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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #368621 > unrolled thread

Twins and the universe

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

Contents

  Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-30 23:40 +0100
    Re: Twins and the universe paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 16:15 -0700
    Re: Twins and the universe John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 18:49 -0700
      Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-31 09:02 +0100
    Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-30 22:03 -0500
      Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 21:30 -0700
        Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 21:39 -0700
          Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 20:00 -0800
      Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 00:03 -0700
        Re: Twins and the universe crisd <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 14:08 -0800
          Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 23:01 -0800
      Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-31 09:11 +0100
        Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-02 13:28 -0600
          Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 21:32 -0800
            Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-03 10:19 -0600
              Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-04 01:41 +0100
                Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-04 02:09 +0100
                Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-03 21:51 -0600
                  Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 22:27 -0800
                  Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-04 09:24 +0100
                Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 07:48 -0600
                  Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-04 06:43 -0800
                  Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-05 04:19 +0100
                    Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 10:47 -0600
                      Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-05 21:00 +0100
                        Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-06 05:46 +0100
                          Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 20:54 -0800
                          Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 07:54 -0600
                          Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 19:28 -0800
              Re: Twins and the universe Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 22:10 -0800
          Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-03 01:22 -0800
      Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-31 10:04 -0500
        Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-01 09:36 +0100
          Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-03 10:14 -0600
            Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-03 19:45 +0100
              Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-07 08:52 -0600
                Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-07 17:02 +0100
            Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-09 08:13 -0800
              Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 10:25 -0600
                Re: Twins and the universe Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-09 19:00 +0000
                Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-09 11:55 -0800
                  Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 15:51 -0600
              Re: Twins and the universe Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-09 18:59 +0000
      Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-01 06:25 -0800
      Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-01 06:49 -0800
        Re: Twins and the universe Wayne Olmstead <wayols@eclipseevenet.org> - 2015-11-01 14:55 +0000
        Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 09:32 -0600
          Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-03 01:15 -0800
          Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-07 07:59 -0800
            Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 09:23 -0600
              Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-09 08:23 -0800
                Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 10:27 -0600
                  Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-09 12:22 -0800
                    Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 15:58 -0600
                      Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-10 06:07 -0800
                        Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 08:32 -0600
                          Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-10 06:54 -0800
                            Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 13:44 -0600
                              Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-11 06:19 -0800
                                Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 09:12 -0600
                                  Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-11 12:47 -0800
                                    Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 15:02 -0600
                                      Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-14 06:52 -0800
                                        Re: Twins and the universe Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 16:14 +0000
      Re: Twins and the universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-11-07 07:49 -0800
    Re: Twins and the universe fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-30 21:58 -0700
    Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-31 05:58 +0100
      Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-31 09:14 +0100
        Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-31 10:14 +0100
          Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-31 11:14 +0100
            Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-01 05:16 +0100
              Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-01 09:11 +0100
                Re: Twins and the universe John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:13 -0800
                  Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-01 23:03 -0800
                Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-03 05:42 +0100
                  Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-03 01:31 -0800
                    Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-04 01:34 +0100
                      Re: Twins and the universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-03 23:51 -0800
                        Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-05 00:30 -0600
                          Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-05 10:16 +0100
                            Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 18:17 -0800
                              Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-07 16:41 +0100
                            Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 18:35 -0800
                              Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-07 16:42 +0100
                          Re: Twins and the universe alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-05 11:43 -0800
                          Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 18:14 -0800
                  Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 20:21 -0800
                    Re: Twins and the universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 20:30 -0800
                  Re: Twins and the universe John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 18:00 -0800
                    Re: Twins and the universe shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-07 03:07 +0000
                      Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-07 05:35 +0100
                        Re: Twins and the universe shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-07 06:28 +0000
                        Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-07 09:02 -0600
                          Re: Twins and the universe Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-11-07 15:09 +0000
                          Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-07 17:05 +0100
                          Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-08 07:52 +0100
                            Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 04:38 -0800
                              Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 13:58 +0100
                                Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 05:38 -0800
                                  Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 15:24 +0100
                                    Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 06:36 -0800
                                      Re: Twins and the universe paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 07:13 -0800
                                        Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 16:18 +0100
                                        Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 07:32 -0800
                                          Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 16:48 +0100
                                      Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 16:15 +0100
                              Re: Twins and the universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-08 14:22 -0600
                                Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 13:41 -0800
                                Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 23:18 +0100
                            Re: Twins and the universe shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-08 19:05 +0000
                              Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-08 20:51 +0100
                            Re: Twins and the universe pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-08 13:55 -0800
                              Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 14:00 -0800
                                Re: Twins and the universe pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-08 14:13 -0800
                              Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-09 05:58 +0100
                              Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-10 04:31 +0100
                                Re: Twins and the universe JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 20:34 -0800
                                Re: Twins and the universe pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-09 20:45 -0800
                                  Re: Twins and the universe shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-10 21:23 +0000
                                    Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 15:42 -0600
                                      Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-11 03:01 +0100
                                        Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 20:06 -0600
                                          Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-11 06:21 +0100
                                            Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 01:08 -0500
                                            Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-11 04:00 -0800
                                            Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 07:32 -0600
                                              Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-11 16:51 +0100
                                                Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 10:27 -0600
                                                  Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-11 22:48 +0100
                                                    Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 18:11 -0500
                                                      Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-12 06:22 +0100
                                                        Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 01:23 -0500
                                                          Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 04:13 -0800
                                                            Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-12 21:30 +0100
                                                              Re: Twins and the universe kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 16:25 -0500
                                                              Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 14:35 -0800
                                                                Re: Twins and the universe Ted Striker <tedstrickdr@mailaccount.org> - 2015-11-12 22:47 +0000
                                                                Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-13 05:25 +0100
                                                                  Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 20:49 -0800
                                                                    Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-14 05:02 +0100
                                                                      Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-14 10:11 +0100
                                                                        Re: Twins and the universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-14 11:10 +0100
                                                                          Re: Twins and the universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-14 12:11 +0100
                                                                      Re: Twins and the universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 04:54 -0800
                                      Re: Twins and the universe RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-11 16:18 -0800
                                        Re: Twins and the universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 11:32 -0600

Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8  Next page →

#369606

Am 10.11.2015 22:42, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> On 11/10/2015 3:23 PM, shuba wrote:
>> pnalsing wrote:
>>
>>> So, essentially you are just a basic run-of-the-mill conspiracy
>>> theorist, who has no trust of mainstream physicists... right?
>>
>> Not quite. Thomas Heger is batshit insane and has an extreme,
>> uncontrollable hatred for scientists and all intellectual
>> activities in general. This has led him to be a conspiracy kook.
>>
>> Pretty much everything he says about relativity is seriously
>> misinformed, and the same can be said for his irrational fixation
>> on 'growing earth', where he has shown stunning lack of study of the
>> basics of modern concepts in geoscience in favor of pure crankery.
>>

'Growing Earth' is actually essential, since if Earth would behave the 
way I assume, than important theories turn out to be wrong.

What is wrong (if GE is true), that is the 'absoluteness' of matter.

I have put matter into the realm of relativistic subjects, like space 
and time and wrote:

what is matter for one observer is radiation for another observer.

This assumption I needed for my concept called 'structured spacetime'. 
And for this I needed a plausible observation and GE should provide that.

Growing Earth is actually an example, that violates the so called 
standard model, since planets could not grow from inside, if the idea of 
particles would be correct. This is because the growth is not by gain of 
dust or alike, but by creation of matter and mass inside the planet.

Such creation of matter could be observed in other circumstances as 
well, if my assumption would be correct. So I assume, that it is 
possible to create dust inside a closed cube of transparent plastic, if 
this is put into a chamber with 'hard' pulsed microwaves.

This is in the sense of Poppers scientific method a testable assumption 
and would allow to distinguish the ideas (absolute vs relative matter) 
by an experiment.

>
> It's just a preliminary observation, but it seems to me there are really
> only a few that post here that have an outright hatred of scientists.

that is simply not true.

I have sentiments against certain circles, that are  (apparently) mostly 
anglo-american, about which I assume, they would like to create a 
worldwide fascistic dictatorship, commonly called 'New World Order'.

It's like JFK once said: '..we are facing around the globe a wast and 
ruthless conspiracy...'.

And certain parts of science are apparently involved.

Most likely that was not the idea of scientists, but people are people 
and like to keep their jobs. And if the employer has something to hide, 
so will the employee.

It is in fact true, that I spent some time now on such subjects like  9/11.

So instead of physics I have changed the subject of my hobby to 
'conspiracy theories'.

My method is like an attempt to 'reverse engineer' occultism. This is 
meant as trying to understand, what certain sects actually do and why 
they would do that.

This is quite difficult, since 'occult' means 'secret'. And such sects 
do not like at all, what I try to do.

So maybe I'm wrong, with what I assume.

But incorrect assumptions are kind of price, you need to pay, if you 
like to deepen the understanding of certain subjects.



TH

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

#369608

On 11/10/2015 8:01 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> 'Growing Earth' is actually essential, since if Earth would behave the
> way I assume, than important theories turn out to be wrong.

But SUPPOSING a theory is correct accomplishes nothing, Thomas.

