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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #356937 > unrolled thread

Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

#356937 — Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS?

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#356945

Thomas Heger wrote:

> 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?

Observations and experiments. Also, it's certainly not true that
the idea was ever an accepted model. It was, for a while, a
hypothesis that a handful of serious researchers were considering.
Another huge problem for the idea is that no one was able to make a
convincing explanation for why the earth would be growing.

Plate tectonics was rapidly accepted, and since then there has been
an ever-growing (pun intended) amount of data in support of it.
Plate tectonics has survived because it is a good model of nature;
"growing earth" is dead because it is not. Simple as that.

> The 'bad guys' apparently took over with Heaviside, who
> established vectors instead of quaternions.

First were the Freemasons and the Illuminati, who as you may know
still completely control mainstream science and are responsible for
the fact that every established scientist is working for evil.
Today, the only chance for true science is from anti-scientist
cranks like Thomas Heger. Thank you for your bold and important
work in fighting this most horrible evil to have ever existed, the
cause of war, disease, human oppression and natural destruction.


         ---Tim Shuba---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357119

Am 14.07.2015 01:43, schrieb shuba:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Big-bang nucleosynthesis has a different approach
>
> Yes. It is a useful scientific hypothesis, with predictive power
> and supporting data.
>


Possibly the idea is 'useful'.

But what do you think about the validity of this assumption?

I would say: it's not only not convincing, but also violates certain 
observations.

E.g. an expanding universe would have stars predominantly at its 
surface. That is a roughly two-dimensional arrangement we would expect 
after big-bang-expansion.

But this is not observed. Instead the universe looks quite homogeneous 
in all directions.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357124

On 7/14/2015 3:04 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 14.07.2015 01:43, schrieb shuba:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> Big-bang nucleosynthesis has a different approach
>>
>> Yes. It is a useful scientific hypothesis, with predictive power
>> and supporting data.
>>
>
>
> Possibly the idea is 'useful'.
>
> But what do you think about the validity of this assumption?
>
> I would say: it's not only not convincing, but also violates certain
> observations.
>
> E.g. an expanding universe would have stars predominantly at its
> surface. That is a roughly two-dimensional arrangement we would expect
> after big-bang-expansion.

Maybe YOU expect that, but it certainly is not a feature of the big bang 
model. I think such a observation would only be implied if you thought 
of the universe as having a roughly spherical surface and a geometric 
center. That is NOT the model of the universe in the big bang. The big 
bang universe has no boundary and no center.

So I think the mismatch is that you just aren't thinking of the same big 
bang model that physicists are thinking of, and so maybe the validity of 
assumptions you are questioning are just not the right assumptions.

>
> But this is not observed. Instead the universe looks quite homogeneous
> in all directions.
>
> TH


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357163

Am 15.07.2015 00:48, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 2:19:01 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>> On 7/14/2015 3:04 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>> I would say: it's not only not convincing, but also violates certain
>>> observations.
>>>
>>> E.g. an expanding universe would have stars predominantly at its
>>> surface. That is a roughly two-dimensional arrangement we would expect
>>> after big-bang-expansion.
>>
>> Maybe YOU expect that, but it certainly is not a feature of the big bang
>> model. I think such a observation would only be implied if you thought
>> of the universe as having a roughly spherical surface and a geometric
>> center. That is NOT the model of the universe in the big bang. The big
>> bang universe has no boundary and no center.
>>
>> So I think the mismatch is that you just aren't thinking of the same big
>> bang model that physicists are thinking of, and so maybe the validity of
>> assumptions you are questioning are just not the right assumptions.
>>
>>>
>>> But this is not observed. Instead the universe looks quite homogeneous
>>> in all directions.
>>>
>>> TH
>
> And Heger is not thinking about the universe properly:  the finite speed
> of light means that we are looking backward in time, and that means that
> we can't see the present "spherical surface" even if there were one.
>
> So no matter where we look, we see galaxies at earlier and earlier times
> in the universe the farther they are away from us.
>

In fact I have mentioned this effect on several occasions. I wanted to 
point out, that what we call 'universe' is actually our (Earth bound) 
view on the universe.

This is in fact a very distorted picture: there are 'spherical shells' 
of different age, that do not really belong together, that we see as one 
thing.

