Notices
Results 1 to 88 of 88

Thread: Greatest Scientist

  1. #1 Greatest Scientist 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Greatest Scientist

    Currently, it would seem that Albert Einstein is being touted as the greatest scientist. Yet, while thinking about his mass/energy formula and his GR that promotes the 'curvature of space', I have come to the conclusion that his science is flawed.

    The fission bomb refutes his mass/energy formula.
    This bomb does not gain its energy from any mass conversion but instead, this energy is derived from the release of 'potential' energy that has been confined in the nuclei by the 'strong' force and released by the shattering of the nuclei beyond the range of the 'strong force'.
    This force has the extremely short range of just one nucleon (10^ -14 meters. Collision are created to rattle these nuclei that separates the particles beyond this SF range.
    Once this is done, the similar charged protons then repel each other with the tremendous force of the coulomb repulsion. The neutrons are also released to contribute to the collisions.

    The complex plutonium nuclei , being shattered into smaller component divisions, actually causes a total 'mass increase'. Smaller nuclei and particles will outweigh the larger nuclei when combined into larger nuclei.

    So the release of the potential energy that is transformed into 'kinetic' energy is the source of the explosion and its energy that results in a mass increase.

    I also believe that the Fritz Zwicky 'mysterious dark matter' problem refutes Einstein's GR.
    His GR is supposed to be the result of Newton's gravity creating a 'bend' in 'space'
    (curvature of space) that influences the planets (Mercury) to cause a tiny correction in its precessional orbit that defied the use of Newtonian math.
    It also showed that this curvature also can cause light to bend as has been proven by observation during a total solar eclipse.

    Well, if Newtonian gravity can cause space to bend, then Zwicky's MDM problem in the galaxy clusters would cause space to 'warp' since it is from 10x to 20x times stronger than the Newtonian gravity.
    This tremendous 'warp' would have been noticed by this time because of its much greater strength in enhancing gravity. Since this did not happen, than Einstein's GR is flawed.

    Einstein was 'right' about one thing though and that is that his CoS in a static universe would cause it to collapse. If his CoS could influence the planetary bodies even slightly, than it would also cause the 'erosion' of their momentum.
    His CoS would then also violate the Law of Conservation of Momentum.

    In concluding this article of my evaluation of Einstein's work and the subsequent refutation of it, does that mean that I can now claim the title of 'greatest scientist'?
    Ha ha.

    NS


    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    ever thought for a second that maybe your understanding of science is somewhat flawed or less than perfect?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Currently, it would seem that Albert Einstein is being touted as the greatest scientist.
    and he is

    Yet, while thinking about his mass/energy formula and his GR that promotes the 'curvature of space', I have come to the conclusion that his science is flawed.
    yet it has been proven right, god i hate people like you who dont udnerstand thigns really think that its flaw/wrong just becuase you cant understand it

    The fission bomb refutes his mass/energy formula.
    This bomb does not gain its energy from any mass conversion but instead, this energy is derived from the release of 'potential' energy that has been confined in the nuclei by the 'strong' force and released by the shattering of the nuclei beyond the range of the 'strong force'.
    Nope, it confirms his formula, becuase that energy that is in the nucleas is stored as mass. And yes it is the strong force that causes this. The strong force increase the amount of energy in the nucleus therefor also its mass. And when its spplit to smaller nucleus the mass of them is smaller than the mother nucleus. Wich is becuase some of the mass has become energy

    This force has the extremely short range of just one nucleon (10^ -14 meters. Collision are created to rattle these nuclei that separates the particles beyond this SF range.
    Once this is done, the similar charged protons then repel each other with the tremendous force of the coulomb repulsion. The neutrons are also released to contribute to the collisions.
    this is right

    The complex plutonium nuclei , being shattered into smaller component divisions, actually causes a total 'mass increase'. Smaller nuclei and particles will outweigh the larger nuclei when combined into larger nuclei.
    nope, look in a isotope list with several decimal list and you´ll see its reverse. I hate a list right next to me, i´ll give you some data. Lets say that Pu237 is turned to 2 Ag110, and we also get 17 neutrons here
    mass list (in atomic mass units, carbon-12 atom have mass 12)
    Ag110: 109,906110
    Pu237: 236,0460481
    neutron: 10086649233

    so its Pu<sub>237</sub> -> 2 Ag<sub>110</sub> + 17n

    lets see how much is the mass differens? calculating, wow, the right side weight 0,888801039U more than the plutonium on the left side, mass cant disaphere, so it must hav been turned into energy. Go and read more

