing left to really say but, All hail ImaFungi! Science Prophet of the modern age

Nothing shall ever be uttered that is not true. All that came before is a lie.

It is a pretty interesting way of refusing to debate or even possibly comprehend, let alone denying ignorance.

I can only say that this thread has become an impressive 50 something pages long. In terms of topics it went from the moon and back and then out to fairy land and back again. Thread of the year in my opinion, but also one of the saddest

All I ever did was ask questions

.

That's the problem. You didn't do enough work and learning to understand the answers, and were more concerned with making aggressive and poor imitations of medieval scholastic assertions about 'nothing' or other irrelevant nonsense (with naive philosophy and excess attachment to naive unexamined internal linguistic assumptions) instead of learning physics.

Before trying to understand quantum field theory, much less advanced cosmology, start with core physics. As I've repeated multiple times, The Feynman Lectures on Physics.

The assertions about 'nothing' are only the last few pages. I spent 3 years prior to this watching susskind and feynman lectures, reading all about particle physics and field theory and the nature of energy and matter. The only reason I am so passionate or care at all about asking questions was the deep unnerving feeling of how uncareful scientists in powerful positions are, how many loose ends and willy nillies they leave floating about. How fallible and petty even the smartest of their collective thought can be, all men are just grown babies, born ignorant, what a supreme task to be left up to the lot, and you expect me not to severely question them?

I was trying to produce further and deeper thought, creating a pathway to more knowledge, the stagnate plateau you have reached is not where I am headed, say "thats the problem, the stagnate plateau I have reached and operate on now, is the best of our knowledge", I comprehend where you are and operate from, I have seen what you know, you are satisfied with that, I thought by striking at it with my ability to hold no bias and critically think, it would yield intriguing questions we could discuss, taking a known and an unknown, and rubbing them together to see what we dont know about what is known and what we can potentially know about what is unknown. For me it has been a telling and interesting experience. You have your knowledge as a shell, I was throwing mysteries at you, and you, thinking you knew the boundaries of possible truth, would remain with your shell over you thinking this was a game, that you were doing the righteous duty of denying free and critical thought, I bet feeling proud and self righteous and ilkly congratulatory of your daily duty of saying no no no no to my why how what when, deflecting their importance, ignoring them. You dont care about the awesomeness that is existence, reality, truth. You care about making a toy, or knowing a little piece here and there. I care about questioning the utter crap out of everything that can be possibly questioned and known, leaving no stone unturned, leaving no dark unlit, my motives are pure, yours are biased and lacking. You did not attempt to go along with interesting discussion to my questions, you only felt threatened, you only felt the need to be defensive, protecting your sacred illusion. This is your bias, this is your fault, if this is the staple of scientist, this is the staple which shuts the open mind.

If you know about science... you will understand that there are very few... 'powerful' positions in science. Most scientists see themselves as equals. As a scientist in the Field of experimental particle physics, I can tell you for one that for the most part different experiments interact all the times and communicate in friendly manners. Sometimes discussions can be excited, but mostly it is reasonable.

There are only 'powerful' scientists in terms of what are the principle investigators. These are really just like the front man/woman of a music band. They are not really powerful, nore do we feel the need to address these people by title and surname in order to offer respect.

My boss is the PI of a dark matter experiment. Iv never once addressed him as Doctor, Professor, or by his surname. Scientists dont normally give a crap. My point really is that the very concept of a hierarchy of science, is really a massive fallacy.

Do you know who advised our funding? Other scientists in the field who are just as important, no more, no less, as my own boss.

So when people claim to 'know' how the insides of science works, when they have never truly lived it. It makes me smile, because 9 times out of 10... what they say is wrong.


For all the interest people here claim to have, what was a very telling experience for me was when I posted up a virtual tour of the deepest underground lab in the world, and the thread barely stretched into two pages. Why? Well, because for all the hundreds of threads i have seen about peoples conception of what they think science is like, how they think the secrets are. And yet when someone says "Hey look, this is mainstream science... there really is openness" everyone ignores it because it is uncomfortable to believe their own ideas of what scientists are like and how science is performed is actually quite wrong.

I also posted a very long thread, mainly aimed at detector technology. It was very enjoyable to write as it made me think about particle physics detectors and how these detectors work, their limits and specialities. Once again the interest was not bad but still quite fleeting. Yet again, people would rather ignore what exists already, what we know and have engineering control over TODAY, and invent some kind of magic, failing to grasp our understanding of science NOW, and venture off into fairy land on the basis of single papers or titbit news articles written by science writers that have no more scientific expertise than a high school teacher.

Then on top of that proceed to tell people who are actually in the field of science as a profession and lifestyle that we know nothing... it is all rather interesting.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Problem became you went from exploring science and pushing boundaries to outright dismissal. I posted several things to help you get the idea behind what truly lies in empty space. Than went further to try to explain why science says total energy of the universe is zero. Instead of exploring you went to judging this is a big mistake in science. something that may seem logical especially in QM often is not. Qm by its very nature is counter intuitive and often has very strange properties. This is why we have to run experiments if it all worked the way we expect we would have the theory of everything. Problem is we lrarned that matter indeed can be created in empty space where are instruments tell us nothing there. To explain this we have QM which is more of a guide right now than a rule.

originally posted by: ErosA433
For all the interest people here claim to have, what was a very telling experience for me was when I posted up a virtual tour of the deepest underground lab in the world, and the thread barely stretched into two pages.

I thought it was interesting, but other people wanted you to talk about how the speed of light isn't really a speed limit and you didn't do that:

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: ArtemisE

I mean science without limitations, like:
- no faster than light ( mc2 )
- creation from nothing (Big Bang)
- no environment energy (fossil fuel only)
- and and and

You didn't even explain how to how to power a toaster using vacuum energy!

That may be impossible, but what your team is trying to do is pretty interesting science because it seems close to impossible, trying to detect things that are nearly impossible to detect (apparently even harder than neutrinos and they are hard to detect). It will be a big win if your team succeeds.

Discovering WIMPs won't allow me to power my toaster with the vacuum, which seems to be what a lot of ATSers want from science, but if it helps us figure out the composition of part of the other 95% of the universe, that's one of the most important mysteries in science now, from my perspective.

At least "Sonny" White at NASA is talking about how to go faster than light, but he admits he needs negative mass to do it and he makes it sound like it's not impossible but to me using negative mass for spacecraft propulsion seems even closer to impossible than detecting WIMPs.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

this is your stance.

look, all the history of mankind, we've had some accomplished standards for... the point of view for ordinary people.
so be it in the medicine, educations, religion....
from time to time things change for advantage or disadvantage of humans

atom bomb was one of that bad things.
discovery and assimilation of electricity was good on the other side.

the same bad thing is working with assumptions
and even if some of your Big Picture's fragment may work very well on a small scale and under certain conditions, all the time it still remains just a picture in some scientist head.