Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #742060

Re: energy and mass

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 11:13:30 -0700, Ross Finlayson
<ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 03/21/2026 10:17 AM, john larkin wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 09:35:54 -0700, Ross Finlayson
>> <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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".
>>
>> Actually, this absurd and nasty thread was started by my conjectures
>> in s.e.d.  about the dynamics of spherically symmetric gravitational
>> and electrical fields.
>>
>> I'm optimistic that it will soon hit a thousand mostly-bloated
>> insult-rich posts.
>>
>> What work do you do?
>>
>>
>> John Larkin
>> Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
>> Lunatic Fringe Electronics
>>
>
> >
>
>Actually I kind of work on this.
>
>(Three decades corp enterprise software dev is a "day job".
>I have usual tools of the trades and "the joys of ownership".)

Ah, you're a word person.  I might have guessed.

I'm a pictures person.

Typing vs soldering.


>
>
>About the spherically and radially symmetric,
>and that being _different_ than the usual linear
>account, there's this guy named Albert Einstein,
>in his book "Out of My Later Years" he sets up
>a contradistinction from A. Einstein's account
>of mass/energy equivalency with another one
>that he introduces after politely defending
>Newton for being not completely wrong, then
>addressing that he, Einstein, intends an
>attack on Newton (and Galileo and so on,
>..., _and himself_), about that then Einstein
>makes a simple derivation of his own second
>"mass/energy equivalency relation", that
>unlike "E = mc^2", _nobody ever heard of_.
>
>You can find an account of this in Einstein's
>"Out of My Later Years", which _is_ what he
>was working on in his later years. I read
>it in a series of video essays on my video
>essay channel at https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson ,
>while you can find a copy of it for yourself.
>
>
>I've written a lot about "foundations of
>mathematics and logic " then got into
>"foundations of physics" and "foundations
>of reason", I'm a "researcher in foundations".
>
>

One of Einstein's great misses was predicting secondary emission, and
then declaring the laser to be impossible for some thermodynamic
reason.  A good neon sign shop could have made a laser in 1930.


John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics

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