If there are two theories that say different things and conflict with 
each other, then the way scientists resolve this disagreement is simple:
Both theories should be able to make quantitative predictions of 
measurable quantities under specified circumstances. Then you find or 
replicate those circumstances and make the measurement of the quantity.
The measurement then determines which one is right and which one is wrong.

The SUPPOSITION that your theory is right is utterly pointless and has 
no value in science.

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

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

#369626

Am 11.11.2015 03:06, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> On 11/10/2015 8:01 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> 'Growing Earth' is actually essential, since if Earth would behave the
>> way I assume, than important theories turn out to be wrong.
>
> But SUPPOSING a theory is correct accomplishes nothing, Thomas.
>
> If there are two theories that say different things and conflict with
> each other, then the way scientists resolve this disagreement is simple:
> Both theories should be able to make quantitative predictions of
> measurable quantities under specified circumstances. Then you find or
> replicate those circumstances and make the measurement of the quantity.
> The measurement then determines which one is right and which one is wrong.
>
> The SUPPOSITION that your theory is right is utterly pointless and has
> no value in science.
>


But I DO make a prediction. (This is also a quantitative prediction):

the sea-levels fall in our times (on average) by a rate of 4 meters per 
millennium.

Reason:

'Growing Earth' and 'Plate tectonics' are essentially the same, but 
differ in one point. PT assumes constant size of the Earth, while 
'Growing Earth' -obviously- assumes growth.

This 'steady state' of PT requires 'subduction', to balance expansion 
(of oceans).

So PT assumes kind of 'conveyor belt' mechanism, where plates emerge at 
certain places. This is balanced by subduction.

GE assumes only growth. This growth would cause falling sea-levels 
(while PT assumes roughly constant sea-levels). So we need proof for 
falling sea-levels in historic times.

Since written history does not cover time-spans relevant in earth 
development, we find only very small changes of sea-levels in a few 
thousand years. But actually we CAN see them. Only you need to 
understand certain geological formations.

Hints are former harbours, that now are located on hills and off the coast.

E.g. ships drowned in the former Viking harbour Haitabu. They are found 
today on land and that would require, that the Baltic Sea had been much 
higher then.

Or 'Portus Romae' is now a lake near Fiomicino airport (8m above sea-level).

Troy was once a port and now rests on a hill, 5 km from the coast (hight 
about 30 m). So we can estimate the age of the oldest parts of Troy as 
7500 years.

But also much longer time-spans are possible (change rate was slower in 
earlier times). My favourite example is the Atacama desert.

This place is famous for petrified guano, called Chilenian-saltpeter.

The desert looks like a dried out former internal sea, (much like the 
dead sea). Only it is high in the mountains.

It seems to be an inhabited coast, since someone left large 'drawings' 
in the landscape - in places, that look like related to this coast.

Since the desert is dry for about 15 mio years, humans (or similar) must 
have lived there that long ago.

The age is known with high degree of certainty, because the desert is 
covered with gypsum and that could be used to estimate, when the water 
dried out.

TH

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

#369627

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 06:21:29 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

>Am 11.11.2015 03:06, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> On 11/10/2015 8:01 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>> 'Growing Earth' is actually essential, since if Earth would behave the
>>> way I assume, than important theories turn out to be wrong.
>>
>> But SUPPOSING a theory is correct accomplishes nothing, Thomas.
>>
>> If there are two theories that say different things and conflict with
>> each other, then the way scientists resolve this disagreement is simple:
>> Both theories should be able to make quantitative predictions of
>> measurable quantities under specified circumstances. Then you find or
>> replicate those circumstances and make the measurement of the quantity.
>> The measurement then determines which one is right and which one is wrong.
>>
>> The SUPPOSITION that your theory is right is utterly pointless and has
>> no value in science.
>>
>
>
>But I DO make a prediction. (This is also a quantitative prediction):
>
>the sea-levels fall in our times (on average) by a rate of 4 meters per 
>millennium.
>
>Reason:
>
>'Growing Earth' and 'Plate tectonics' are essentially the same, but 
>differ in one point. PT assumes constant size of the Earth, while 
>'Growing Earth' -obviously- assumes growth.
>
>This 'steady state' of PT requires 'subduction', to balance expansion 
>(of oceans).
>
>So PT assumes kind of 'conveyor belt' mechanism, where plates emerge at 
>certain places. This is balanced by subduction.
>
>GE assumes only growth. This growth would cause falling sea-levels 
>(while PT assumes roughly constant sea-levels). So we need proof for 
>falling sea-levels in historic times.
>
>Since written history does not cover time-spans relevant in earth 
>development, we find only very small changes of sea-levels in a few 
>thousand years. But actually we CAN see them. Only you need to 
>understand certain geological formations.
>
>Hints are former harbours, that now are located on hills and off the coast.
>
>E.g. ships drowned in the former Viking harbour Haitabu. They are found 
>today on land and that would require, that the Baltic Sea had been much 
>higher then.
>
>Or 'Portus Romae' is now a lake near Fiomicino airport (8m above sea-level).