    Well, if Newtonian gravity can cause space to bend, then Zwicky's MDM problem in the galaxy clusters would cause space to 'warp' since it is from 10x to 20x times stronger than the Newtonian gravity.
    This tremendous 'warp' would have been noticed by this time because of its much greater strength in enhancing gravity. Since this did not happen, than Einstein's GR is flawed.
    We might not notice this warp becuase its allways there and all light and such that comes to us pass that warp, at this large distances a little differens makes almost no differens. While close to sun its a differens. You are the flaw here, or atleast your reasoning/brain

    In concluding this article of my evaluation of Einstein's work and the subsequent refutation of it, does that mean that I can now claim the title of 'greatest scientist'?
    Ha ha.
    becuase he made something you havent done in a long time, thought things throu. His theory have the acceptense in science, if it werent satesfieng it wouldnt be accepted and been redone. A theory today that survives 100 years is something that is special. If it hadnt been good it wouldnt survive that long
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior Vroomfondel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    234
    Well done by Zelos! *Round of applause*

    Something tells me that Mike NS is gonna keep coming back for more.
    I demand that my name may or may not be vroomfondel!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Greatest Scientist 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    The fission bomb refutes his mass/energy formula.
    This bomb does not gain its energy from any mass conversion but instead, this energy is derived from the release of 'potential' energy that has been confined in the nuclei by the 'strong' force and released by the shattering of the nuclei beyond the range of the 'strong force'.
    This has already been explained to you in another thread. The products of a nuclear fission have less mass than the starting nuclei. All you have to do is look at a list of isotopic masses and do a little arithmetic to confirm it for yourself. Why do you keep bringing up the same argument when it has already been refuted?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    thank you Vroomfondel. and yes you are right
    Scifor Refugee, like i did in this post with math
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Zelos wrote
    yet it has been proven right, god i hate people like you who dont udnerstand thigns really think that its flaw/wrong just becuase you cant understand it
    reply
    Why should I want to understand something that is flawed? I believe in the truth as I see it.

    Nope, it confirms his formula, becuase that energy that is in the nucleas is stored as mass. And yes it is the strong force that causes this. The strong force increase the amount of energy in the nucleus therefor also its mass. And when its spplit to smaller nucleus the mass of them is smaller than the mother nucleus. Wich is becuase some of the mass has become energy
    reply
    You have been licensed to preach the current scientific gospel with your degrees. All you say is what you read or learned in college.
    The current system of education does not allow any ‘free thinkers’ to criticize their teachings.

    nope, look in a isotope list with several decimal list and you´ll see its reverse. I hate a list right next to me, i´ll give you some data. Lets say that Pu237 is turned to 2 Ag110, and we also get 17 neutrons here
    mass list (in atomic mass units, carbon-12 atom have mass 12)
    Ag110: 109,906110
    Pu237: 236,0460481
    neutron: 10086649233

    so its Pu<sub>237</sub> -> 2 Ag<sub>110</sub> + 17n

    lets see how much is the mass differens? calculating, wow, the right side weight 0,888801039U more than the plutonium on the left side, mass cant disaphere, so it must hav been turned into energy. Go and read more
    reply
    Your neutron mass quoted above is incorrect. The correct AMU for the neutron is ^2H - ^1H = 1,006175 x 17 = 17.104975 + 219.81222 = 236.9172 – 236.046 = 0.8712
    So the separated components have more mass than the Pu237 nuclei. So, there is a mass gain of 0.8712
    That is what I have said. The fission bomb has created all that kinetic energy and has also created a mass increase.
    So how does that conform to Einsteins mass/energy formula?
    If all that energy was created by the FB, then there should have been a mass loss in the component parts to comply to the EF and the fusion of matter that shows a mass loss.

    [quote]
    We might not notice this warp becuase its allways there and all light and such that comes to us pass that warp, at this large distances a little differens makes almost no differens. While close to sun its a differens. You are the flaw here, or atleast your reasoning/brain{/quote]

    reply
    Your answer is ludicrous. Ha ha.

    becuase he made something you havent done in a long time, thought things throu. His theory have the acceptense in science, if it werent satesfieng it wouldnt be accepted and been redone. A theory today that survives 100 years is something that is special. If it hadnt been good it wouldnt survive that long
    reply
    Joan Rawlings Harry Potter books were widely accepted and she has become a multi- millionaire in a short time. Fiction is widely accepted. It sells. Ha ha.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Your neutron mass quoted above is incorrect. The correct AMU for the neutron is ^2H - ^1H = 1,006175
    This is simply wrong. A free neutron has a mass of 1.008642 AMU. Look it up anywhere if you don't believe me.

