Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #742019

Re: energy and mass

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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'.

Since then science got deliberatly derailed.

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.


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

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.

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

...


TH

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> - 2026-03-13 09:46 +0100
  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