         Heger, you just read one account, and
jump around without really investigating the
issue.

         The problem with many coastal areas is
silting, causing river deltas and all kinds of
change in the topology.
         And, many areas have either fallen,
or risen, due to underground sinking or
upheavals, for instance, the Petrified Forest
in Arizona uplifted 4000 feet to be where it
is now.

:"They expect Portus, which had to be abandoned after it began to silt up
:in the 6th century, to eventually rank alongside some of the world's 
:best-known ancient cities. "Portus must be one of the most important 
:archaeological sites in the world," said Prof Keay. 
:"The great thing about Portus is that most of it has been preserved and 
:there is much more to learn about the important role it played in 
:Rome's success." 

         The silting, upheavals and subsidence
has very little to do with sea levels which are
known to have risen in the last 2000 years by
as much as 10 meters:

         Over longer periods, sea levels have
changed, but not in the way you describe,
in fact, your insane delusions are not even
close to the facts;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland








>Troy was once a port and now rests on a hill, 5 km from the coast (hight 
>about 30 m). So we can estimate the age of the oldest parts of Troy as 
>7500 years.
>
>But also much longer time-spans are possible (change rate was slower in 
>earlier times). My favourite example is the Atacama desert.
>
>This place is famous for petrified guano, called Chilenian-saltpeter.
>
>The desert looks like a dried out former internal sea, (much like the 
>dead sea). Only it is high in the mountains.
>
>It seems to be an inhabited coast, since someone left large 'drawings' 
>in the landscape - in places, that look like related to this coast.
>
>Since the desert is dry for about 15 mio years, humans (or similar) must 
>have lived there that long ago.
>
>The age is known with high degree of certainty, because the desert is 
>covered with gypsum and that could be used to estimate, when the water 
>dried out.
>
>TH

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

#369648

On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 10:21:30 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> But I DO make a prediction. (This is also a quantitative prediction):
> 
> the sea-levels fall in our times (on average) by a rate of 4 meters per 
> millennium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1880-2013.png

Four meters/millennium is 4 cm/decade.  Sea levels have risen NINE INCHES
in the past 133 years.  Your speculation is refuted.

> Reason:
> 
> 'Growing Earth' and 'Plate tectonics' are essentially the same, but 
> differ in one point. PT assumes constant size of the Earth, while 
> 'Growing Earth' -obviously- assumes growth.
> ....
> GE assumes only growth. This growth would cause falling sea-levels 
> (while PT assumes roughly constant sea-levels). So we need proof for 
> falling sea-levels in historic times.
> 
> Since written history does not cover time-spans relevant in earth 
> development, we find only very small changes of sea-levels in a few 
> thousand years. But actually we CAN see them. Only you need to 
> understand certain geological formations.

That's baloney.  We can read the record for the past 20 Kyears and there
has been nothing but a rise of 120 METERS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

> Hints are former harbours, that now are located on hills and off the coast.

Hints aren't measured data.  Your baloney is busted by actual evidence.

Gary

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

#369651

On 11/10/2015 11:21 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> But I DO make a prediction. (This is also a quantitative prediction):
>
> the sea-levels fall in our times (on average) by a rate of 4 meters per
> millennium.

This would be true not only in our times but over the course of history, 
ever since earth's formation, right? I mean, it's not like the growing 
earth just started growing in the last couple of centuries, right?

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

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

#369683

Am 11.11.2015 14:32, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> On 11/10/2015 11:21 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> But I DO make a prediction. (This is also a quantitative prediction):
>>
>> the sea-levels fall in our times (on average) by a rate of 4 meters per
>> millennium.
>
> This would be true not only in our times but over the course of history,
> ever since earth's formation, right? I mean, it's not like the growing
> earth just started growing in the last couple of centuries, right?
>

That's almost right. But I would expect accelerated growth: The same 
growth of the last 60 million years took 600 million years before. 
(according to Neil Adams:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ
)

So this rate is our present rate of change.

And: the amount of water is not constant in 'Growing Earth'.

GE assumes, that matter is created inside the planet and water is among 
these substances, that come out of the inner Earth.

So GE assumes a steady increase of the light gases and of water, too, 
that are gassing out of volcanoes.

