Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #356937

Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS?

Show all headers | View raw

Am 13.07.2015 05:57, schrieb Tom Roberts:
..
>
>> [...]
>> There are other examples of the same ilk.
>
> Name them.
>
> I think you'll find that physicists have found fatal flaws in all of
> them, but YOU are too ignorant to understand their arguments.
>
>
>> E.g. I like the book 'Geometry of Time' from Alexander Franklin Meyer,
>> (who
>> shreds 'big-bang-theory' to pieces).
>
> I have not seen this. But it clearly is not at all the same (i.e. about
> an EXPERIMENT that you think was rejected inappropriately).


This is a very good book and I really like it. It was freely available 
as pdf for a long time, but now you have to buy a copy.

What he did was roughly this: he put a large star catalogue into a 
computer and sorted the stars by distance. Than he compared the 
statistics with Hubble's predictions and found discrepancies of about 
four orders of magnitude.

This is VERY large and would certainly demand an explanation. His 
explanation: big-bang theory is wrong.

I do agree and claim, that CMBR is generated locally and recent. (It's 
actually an effect of gravity.)

> And YOUR opinion about him "shredding big-bang theory" carries no weight
> with me, or with other physicists, as it is CLEAR that you do not
> understand the observational underpinnings of that theory, and thus do
> not have an INFORMED opinion.
>
>
>> Than we have Neil Adams and his films about 'Growing Earth' (what I
>> personally
>> assume is true).
>
> Ditto. YOUR opinions are uninformed, and thus useless.




There was a German geologist named 'Ott Cristoph Hilgenberger', who 
wrote a book called 'Vom wachsenden Erdball'. (~>'About the growing Ball 
of the Earth')

This was accepted science up to the 50th. But then it was replaced by 
plate tectonics.

Now the question: why?

The subject is related to all the other 'dark projects', what the US and 
the plutocrats have conducted in the meantime.

But mainly it's a question about certain materials (predominantly oil).

Reason: If 'Growing Earth' is true, than 'abiogenic oil' is also true. 
And this is a really big deal.

To divert from this idea, science itself was driven into a mess - by 
certain people and interest groups.

The 'bad guys' apparently took over with Heaviside, who established 
vectors instead of quaternions. Than came Planck and established Quantum 
mechanics. But e.g. Tait and Maxwell had different ideas and those got 
lost.

It is possible to see some kind of plan, that (apparently) intends to 
funnel wealth into the pockets of certain groups, by unethical means in 
science.


 From my own experience I can say, it is almost impossible to discuss 
'Growing Earth', since it violates certain dogmas: 'big-bang 
nucleosytheis' for example.

It also contradicts the so called standard-model of QM, since if GE is 
true, than the idea of particles itself is wrong.

If so, than 'transmutation' could be possible. And this was shown to be 
possible by George Lochak.


>
>> And we have, of course, 'Global warming' and related subjects.
>
> That is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. It seems you are also too ignorant to
> distinguish among them. YOUR problem, not mine, and not science's.
>
> Hint: this is NOT a single EXPERIMENT, it is a host of
> related observations supporting a class of models.
>

For example Hilgenberger predicted rising temperatures over long periods 
of time, due to 'Growing Earth'.

So, the question is NOT, if the temperatures would rise, but what have 
caused it.

CO2 is in my eyes the entirely wrong idea, since the atmosphere is not 
that important in the energy balance as water.

So we have unscientific blunder, that all the media spread as latest 
news ('greenhouse gases') and politicians, that try to save the planet 
by trying to solve an irrelevant problem.

There are, of course, important problems (like e.g. all the plastic in 
the oceans, the clear-cuts in the rain forests, the dying species...), 
but politicians concentrate on 'greenhouse gases'.


TH

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-13 07:29 +0200
  Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-07-13 07:35 +0000
    Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-14 22:04 +0200
      Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 15:18 -0500
        Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-15 05:00 +0200
          Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-15 03:52 -0700
          Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-16 22:34 +0200
            Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-16 17:03 -0400
            Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-16 14:14 -0700
            Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-17 02:30 +0200
              Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 07:14 -0500
                Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-18 07:43 +0200
      Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-14 16:19 -0400

csiph-web