Also the spectrum of observations is limited to what we can see (or 
measure otherwise).

But certainly that's not everything that exists (not 'universal').

I also assume, that time is local and we base OUR observations on OUR 
time. (I call that a 'time domain').

And we have the inverse to timelike, that is spacelike and this means: 
distance in no time.

So in fact we have a spectrum of velocities, ranging from zero (0°) to 
infinity (90°). The middle is 45° (in the spacetime view) and that is c.

This 45° is called 'light-like' and this is always 45°, however you may 
define 'timelike'.

 From this I draw the conclusion, that to any observer belongs a 
different 'universe', what is not really universal, but appears to be.

The spacelike connections are actually static (have no time component), 
what is a feature of static fields.

The timelike direction is the opposite, hence does not cover space and 
stays in time. This is a feature of mass.

Now I combine both an have an atom.

Now this depends on the timeline and changing that would make matter 
appear as radiation (and vice versa).

So I came to the conclusion, that matter must be kind of 'relative', too.

(long version here:

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


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357178

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 9:00:28 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 15.07.2015 00:48, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> >
> > On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 2:19:01 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >
> > > On 7/14/2015 3:04 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would say: it's not only not convincing, but also violates certain
> > > > observations.
> > > >
> > > > E.g. an expanding universe would have stars predominantly at its
> > > > surface. That is a roughly two-dimensional arrangement we would expect
> > > > after big-bang-expansion.
> > >
> > > Maybe YOU expect that, but it certainly is not a feature of the big bang
> > > model. I think such a observation would only be implied if you thought
> > > of the universe as having a roughly spherical surface and a geometric
> > > center. That is NOT the model of the universe in the big bang. The big
> > > bang universe has no boundary and no center.
> > >
> > > So I think the mismatch is that you just aren't thinking of the same big
> > > bang model that physicists are thinking of, and so maybe the validity of
> > > assumptions you are questioning are just not the right assumptions.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > But this is not observed. Instead the universe looks quite homogeneous
> > > > in all directions.
> > > >
> > > > TH
> >
> > And Heger is not thinking about the universe properly:  the finite speed
> > of light means that we are looking backward in time, and that means that
> > we can't see the present "spherical surface" even if there were one.
> >
> > So no matter where we look, we see galaxies at earlier and earlier times
> > in the universe the farther they are away from us.
> >
> 
> In fact I have mentioned this effect on several occasions. I wanted to 
> point out, that what we call 'universe' is actually our (Earth bound) 
> view on the universe.
> 
> This is in fact a very distorted picture: there are 'spherical shells' 
> of different age, that do not really belong together, that we see as one 
> thing.

So why did you make the naïve claim that OBSERVATION conflicts with the
naïve "shell" idea?  You aren't making sense here.

Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357469

Am 16.07.2015 15:45, schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>> So I try to discuss a certain subset of physical problems and that is -
>> among others - 'Growing Earth'.
>>
>> Other subjects have been Earthquakes, SRT, the idea of particles, the
>> standard model of cosmology, CMBR and a few others.
>
> Note that all of those are PHYSICAL THEORIES, with all the components a
> physical theory requires.
>
>>
>> All of these discussions failed, (like this one failed).
>>
>> Reason: in my impression the system of education in physics is kind of
>> 'voodoo' and efficiently brainwashes otherwise sane minds of young man
>> (plus a few women) into believing, what their voodoo-priests tell them.
>
> I disagree. I think what it requires is some background training in the
> subject you are not familiar with. I think there are a lot of people who
> do not want to have to deal with that background training before being
> able to talk competently about that subject matter, because they are
> lazy. And so these people dismiss and disparage the value of that
> background training, calling it "brainwashing" or "religious training"
> or "zombie hypnosis" or other ridiculous things. When, in fact, it is
> just EDUCATION. Education that these people find too much of a burden to
> take on.


My impression:

there is a second science, that is developed behind closed curtains and 
the official nonsense is for the stupid public.

To keep the general public stupid, there is nonsense produced and hailed 
as greatest achievement of mankind.

To educate the producers of nonsense and to keep the secrets secret, 
there is brainwashing used. This is commonly not called 'brainwashing', 
but 'higher education' in what is called 'university'.