And then we have hard materials, that are eroded on land or stem from 
eruptions. These would also influence the sea-levels.

So we have a difficult relation between land and water in GE.

Also other celestial objects show the same behaviour, hence similar 
effects should be observable on all planets, moons or sons.

And, as a matter of fact, Neil Adams made animations, that show such 
growth on Mars and the moons of Jupiter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d44Jj_3gp-M


TH

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

#369687

On 11/11/2015 9:51 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> So we have a difficult relation between land and water in GE.

Which means you are making excused for not being able to come up with a 
prediction, which you claimed to be able to do.

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

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

#369700

Am 11.11.2015 17:27, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> On 11/11/2015 9:51 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> So we have a difficult relation between land and water in GE.
>
> Which means you are making excused for not being able to come up with a
> prediction, which you claimed to be able to do.
>

Well, actually I wanted to use the 'Growing Earth' hypothesis for 
another purpose (other than figuring out the relation between land and 
water).

There are lot of difficult details, that would need to be investigated 
(if Earth would in fact grow). But I do not want to that. Sorry, but 
geology was not my subject.


TH

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

#369708

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 22:48:08 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

>Am 11.11.2015 17:27, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> On 11/11/2015 9:51 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> So we have a difficult relation between land and water in GE.
>>
>> Which means you are making excused for not being able to come up with a
>> prediction, which you claimed to be able to do.
>>
>
>Well, actually I wanted to use the 'Growing Earth' hypothesis for 
>another purpose (other than figuring out the relation between land and 
>water).
>
>There are lot of difficult details, that would need to be investigated 
>(if Earth would in fact grow). But I do not want to that. Sorry, but 
>geology was not my subject.
>
>TH

         If you think there is _ANY_ possible mechanism
that could create new matter "within" the Earth,
you are an insane ignorant moron nutcase.

        Nothing you have written is of any interest,
because it is all fantasy.

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

#369758

Am 12.11.2015 00:11, schrieb kefischer:

>> Well, actually I wanted to use the 'Growing Earth' hypothesis for
>> another purpose (other than figuring out the relation between land and
>> water).
>>
>> There are lot of difficult details, that would need to be investigated
>> (if Earth would in fact grow). But I do not want to that. Sorry, but
>> geology was not my subject.
>>
>> TH
>
>           If you think there is _ANY_ possible mechanism
> that could create new matter "within" the Earth,
> you are an insane ignorant moron nutcase.
>

Physics is a natural science and based on observations (not on insults).

So: if Earth would in fact grow (despite your rants), this would deserve 
some sort of interest (in physics).

I came to 'Growing Earth', because I had the mechanism before I even 
have heard about Growing Earth. Actually I was looking for evidence for 
this model:

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

The idea does not stem from Growing Earth, but was meant as my 
suggestion for how to connect GR to QM.

I made the suggestion, to test, whether or not my assumption is correct:
it should be possible to create dust by pulsed microwaves.

Unfortunately I have no access to an appropriate laboratory. But 
eventually someone reading this has (and could eventually conduct such 
experiments).

TH

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

#369762

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 06:22:48 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

>Am 12.11.2015 00:11, schrieb kefischer:
>
>>> Well, actually I wanted to use the 'Growing Earth' hypothesis for
>>> another purpose (other than figuring out the relation between land and
>>> water).
>>>
>>> There are lot of difficult details, that would need to be investigated
>>> (if Earth would in fact grow). But I do not want to that. Sorry, but
>>> geology was not my subject.
>>>
>>> TH
>>
>>           If you think there is _ANY_ possible mechanism
>> that could create new matter "within" the Earth,
>> you are an insane ignorant moron nutcase.
>>
>
>Physics is a natural science and based on observations (not on insults).
>
>So: if Earth would in fact grow (despite your rants), this would deserve 
>some sort of interest (in physics).
>
>I came to 'Growing Earth', because I had the mechanism before I even 
>have heard about Growing Earth. Actually I was looking for evidence for 
>this model:
>
>https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>
>The idea does not stem from Growing Earth, but was meant as my 
>suggestion for how to connect GR to QM.
>
>I made the suggestion, to test, whether or not my assumption is correct:
>it should be possible to create dust by pulsed microwaves.
>
>Unfortunately I have no access to an appropriate laboratory. But 
>eventually someone reading this has (and could eventually conduct such 
>experiments).
>
>TH

        I am not insulting you, I am just telling you
that you are fixated on an insane, impossible,
goofy idea that you can't shake, and it is making
you a stupid, insane nutcase.

       The maximum amount of mass that results
from cosmic rays is about 2 pounds per year,
and there are many thousands of times that
much dust and meteorites falling from space
on the surface.