    I am not sure what the whole "^2H- ^1H" thing is supposed to mean.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Why should I want to understand something that is flawed? I believe in the truth as I see it.
    1: it isnt flaw
    2: you need glasses if you see it like that

    You have been licensed to preach the current scientific gospel with your degrees. All you say is what you read or learned in college.
    The current system of education does not allow any ‘free thinkers’ to criticize their teachings.
    sorry, i knew this a long time ago, before anyone thought me it, acctualy, i ahvent been tought it yet by any teacher. Free thinkiing? dont klnow how it is for you but here we encourage free thinking and new ideas. and i ensure you i criticize my teachers. My classmates acctualy say i criticize them to much

    ^2H - ^1H = 1,006175 x 17 = 17.104975 + 219.81222 = 236.9172 – 236.046 = 0.8712
    that isnt allowed, 1 neutron doesnt equal 17 neutrons

    ^2H - ^1H
    you cant use this mass, it is effected by the strong nuclear force and has less mass. I checked the neutron mass on several places, all said 1,008664 U. wrong already there, using wrong data. You cant use neutrons in a atom with more than 1 nucleon

    so we are back taht we gain energy from mass

    Your answer is ludicrous. Ha ha
    sorry you dont understand it, let me explain it again, during a human lifetime the position of stars dont change much, relative to the distance we are tlaking about. They do all curve spacetime, but they have done the same curvation since the day you were born (the change here is insignifican) and therefor we cant see the curvation becuase all light we see have already passed all this curvation and we are used to see the light after all curvation, while for the sun/earth orbit we arent used to it and therefor could use it to prove einsteins theory

    Joan Rawlings Harry Potter books were widely accepted and she has become a multi- millionaire in a short time. Fiction is widely accepted. It sells. Ha ha.
    has nothing to do here, we are talking about facts. In science you accept things not becuase you like it, but becuase it is how it is

    You come with things that isnt right. please give us atleast a challange to prove you wrong
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Why should I want to understand something that is flawed? I believe in the truth as I see it.
    Sans evidence, sans justification, sans verification?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    You have been licensed to preach the current scientific gospel with your degrees. All you say is what you read or learned in college.
    Zelos does have the advantage of having learned something.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    The current system of education does not allow any ‘free thinkers’ to criticize their teachings.
    Would you like to describe the educational system I experienced. You seem to know a great deal about it. I would really welcome your independent assessment of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Joan Rawlings Harry Potter books were widely accepted and she has become a multi- millionaire in a short time. Fiction is widely accepted. It sells. Ha ha.
    It sells as fiction. Do you understand the distinction?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Scifor wrote
    This is simply wrong. A free neutron has a mass of 1.008642 AMU. Look it up anywhere if you don't believe me.

    I am not sure what the whole "^2H- ^1H" thing is supposed to mean.
    There is no such thing as a 'free' neutron.
    The above is my value for the neutron as it exists in a stable relationship of the 'deuteron'
    I simply subtracted the 'atomic mass' of the hydrogen atom from the deuterons atomic mass. This gives me the AM of the neutron in the the deuteron where it is coupled to the proton as a stable particle.

    Ophi wrote

    Sans evidence, sans justification, sans verification?
    All my articles are based on the Laws of Physics, experiments and observations. Have you read them?
    The 'Laws of Conservation of Matter, Energy, Charge and Momemtum are an example as well as the M-M interferometry experiment and Arps redshift anamoly.
    This is NOT pseudoscience.
    I give 'reasons' for my opinions.
    I have been studying astronomy and physics for more than twenty years and have seen a lot of false conclusuions to the real evidence that is cited.