The Voodoo-high-priests of such education carefully select the initiates 
into the 'inner sanctum' (the science behind the curtain), if they are 
smart enough, but not too smart. Also a few courses in witchcraft and 
alchemy are than mandatory. And if the candidate is doing still well, he 
could eventually peep into 'real science'.

If non-selected do similar, they got struck by lightning, sent out by 
the Harry Potters of Cornell.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357480

On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 22:34:59 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

>Am 16.07.2015 15:45, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>
>>> So I try to discuss a certain subset of physical problems and that is -
>>> among others - 'Growing Earth'.
>>>
>>> Other subjects have been Earthquakes, SRT, the idea of particles, the
>>> standard model of cosmology, CMBR and a few others.
>>
>> Note that all of those are PHYSICAL THEORIES, with all the components a
>> physical theory requires.
>>
>>>
>>> All of these discussions failed, (like this one failed).
>>>
>>> Reason: in my impression the system of education in physics is kind of
>>> 'voodoo' and efficiently brainwashes otherwise sane minds of young man
>>> (plus a few women) into believing, what their voodoo-priests tell them.
>>
>> I disagree. I think what it requires is some background training in the
>> subject you are not familiar with. I think there are a lot of people who
>> do not want to have to deal with that background training before being
>> able to talk competently about that subject matter, because they are
>> lazy. And so these people dismiss and disparage the value of that
>> background training, calling it "brainwashing" or "religious training"
>> or "zombie hypnosis" or other ridiculous things. When, in fact, it is
>> just EDUCATION. Education that these people find too much of a burden to
>> take on.
>
>
>My impression:
>
>there is a second science, that is developed behind closed curtains and 
>the official nonsense is for the stupid public.
>
>To keep the general public stupid, there is nonsense produced and hailed 
>as greatest achievement of mankind.
>
>To educate the producers of nonsense and to keep the secrets secret, 
>there is brainwashing used. This is commonly not called 'brainwashing', 
>but 'higher education' in what is called 'university'.
>
>The Voodoo-high-priests of such education carefully select the initiates 
>into the 'inner sanctum' (the science behind the curtain), if they are 
>smart enough, but not too smart. Also a few courses in witchcraft and 
>alchemy are than mandatory. And if the candidate is doing still well, he 
>could eventually peep into 'real science'.
>
>If non-selected do similar, they got struck by lightning, sent out by 
>the Harry Potters of Cornell.
>
>TH

         Are you by any chance a child raised
in Soviet Germany?

         I suppose that could cause an insane distrust.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357486

On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 9:35:10 PM UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 16.07.2015 15:45, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> 
> >> So I try to discuss a certain subset of physical problems and that is -
> >> among others - 'Growing Earth'.
> >>
> >> Other subjects have been Earthquakes, SRT, the idea of particles, the
> >> standard model of cosmology, CMBR and a few others.
> >
> > Note that all of those are PHYSICAL THEORIES, with all the components a
> > physical theory requires.
> >
> >>
> >> All of these discussions failed, (like this one failed).
> >>
> >> Reason: in my impression the system of education in physics is kind of
> >> 'voodoo' and efficiently brainwashes otherwise sane minds of young man
> >> (plus a few women) into believing, what their voodoo-priests tell them.
> >
> > I disagree. I think what it requires is some background training in the
> > subject you are not familiar with. I think there are a lot of people who
> > do not want to have to deal with that background training before being
> > able to talk competently about that subject matter, because they are
> > lazy. And so these people dismiss and disparage the value of that
> > background training, calling it "brainwashing" or "religious training"
> > or "zombie hypnosis" or other ridiculous things. When, in fact, it is
> > just EDUCATION. Education that these people find too much of a burden to
> > take on.
> 
> 
> My impression:
> 
> there is a second science, that is developed behind closed curtains and 
> the official nonsense is for the stupid public.
> 
> To keep the general public stupid, there is nonsense produced and hailed 
> as greatest achievement of mankind.
> 
> To educate the producers of nonsense and to keep the secrets secret, 
> there is brainwashing used. This is commonly not called 'brainwashing', 
> but 'higher education' in what is called 'university'.
> 
> The Voodoo-high-priests of such education carefully select the initiates 
> into the 'inner sanctum' (the science behind the curtain), if they are 
> smart enough, but not too smart. Also a few courses in witchcraft and 
> alchemy are than mandatory. And if the candidate is doing still well, he 
> could eventually peep into 'real science'.
> 
> If non-selected do similar, they got struck by lightning, sent out by 
> the Harry Potters of Cornell.
> 
> 
> TH

