Re: energy and mass

From	Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity, sci.electronics.design
Subject	Re: energy and mass
Date	2026-03-27 17:16 +1100
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<10q57d4$3fqd3$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(9 earlier) <10pnslb$30mu3$1@dont-email.me> <b7t2skhp3uetd5gk9sh8khj9fdk8ed01pm@4ax.com> <10pttg2$vi4j$2@dont-email.me> <n2koacFbsl2U1@mid.individual.net> <qshaskhd0gi3u9bgcf630cf3lfhpvdlpfr@4ax.com>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 27/03/2026 2:08 am, john larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 13:58:16 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
> wrote:
> 
>> Am Dienstag000024, 24.03.2026 um 12:45 schrieb Bill Sloman:
>>> On 24/03/2026 4:15 am, john larkin wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Mar 2026 15:54:03 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 22/03/2026 4:44 am, john larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 22 Mar 2026 04:27:56 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Climate change doesn't make the top 5 list of things that most people
>>>>>> worry about.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's creating problems now, but the ones that people notice are mostly
>>>>> extreme weather, and people aren't all that sensitive the fact that
>>>>> there's more extreme weather around than there used to be.
>>>>
>>>> That makes sense, because there isn't.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather
>>>
>>> does suggest otherwise. Tropical cyclones are something of an exception
>>> - they do seem to be getting more intense rather than more numerous,
>>> because they do depend on the existence of an appreciable area of ocean
>>> surface above 26.3 degrees Celcius, and once a cyclone has got underway
>>> it cools off that ocean surface. A bigger area of hot ocean fuels a more
>>> intense cyclone rather than several smaller ones.
>>>
>>
>>
>> We would expect weather to be distributed in some sort of randomness.
>>
>> This means:
>>
>> most of the weather is usual and some conditions are extreme.
>>
>> But how would you measure the patterns of weather and quantify them???
>>
>> Usually randomness is distributed with some sort of bell-shaped curve.
>>
>> The mean conditions (of weather in this case) are numerous and the rare
>> exceptions are, well, rare.
>>
>> So, you need to measure the weather distribution by measuring for some
>> time each condition and then sort these contions by stacking up the
>> numbers on the y-axis and distribute the specific condition on the x-axis.
>>
>> This should produce some sort of bell shaped curve, because almost all
>> random events produce such curves.
>>
>> Now, such shaped curves are usually not defined by the extreme
>> conditions, but by other parameters like mean, symmetry, maximum and
>> standard average.
>>
>> The 'extreme weather' considerations are therefor nonsense, if you want
>> to find trends in the climate.
>>
>>
>> TH
> 
> The instrument problem is huge. We haven't had weather satellites, or
> millions of realtime sensors, or radar, for very long.

But we haven't had significant global warming for very long either.
And you can tell quite a bit from historical data - the antarctic ice 
cors go back about a million years.
> 
> Hurricanes at sea, or even hitting land, were poorly measured or
> entirely missed. Ditto tornadoes and temperature/precipitation
> extremes.

But the change in their behavior and their frequency since global 
warming got bigger than La Nina/ El Nino type flucuations is pretty well 
documented,

> Great books:
> 
> A Weekend In September by Weems, about the deadliest hurricane in US
> history, the great Galveston storm of 1900. There's a song about that,
> "Mighty Day" by the  Chad Mitchell Trio.
> 
> Isaac's Storm by Larson, same hurricane.
> 
> Rising Tide by Barry: about the great Mississippi River flood of 1927.
> Randy Newman's song "Louisiana" is about that.
> 
> I used to ride dirt bikes (illegally) in the Bonnet Carré Spillway. I
> very much remember Hurricanes Betsy and Camille.

But you aren't a particularly quantitative measuring instrument, nor any 
kind of unbiased observer.

-- 
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> - 2026-03-19 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