    I will continue to promote the truth as I think it to be. My truth is based on the mentioned data above which is real science.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    There is no such thing as a 'free' neutron.
    Got ya there, there is free neutrons, they just dont live very long, about 15 minutes

    I simply subtracted the 'atomic mass' of the hydrogen atom from the deuterons atomic mass. This gives me the AM of the neutron in the the deuteron where it is coupled to the proton as a stable particle.
    you cant do that, nuclear force have decreased the mass

    I will continue to promote the truth as I think it to be
    think it wont make it true

    My truth is based on the mentioned data above which is real science
    its not scince from earth atleast, the data im using is confirmed on many places unlike yours, and you are using invalid methods and math
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amu
    do some simply calclation and you see it is 1.008664 U

    sorry for the double post but i have to add this

    Game, set and match
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman starry_eyed_guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    ever thought for a second that maybe your understanding of science is somewhat flawed or less than perfect?

    hahahahaha
    Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Guest
    Sir Isaac Newton put forward a number of mathematical formula to explain the world as he saw it. Einstein merely did the same. Formula, mathematics, hypothesis and theorums do NOT exist in the natural world, they are the inventions of humans to explain the physical phonemena of the universe which we percieve using the senses we have. Such ideas are only (once accepted) knocked out or replaced when advances in measurement technology begin to show up minor descrepencies between measurement and hypothesis.

    Einstein, Newton, Keplar and all those we have come to honour in the field of science, never say "it works this way" they say "here is a theory which explains what we see". Doubtless Einstein will be proven 'wrong' as will many other theories we hold sacred today, BUT at this point in time, Einsteins theories seem generally to fit albeit they have been tweaked.

    Quantum mechanics seems to me to be a long series of calculations being permantly adjusted to fit whatever might be discovered next, looking for the prize of joining all the forces together abit like building a castle in a swamp - forever building it it up out of whatever comes to hand as it sinks. Maybe these forces exist in different dimensions (a theory I have heard) and simply cannot be tied together except by humans who seem to believe there must be a link - if it ever is and they say Life = 1/delta x+p or some other formula that simple I'm gonna be really p155ed off because I think the universe is a lot smarter than that!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    they are the inventions of humans to explain the physical phonemena of the universe which we percieve using the senses we have.
    I dont think so, i think that the universe is logical, follows certain rules. Mathematic is the language of the logic. But also the language of the universe. Every species will have mathematic, so its also the universal language wich every intelligent species can understand.

    Einstein, Newton, Keplar and all those we have come to honour in the field of science, never say "it works this way" they say "here is a theory which explains what we see". Doubtless Einstein will be proven 'wrong' as will many other theories we hold sacred today, BUT at this point in time, Einsteins theories seem generally to fit albeit they have been tweaked.
    this i agree on, but surviving 100 years in moderntime is pretty good with no observations going against it (i think there is none, is it?)

    if it ever is and they say Life = 1/delta x+p or some other formula that simple I'm gonna be really p155ed off because I think the universe is a lot smarter than that!
    smartter? smart means knowing alot, universe knows nothing, to be smart you need to be a organism
    Life can be desribed mathematicly already. Life is electromagnetism mostly. Gravity serves as collector of materials. Nuclear forces is to make nucleons stable so electromagnetism can do its job in life.

    Note, this is in percpective of how the forces is to life
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    I dont think so, i think that the universe is logical, follows certain rules. Mathematic is the language of the logic. But also the language of the universe. Every species will have mathematic, so its also the universal language wich every intelligent species can understand.
    You have packed a lot of debatable points into a single paragraph.
    1. The fact that you think the Universe is logical does not make it so.
    2. I agree it probably follows certain rules. I don't think we have figured very many of them out yet.
    3. Mathematics the language of logic? There are similarities and overlaps, but I think the two are different beasts.
    4. It is undoubted species chauvinism to think all intelligent species will possess mathematics. Perhaps you have been reading to many works on interstellar communication written by mathematicians. :wink:
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    smartter? smart means knowing alot, universe knows nothing, to be smart you need to be a organism
    I notice you didn't place the same restriction on the Universe being logical. Isn't that a little.....illogical?
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    Life can be desribed mathematicly already. Life is electromagnetism mostly.
    Much in the same way that a sculpture by Michaelangelo is just a shaped block of marble. This deconstructionist view utterly ignores emergent properties and so misses the 98.76% of science that is truly important.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    1. The fact that you think the Universe is logical does not make it so.
    correct, but this we dont yet know
    4. It is undoubted species chauvinism to think all intelligent species will possess mathematics
    intelligent biengs cant archive technological advancement, significan ones, if they dont posses mathematics
    I notice you didn't place the same restriction on the Universe being logical.
    with logical i mean follow basic logical rules, not logical as in a human bieng logical
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Zelos

    Neutrons are NOT STABLE particles in a free state..
    This makes them an 'isotope' that eventually decay.

    For the neutrons, they may decay from about 10 minutes to 15 minutes.