but it is all for their own good. far wiser minds than ours have regrettably determined that the general public has to be protected from such potentially catastrophic secret knowledge. for, lets face it, the average IQ of 100 is only just about sufficient to enable your average joe schmoe to walk and talk at the same time, but (in the UK at least) they have been obliged to pass laws to stop people trying to simultaneously chat on a cellphone and drive a vehicle at the same time. 
such misunderstanding! 
big brother really _does_ love you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357521

Am 16.07.2015 23:55, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
..
>>
>> My impression:
>>
>> there is a second science, that is developed behind closed curtains and
>> the official nonsense is for the stupid public.
>>
>> To keep the general public stupid, there is nonsense produced and hailed
>> as greatest achievement of mankind.
>>
>> To educate the producers of nonsense and to keep the secrets secret,
>> there is brainwashing used. This is commonly not called 'brainwashing',
>> but 'higher education' in what is called 'university'.
>>
>> The Voodoo-high-priests of such education carefully select the initiates
>> into the 'inner sanctum' (the science behind the curtain), if they are
>> smart enough, but not too smart. Also a few courses in witchcraft and
>> alchemy are than mandatory. And if the candidate is doing still well, he
>> could eventually peep into 'real science'.
>>
>> If non-selected do similar, they got struck by lightning, sent out by
>> the Harry Potters of Cornell.
>>
>>
>> TH
>
>
> This is just bat-shit crazy.
>
> So, according to you, once someone enters the Hallowed Halls of
> University Science, they must sign a pact that upon penalty of death,
> they will never reveal the secrets of The Cult. And nobody has escaped
> that Cult, and nobody has tried.

Well, the members of such a 'cult' would certainly get in trouble, if 
they reveal certain secrets.

But that is not about science as we know it, but about the hidden 
secrets, not meant to be known by the general public.

Certainly you may live a scientific life without ever getting in any 
kind of contact with such secrets.

But there are other mechanisms, like who is hired into a job and who is 
not, what make people observe invisible rules. So, if SRT is one of 
these things, you may not put into doubt without risking the job, then 
most scientists would never do.

In my eyes there are certain subjects, that have such 'protection 
against critique': 'global warming' for example or 'big-bang cosmology'.

Other subjects (apparently) should be avoided, like gyroscopes or 
certain features of water.

And we seemingly have kind of competition, to create the most obscure 
theories, that have the most unjustified assumptions and the most 
difficult methods used.

Those are than presented as 'gold standard' of science and as most 
advanced representation of such obviously successful endeavour as physics.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357582

On 7/16/2015 7:30 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 16.07.2015 23:55, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> ..
>>>
>>> My impression:
>>>
>>> there is a second science, that is developed behind closed curtains and
>>> the official nonsense is for the stupid public.
>>>
>>> To keep the general public stupid, there is nonsense produced and hailed
>>> as greatest achievement of mankind.
>>>
>>> To educate the producers of nonsense and to keep the secrets secret,
>>> there is brainwashing used. This is commonly not called 'brainwashing',
>>> but 'higher education' in what is called 'university'.
>>>
>>> The Voodoo-high-priests of such education carefully select the initiates
>>> into the 'inner sanctum' (the science behind the curtain), if they are
>>> smart enough, but not too smart. Also a few courses in witchcraft and
>>> alchemy are than mandatory. And if the candidate is doing still well, he
>>> could eventually peep into 'real science'.
>>>
>>> If non-selected do similar, they got struck by lightning, sent out by
>>> the Harry Potters of Cornell.
>>>
>>>
>>> TH
>>
>>
>> This is just bat-shit crazy.
>>
>> So, according to you, once someone enters the Hallowed Halls of
>> University Science, they must sign a pact that upon penalty of death,
>> they will never reveal the secrets of The Cult. And nobody has escaped
>> that Cult, and nobody has tried.
>
> Well, the members of such a 'cult' would certainly get in trouble, if
> they reveal certain secrets.

What kind of trouble would they get in?

And if one of the Cult were to get disenchanted and were to defect? What 
kind of trouble would he get into for revealing the secrets?