       No matter how big a lab machine you
could afford, it wouldn't produce in a million
years what the cosmic rays produce in 
one second.

        So, kiss my ass, nutcase.

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

#369775

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 11:23:30 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 06:22:48 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> >
> >Am 12.11.2015 00:11, schrieb kefischer:
> > >
> > >           If you think there is _ANY_ possible mechanism
> > > that could create new matter "within" the Earth,
> > > you are an insane ignorant moron nutcase.
> > >
> >
> > Physics is a natural science and based on observations (not on insults).
> >
> > So: if Earth would in fact grow (despite your rants), this would deserve 
> > some sort of interest (in physics).
> >
> > I came to 'Growing Earth', because I had the mechanism before I even 
> > have heard about Growing Earth. Actually I was looking for evidence for 
> > this model:
> >
> > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
> >
> > The idea does not stem from Growing Earth, but was meant as my 
> > suggestion for how to connect GR to QM.
> >
> > I made the suggestion, to test, whether or not my assumption is correct:
> > it should be possible to create dust by pulsed microwaves.

[It's not possible, as explained previously]

>  >Unfortunately I have no access to an appropriate laboratory. But 
> > eventually someone reading this has (and could eventually conduct such 
> > experiments).
> >
> >TH

Poor guy, doesn't even have a microwave oven.  Now don't you feel sorry
for him?

>         I am not insulting you,

Yes, you were, and you still are.

> I am just telling you that you are fixated on an insane, impossible,
> goofy idea that you can't shake, and it is making you a stupid, insane
> nutcase.

It's very ironic that you don't see yourself in this very same category :-)

>        The maximum amount of mass that results
> from cosmic rays is about 2 pounds per year,
> and there are many thousands of times that
> much dust and meteorites falling from space
> on the surface.

Irrelevant.  There is still SOME matter being generated within the earth
from neutrino capture.

>        No matter how big a lab machine you
> could afford, it wouldn't produce in a million
> years what the cosmic rays produce in 
> one second.

Irrelevant.  Comparisons are not appropriate.

>         So, kiss my ass, nutcase.

See?  You insulted him AGAIN!  And he has NEVER insulted you, but has been
a perfect gentleman.  A compulsive crackpot, but polite.  You, OTOH, have
been an ornery compulsive crackpot.

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

#369823

Am 12.11.2015 13:13, schrieb Gary Harnagel:

>>>>            If you think there is _ANY_ possible mechanism
>>>> that could create new matter "within" the Earth,
>>>> you are an insane ignorant moron nutcase.

Yes, I do in fact think, there is a possible mechanism. That's why I 
have written, that I wanted to prove this mechanism with proving 
'Growing Earth'.

>>> Physics is a natural science and based on observations (not on insults).
>>>
>>> So: if Earth would in fact grow (despite your rants), this would deserve
>>> some sort of interest (in physics).
>>>
>>> I came to 'Growing Earth', because I had the mechanism before I even
>>> have heard about Growing Earth. Actually I was looking for evidence for
>>> this model:
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>>>
>>> The idea does not stem from Growing Earth, but was meant as my
>>> suggestion for how to connect GR to QM.
>>>
>>> I made the suggestion, to test, whether or not my assumption is correct:
>>> it should be possible to create dust by pulsed microwaves.
>
> [It's not possible, as explained previously]


How do you know?

MY assumption: it is possible to create dust by pure em-means, like 
pulsed microwaves.

So, why don#t you ask me something like: why do you think so?
Or: how do you justify this assumption?

But you declare: this is not possible.

But who grants you the authority to decide, what is possible and what is 
not?

>>   >Unfortunately I have no access to an appropriate laboratory. But
>>> eventually someone reading this has (and could eventually conduct such
>>> experiments).
>>>
>>> TH
>
> Poor guy, doesn't even have a microwave oven.  Now don't you feel sorry
> for him?

I'm thinking more about something like radar, or at least a little more 
power than a regular microwave oven. I also want very high voltages and 
adjustable frequency and pulse-width, but what this wave is modulated.

Possibly two (or even three) waves are needed.

>>          I am not insulting you,
>
> Yes, you were, and you still are.


Well, insults are actually not the real problem. since - after all - 
this is the UseNet.

If someone hacks insults into his keyboard, than this is more his 
problem, rather than mine.


My problem is more like that of some other guys, like Neil Adams, 
Richard Oldershaw or Pentcho Valev:

I have a certain idea and like to discuss that. But this is almost 
completely impossible. I receive almost never a comment about my 'book', 
but always comments from people, that like to teach me, what I shall 
learn and how little I know.

