Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #742039

Re: energy and mass

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 03/21/2026 07:31 AM, john larkin wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 10:06:03 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
> 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.
>
> Speaking of bad science, this is a cool book:
>
> https://www.amazon.com/dp/1250372275
>
>
>
>
> John Larkin
> Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
> Lunatic Fringe Electronics
>

All this is long irrelevant to the original topic about "energy and mass".

In a theory where "mass is energy" yet "energy is not mass", there
are at least two ways to look at the "type theory" resulting, the
usual account where mass is a kind of energy, and the _inverted_
type-tree where energy is an attribute of mass.

Here that's for an account of E-energy and F-Lorentzians,
about Einstein et alia's arrival at mass-energy equivalency
after the usual account after conservation of forces of the
conservation of energy, then about "the forces" and thusly
always "the fields", and that "physics is a field theory,
not a force theory", about the energy _and_ entelechy,
has that the practice of reductionism to energy is
eventually empty.

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

Thread

Re: energy and mass Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-14 02:24 +1100
  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