>
> But that is not about science as we know it, but about the hidden
> secrets, not meant to be known by the general public.
>
> Certainly you may live a scientific life without ever getting in any
> kind of contact with such secrets.
>
> But there are other mechanisms, like who is hired into a job and who is
> not, what make people observe invisible rules. So, if SRT is one of
> these things, you may not put into doubt without risking the job, then
> most scientists would never do.
>
> In my eyes there are certain subjects, that have such 'protection
> against critique': 'global warming' for example or 'big-bang cosmology'.
>
> Other subjects (apparently) should be avoided, like gyroscopes or
> certain features of water.
>
> And we seemingly have kind of competition, to create the most obscure
> theories, that have the most unjustified assumptions and the most
> difficult methods used.
>
> Those are than presented as 'gold standard' of science and as most
> advanced representation of such obviously successful endeavour as physics.
>
> TH
>
>
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357658

Am 17.07.2015 14:14, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> On 7/16/2015 7:30 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 16.07.2015 23:55, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> ..
>>>>
>>>> My impression:
>>>>
>>>> there is a second science, that is developed behind closed curtains and
>>>> the official nonsense is for the stupid public.
>>>>
>>>> To keep the general public stupid, there is nonsense produced and
>>>> hailed
>>>> as greatest achievement of mankind.
>>>>
>>>> To educate the producers of nonsense and to keep the secrets secret,
>>>> there is brainwashing used. This is commonly not called 'brainwashing',
>>>> but 'higher education' in what is called 'university'.
>>>>
>>>> The Voodoo-high-priests of such education carefully select the
>>>> initiates
>>>> into the 'inner sanctum' (the science behind the curtain), if they are
>>>> smart enough, but not too smart. Also a few courses in witchcraft and
>>>> alchemy are than mandatory. And if the candidate is doing still
>>>> well, he
>>>> could eventually peep into 'real science'.
>>>>
>>>> If non-selected do similar, they got struck by lightning, sent out by
>>>> the Harry Potters of Cornell.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>
>>>
>>> This is just bat-shit crazy.
>>>
>>> So, according to you, once someone enters the Hallowed Halls of
>>> University Science, they must sign a pact that upon penalty of death,
>>> they will never reveal the secrets of The Cult. And nobody has escaped
>>> that Cult, and nobody has tried.
>>
>> Well, the members of such a 'cult' would certainly get in trouble, if
>> they reveal certain secrets.
>
> What kind of trouble would they get in?
>
> And if one of the Cult were to get disenchanted and were to defect? What
> kind of trouble would he get into for revealing the secrets?
>

I' sorry, but I cannot answer such a question. But if I would design 
such a plot, I would like the followers to keep their mouth shut. So 
keeping secrets away from public view would be mandatory.

On the other hand, there are ordinary people and some of them might be 
smart enough to show up with some sort of alternative ideas.

If they manage to present something, that sounds plausible and has 
otherwise good results, than such ideas could be investigated further.

So I would like to replicate some experiments, like those of Viktor 
Schauberger, Nikola Tesla or John Hutchison, since these men are 
unrecognised outsiders with somehow interesting ideas.

(It's in any case more promising and rewarding to think 'out of the 
box', since the mainstream is already explored.)

If such cults would exist, their members most likely do not want 
outsiders to gain any sort of influence. But they can't help, if there 
are successful experiments or other results of importance from outside 
the mainstream.

Then the general public could eventually turn away from such sects and 
leave them alone with their Voodoo.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357125

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 22:04:30 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

>Am 14.07.2015 01:43, schrieb shuba:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> Big-bang nucleosynthesis has a different approach
>>
>> Yes. It is a useful scientific hypothesis, with predictive power
>> and supporting data.
>>
>
>
>Possibly the idea is 'useful'.
>
>But what do you think about the validity of this assumption?
>
>I would say: it's not only not convincing, but also violates certain 
>observations.
>
>E.g. an expanding universe would have stars predominantly at its 
>surface. That is a roughly two-dimensional arrangement we would expect 
>after big-bang-expansion.
>
>But this is not observed. Instead the universe looks quite homogeneous 
>in all directions.
>
>TH

         Apparently nucleosynthesis went right 
over your head.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=nucleosynthesis

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web