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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #370883

Re: Twins and the universe

Show all headers | View raw

Am 08.11.2015 13:38, schrieb Gary Harnagel:

>>> Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. One can COMPUTE how long it would
>>> take for that to happen, and it is found to be enormously longer than
>>> the age of the universe.
>>>
>> Have I told you, that I think 'Growing Earth' is true?
>>
>> Not yet?
>>
>> Well, actually I do think, that the Earth does in fact grow and gains
>> mass from the inside.
>
> Of course the earth is growing.  Meteorites account for around 5 tons
> per year of additional mass.  This, of course, is not what your "growing
> earth" means.  Growing from "inside" is complete nonsense because it
> violates conservation of mass/energy.  If it were true, it would be
> observed on the surface, too, but all tests demonstrate that the conser-
> vation principle is alive and well.  Your hypothesis must be rejected
> since it has no extraordinary evidence:
>
> "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Marcello Truzzi

How much evidence you want?

I have posted here quite often about 'Growing Earth'. I also posted 
something into the 'BAUT-forum'.  I would say, I have written about 200 
little messages about his subject.

> and is a completely crackpot idea:
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
>
> You get -5 points to begin.


Only it was not my 'crackpot idea'.

It was invented by a German geologist by the name Ott Christoph Hilgenberg.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ott_Christoph_Hilgenberg

He wrote the book "Vom wachsenden Erdball":
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/Hilgenberg.html

The idea was popularised by Neal Adams, who produced several (nice!) 
animations about this topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ

> 26. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never
> actually explaining it.


Not true, since I have written a 'book' about it:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

> Score: +15 points
>
>> (btw: This would - if true- render large parts of current physics
>> practically useless.)
>
> This is a common belief among crackpots, as if current models, which
> describe reality very well would become "useless."

Well, if the standard model of QM turns out to be wrong, than they have 
a lot of problems.

> Is Newtonian
> gravitation useless because of GR?  Of course not!  NASA uses it all
> the time to get its spacecraft around the solar system.  Your claim
> is delusional dreaming on two fronts, the one I mentioned here and this:
>
> 36. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated,
> present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is
>
> Score: +55 points
>
>> But GE would nicely explain, how the universe 'recycles' the energy
>> distribute by the stars.
>
> You have presented no evidence that it DOES recycle energy, and your claim
> violates the laws of thermodynamics.

Actually I wrote already, why I assume such a process is acting:

if not, the entire universe would look like a dim 'soup'.


> 2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
>
> Score: +56 points.
>
>> I have spent several years on this subject,
>
> 11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how
> long you have been working on it.


This statement did not stem from my 'theory', but from a reply about 
'Growing Earth'.

Growing Earth is NOT, what my book is about, but should provide prove 
for what I call 'concept'.

My idea was, that if I prove GE, this would violate the particle concept 
of QM, hence disprove the standard model. And this would bring my 
alternative idea into play, called 'structured spacetime'.


> Score: +66 points
>
>> but made similar experience as Neil Adams did:
>
> Nonsense.  We have many, many satellites in orbit that are continuously
> monitoring the earth.  The GPS is accurate to a few feet and has not seen
> any evidence whatever for this flaky phenomenon.


Growing Earth is happening in the range of millions of years and 
measurable in the range of centuries.

What is actually measurable, that is spreading of oceans.

But the radius of this planet cannot be measured directly. Only the 
distance to the surface could be measured with precision. But that 
distance does not change, since 1000 km above a certain spot will 
continue to be 1000 km above this spot.


>> it's a complete waste of time, since these 'scientists' ignore evidence
>> as long as they possibly can.
>
> You have shown NO evidence whatever.

Actually I did. For example there are these animations from Neal Adams:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW3e4Kxx02XQ-ZpF8T1Cuw

These videos show the effect quite clearly.


TH

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

Thread

Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-25 18:29 +0100
  Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-25 11:43 -0800

csiph-web