But how much or little I know, that is irrelevant.

TH

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

#369834

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:30:53 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

>Am 12.11.2015 13:13, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
>
>>>>>            If you think there is _ANY_ possible mechanism
>>>>> that could create new matter "within" the Earth,
>>>>> you are an insane ignorant moron nutcase.
>
>Yes, I do in fact think, there is a possible mechanism. That's why I 
>have written, that I wanted to prove this mechanism with proving 
>'Growing Earth'.
>
>>>> Physics is a natural science and based on observations (not on insults).
>>>>
>>>> So: if Earth would in fact grow (despite your rants), this would deserve
>>>> some sort of interest (in physics).
>>>>
>>>> I came to 'Growing Earth', because I had the mechanism before I even
>>>> have heard about Growing Earth. Actually I was looking for evidence for
>>>> this model:
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>>>>
>>>> The idea does not stem from Growing Earth, but was meant as my
>>>> suggestion for how to connect GR to QM.
>>>>
>>>> I made the suggestion, to test, whether or not my assumption is correct:
>>>> it should be possible to create dust by pulsed microwaves.
>>
>> [It's not possible, as explained previously]
>
>
>How do you know?
>
>MY assumption: it is possible to create dust by pure em-means, like 
>pulsed microwaves.
>
>So, why don#t you ask me something like: why do you think so?
>Or: how do you justify this assumption?
>
>But you declare: this is not possible.
>
>But who grants you the authority to decide, what is possible and what is 
>not?
>
>>>   >Unfortunately I have no access to an appropriate laboratory. But
>>>> eventually someone reading this has (and could eventually conduct such
>>>> experiments).
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>
>> Poor guy, doesn't even have a microwave oven.  Now don't you feel sorry
>> for him?
>
>I'm thinking more about something like radar, or at least a little more 
>power than a regular microwave oven. I also want very high voltages and 
>adjustable frequency and pulse-width, but what this wave is modulated.
>
>Possibly two (or even three) waves are needed.
>
>>>          I am not insulting you,
>>
>> Yes, you were, and you still are.
>
>
>Well, insults are actually not the real problem. since - after all - 
>this is the UseNet.
>
>If someone hacks insults into his keyboard, than this is more his 
>problem, rather than mine.
>
>
>My problem is more like that of some other guys, like Neil Adams, 
>Richard Oldershaw or Pentcho Valev:
>
>I have a certain idea and like to discuss that. But this is almost 
>completely impossible. I receive almost never a comment about my 'book', 
>but always comments from people, that like to teach me, what I shall 
>learn and how little I know.
>
>But how much or little I know, that is irrelevant.
>
>TH

         Then why don't you discuss something
that is physically possible, rather than something
out of nothing.

         Microwave ovens are radar frequency,
why do you need more power?

        The center of the Earth gets NO radar,
and thinking radar can produce dust out of
nothing is goofy, unless you at least use the
formula E = mc^2, which gives you m = E/c^2,
how much mass do you think a Billion KWH
would produce even if your goofy idea worked?

       See, I talked about your goofy idea,
but you, and nobody else talked about
my goofy idea.  :-)

       For your idea to result in the mid-ocean
trenches, there would have to be more 
mass produced than falls on the Earth
from space.

       And even if that  happened, it would
not result in a place for the oceans to
drain into, it is goofy ideas like that 
which don't have a rational cause or
a logical result from another process
that makes you a goof.

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

#369842

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 1:31:02 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 12.11.2015 13:13, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> >
> > > > I made the suggestion, to test, whether or not my assumption is correct:
> > > > it should be possible to create dust by pulsed microwaves.
> >
> > [It's not possible, as explained previously]
> 
> How do you know?

I explained it.  Weren't you paying any attention?

> MY assumption: it is possible to create dust by pure em-means, like 
> pulsed microwaves.

Your assumption is dead wrong.

> So, why don#t you ask me something like: why do you think so?
> Or: how do you justify this assumption?
>
> But you declare: this is not possible.

I did NOT "declare" it.  I explained why your assumption is incorrect.

> But who grants you the authority to decide, what is possible and what is 
> not?

I don't have any authority.  The only authority is experimental evidence,
and that says you are dead wrong.

> > > > Unfortunately I have no access to an appropriate laboratory. But
> > > > eventually someone reading this has (and could eventually conduct such
> > > > experiments).
> > > >
> > > > TH
> >
> > Poor guy, doesn't even have a microwave oven.  Now don't you feel sorry
> > for him?
> 
> I'm thinking more about something like radar, or at least a little more 
> power than a regular microwave oven. I also want very high voltages and 
> adjustable frequency and pulse-width, but what this wave is modulated.
> 
> Possibly two (or even three) waves are needed.

