Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #742044

Re: energy and mass

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 21/03/2026 8:06 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Freitag000020, 20.03.2026 um 14:06 schrieb Bill Sloman:
>> On 20/03/2026 8:36 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am Donnerstag000019, 19.03.2026 um 13:18 schrieb Bill Sloman:
>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> E.g. I'm a proponent of 'Growing Earth' and 'abiogenic oil' and 
>>>>>>>>> have spent a lot of time on these topics.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And I'm pretty certain, that Earth does in fact grow and also 
>>>>>>>>> know why.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And I'm pretty certain that you are deceiving yourself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But you can't even talk about these topics, because that would 
>>>>>>>>> cause very harsh reactions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The continental drift theory took a long time to get accepted. 
>>>>>>>> You do seem to be unaware of it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, because I knew who Wegener was and how his theory worked.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I'm a proponent of the German geologist Ott-Christoph 
>>>>>>> Hilgenberg, who invented 'Growing Earth' as addition to Wegner's 
>>>>>>> continental drift theory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both theories are quite similar, but have one main difference:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> plate tectonics(PT) assumes a constant size of the Earth and 
>>>>>>> growing Earth (called GE here) assumes growth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, PT needs something balancing the obvious spreading. PT calls 
>>>>>>> this 'subduction'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But 'subduction is blatant nonsense for an large number of reasons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It happens at oceanic trenches, and is well documented.
>>>>> Subduction is a hypothesis.
>>>>
>>>> But a pretty well tested one.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it also blatant nonsense. It is actually the lie that plate 
>>>>> tectonics depends on, hence cannot be questioned at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it is nonsense, however.
>>>>>
>>>>> Subduction would assume thing, which violate simple logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> For instance plate tectonics is based on the assumption, that Earth 
>>>>> would NOT grow. That's why the obvious spreading needs something to 
>>>>> balance that spreading and that is the alleged subduction.
>>>>
>>>> A growing earth violates the principle of the conservation of mass/ 
>>>> energy. That doesn't make it inconceiveable, but it means that you 
>>>> need very convincing evidence to support the idea, and that doesn't 
>>>> seem to exist.
>>>
>>> Well, it would violate a certain principle which is commonly called 
>>> 'materialism'.
>>>
>>> This 'great materialistic metaparadigm' is encoded into what is 
>>> called 'standard model of QM' and belongs to the also fraudulent 
>>> 'big-bang theory'.
>>
>> Neither is fraudulent - both were advanced as hypotheses and seem to 
>> fit the data. It's perfectly clear that neither is perfect, but until 
>> you can come up models that work at least as well, nobody is going to 
>> take your alternatives seriously.
> 
> I assume intention and some kind of 'bad physics', which is carefully 
> crafted and force-feed to the defenceless general public.
> 
> It had imho started in the mid 19th century with people like Heaviside 
> and Gibbs, who tried to tear down Maxwells theories, which were based on 
> quaternions and 'aether'.

Heaviside didn't try "to tear down" Maxwell's theory - he just expressed 
it more neatly. Maxwell didn't base his theory on any kind of aether - 
he just a assumed a fluid to support the waves he was talking about
> Since then science got deliberately derailed.

Seems unlikely. Today's science does seem to work.

You don't know much about it, and may not be aware of this.

> This would require some kind of motivation. and for this there are 
> numeorous options:
> 
> time travel
> real aliens
> transmutation
> scalar waves weapons
> mind control
> ...
> 
> This would have been, if found in real experiments, be regarded as way 
> too dangerous, if common people and common enemies would know about. 

The atom bomb is pretty dangerous,and that made it into the open literature.

> So, there was a new profession created: so called 'bullshit artists'.

Nothing new about them. They have been around forever. Modern science 
has a couple of features that do make life difficult for bullshit 
artists. Peer-review does make it harder for bullshit artists to get 
their bullshit into the literature, and the habit of publishing critical 
comments in peer-reviewed journals does get rid of some of the rubbish 
that makes it through peer-review.

> That was so much fun, that this profession was very attractive to sick 
> minds (from which we have a lot) and common physics got bananas in the 
> mean time.

The real example of bull-shit artistry in the modern world is climate 
change denial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

It does influence public opinion, but it only works on the ignorant and 
gullible.

> So, today only very few resist, because that is actually dangerous and 
> would not help the own career.

Most educated people ignore climate change denial propaganda. Clowns 
like Donald Trump endorse it, but he is making a lot of money out being 
president.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-14 09:55 +0100
  Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 02:02 +1100
    Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-15 10:08 +0100
      Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-15 20:52 +1100
        Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-16 20:50 +1100
        Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-19 10:38 +0100
          Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-19 23:18 +1100
            Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-20 10:36 +0100
              Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-21 00:06 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-21 10:06 +0100
                Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-21 07:31 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-21 09:35 -0700
                Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-21 10:17 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-21 11:13 -0700
                Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-21 14:15 -0700
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-22 09:37 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 20:37 +1100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-22 11:34 +0100
                Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-22 07:45 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-23 02:18 +1100
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-22 19:13 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-22 11:44 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 04:32 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-21 11:22 -0700
                Re: energy and mass nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-03-21 22:32 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 04:27 +1100
                Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-21 10:44 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-22 15:54 +1100
                Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-23 10:15 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-24 22:45 +1100
                Re: energy and mass Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-03-26 13:58 +0100
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-27 01:50 +1100
                Re: energy and mass john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-26 08:08 -0700
                Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-27 17:16 +1100
          Re: energy and mass Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-19 06:16 -0700

csiph-web