Much, much, much more than you even have an inkling.

> > >          I am not insulting you,
> >
> > Yes, you were, and you still are.
> 
> Well, insults are actually not the real problem. since - after all - 
> this is the UseNet.
> 
> If someone hacks insults into his keyboard, than this is more his 
> problem, rather than mine.

That's a very mature attitude, unlike the guy that verbally assaulted you.

> My problem is more like that of some other guys, like Neil Adams, 
> Richard Oldershaw or Pentcho Valev:
>
> I have a certain idea and like to discuss that. But this is almost 
> completely impossible. I receive almost never a comment about my 'book', 
> but always comments from people, that like to teach me, what I shall 
> learn and how little I know.
> 
> But how much or little I know, that is irrelevant.
> 
> TH

No, it's not irrelevant, particularly when your "assumption" is ruled out
by experimental evidence.

Gary

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

#369843

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> But who grants you the authority to decide, what is possible and what
>> is not?
> 
> I don't have any authority.  The only authority is experimental
> evidence,
> and that says you are dead wrong.

No. Logic suffices. You need fusion to create dust.

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

#369861

Am 12.11.2015 23:35, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
...
>> My problem is more like that of some other guys, like Neil Adams,
>> Richard Oldershaw or Pentcho Valev:
>>
>> I have a certain idea and like to discuss that. But this is almost
>> completely impossible. I receive almost never a comment about my 'book',
>> but always comments from people, that like to teach me, what I shall
>> learn and how little I know.
>>
>> But how much or little I know, that is irrelevant.
>>
>> TH
>
> No, it's not irrelevant, particularly when your "assumption" is ruled out
> by experimental evidence.
>

There exists a common problem in buildings called 'fogging effect'.

This is the sudden appearance of dust, for which no reason is known.

My assumption was: this effect is 'electric' and caused by things like 
WiFi or 'em-pollution'.

This could be tested, but it would require certain means, which I do not 
have.

But it is actually a guess (assumption) and might be wrong.

It is related to the idea I want to promote in this way:

I assume, that matter is a certain 'standing rotation wave' (and not 
composed from particles).

The creation of such waves could be provoked by a standing em-waves, 
which is pulsed (like e.g. radar or cell-phones).

If this would be true, than I would expect dust to occur in unusual 
places (like closed flats). And since acrylic is transparent for 
em-waves, the dust should occur inside such acrylic cubes.

Since such a cubes is sealed, the occurrence of dust inside such a cube 
would prove my idea.

This guess is called 'hypothesis', which is required for a scientific 
proof. It is more like a bet, since if you bet on something, you have an 
idea about the reason for such a bet and assume the 'opponent' has not.

So I bet on the validity of my assumption and you (apparently) on the 
validity of yours.

TH

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

#369862

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 9:26:04 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> This guess is called 'hypothesis', which is required for a scientific 
> proof. It is more like a bet, since if you bet on something, you have an 
> idea about the reason for such a bet and assume the 'opponent' has not.
> 
> So I bet on the validity of my assumption and you (apparently) on the 
> validity of yours.
> 
> TH

I don't have an "assumption" and you would lose the bet about yours.

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

#369909

Am 13.11.2015 05:49, schrieb Gary Harnagel:

>> This guess is called 'hypothesis', which is required for a scientific
>> proof. It is more like a bet, since if you bet on something, you have an
>> idea about the reason for such a bet and assume the 'opponent' has not.
>>
>> So I bet on the validity of my assumption and you (apparently) on the
>> validity of yours.
>>
>> TH
>
> I don't have an "assumption" and you would lose the bet about yours.

Ok, you apparently want to bet on your (well.. ) understanding of what 
you think is true.

And I bet on mine.

But who 'wins'???

In physics the decisions are made by experiment, (not by decision of an 
expert.)

Since no such experiments have been made, we could search for (somehow) 
similar experiments.

There have been experiments with extremely high currents of George 
Lochak, that seem to support my assumption:
http://lochak.com/Z-files/K_Monopole_Lochak_Urutskoiev.pdf

(From here:
http://lochak.com/)

The question is, how to interpret his experiments. I would say, this is 
another example, which would prove, the 'particle concept' (called: 
standard model of qm) is wrong.

Why?

Well, actually he shows, that elements could be altered without some 
sort of nuclear reaction, but by high currents.

And this would be impossible, if the standard model is correct.


TH

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

Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8  Next page →

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

csiph-web