    So I do not consider them to be a separate particle but a 'condensed ' hydrogen atom.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Neutrons are NOT STABLE particles in a free state..
    so? its still a free particle then, just as muon particles are free particls but they are unstable

    This makes them an 'isotope' that eventually decay.
    a isotope is a atom with the same amount of protons but different amount of neutrons, so a neutron isnt a isotope
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_neutron
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope
    An isotope is any of several different forms of an element each having different mass. Two isotopes of an element will have nuclei with the same number of protons (the same atomic number) but different numbers of neutrons.
    as you can see there is free neutrons and they have a specefic mass and thats the one you should use, not a neutrons whos mass is decreased by nuclear force

    So I do not consider them to be a separate particle but a 'condensed ' hydrogen atom.
    consider it how ever you want but there is free neutrons that is independed of the hydrogen atom. Once again you cant use that neutron for the very reason its mass has already been decreased by nuclear fussion
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Guest
    "Formula, mathematics, hypothesis and theorums do NOT exist in the natural world." billco

    Zelos,

    This is a fact. these terms are a series of methods invented by us to explain that which we perceive. If this is still a little hard to grasp then let me put it this way - Rock exists because when I pick up a handful of it, I perceive it through my senses. now lets see, where can I find a handful of f=1/{2pi *sqrt [lc]} ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    this is science, dont go philosofical here. But you can pick up a handfull of radiactive material weight it, then let it do the radioactive stuff, and then weight it again, you will see there is a loss of mass. You can percfept it
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Zelos

    Neutrons are not my topic of discussion.

    Math has its uses but those symbols are not a 'picture' which is more definitive.

    I can visualize the Bohr model of Plancks photon but how do you visualize 'spacetime'?
    Space is the 'nothing' between objects and time is motion. So then ST is nothing in motion? Ha Ha. This is unreal.

    And the BB is unreal. It saved Einstein's ST and eliminated him an embarassment.

    I prefer real 'objective' science that is more than a mental concept based on math.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Space is the 'nothing' between objects and time is motion. So then ST is nothing in motion? Ha Ha. This is unreal.
    We humans ahve evolved to persept and visualize things that is common and have been encountered. If you cant go beyond your evolutionary limitations science isnt something you should do

    Btw i dont visulize things, for me its propeties of them. I never try to paint up a picture about this kind of things becuase our brain isnt designed to do that, dont give it tasks it isnt created for

    And the BB is unreal. It saved Einstein's ST and eliminated him an embarassment.
    yet all proof point toward big bang
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_ban...ional_evidence

    When you work with science leave this behind and dont use it:
    1: Common sense, has nothing to do with the extremes
    2: Visualization, our brain isnt capable of such and should therefor never do that task. It only cause confusion. You are a exemple, its like asking a cleaner to derivate einsteins E=MC² from his theory.
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    as a 'free' neutron.
    The many people who have been killed by neutron radiation might not agree with you there. Uh, if they were alive, that is.

    The above is my value for the neutron as it exists in a stable relationship of the 'deuteron'
    I simply subtracted the 'atomic mass' of the hydrogen atom from the deuterons atomic mass. This gives me the AM of the neutron in the the deuteron where it is coupled to the proton as a stable particle.
    There's obviously little point in trying to talk about physics with you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Guest
    Well, now I see why people sort of hate anybody who disagrees with einstein. They never try to gain as much a possible grasp of it before they start spouting mathematics. In my opinion, the greatest scientist: Was nobody. Scientists have a habit of unknowingly creating *religions* out of their theories. In doing so, it slows down quite a large number of advancements because people religiously believe one is infinitely correct, and just needs to be expanded upon, and everything else is worthless.

    Thus, the only truely great scientist is one who goes against everything, rips out foundations, and comes out with an entirely new theory that's more accurate than the one previous, and doesn't end up making people religiously follow it. Hence why I say nobody.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27 BIG BANG 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    3
    A\Q ME TIME WAS EVEN BEFORE BIGBANG
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Jeremy

    Yes, it is the Coperenicuses, Keplers, Galileos, Newtons, Plancks and Bohr that have contributed greatly to modern science in opposition to the Roman church and other extablishment scientists.
    Another great scientist that has been driven out of the US because his observations were not enhancing the fictitious BB creation theory and the cause of the Cosmological Redshift is Halton Arp who had to go to Germany to continue his work.
    The current educational system denies the idea of free speech derived from a free thinking mind that is the root of advancing science such as the above.

    It is about time that the current science establishment discarded this 'fictitious BB' that has NO REAL evidence for its existence. This would be a tremendous embarrassement if they did. This would outdo Einteins embarrassement by 10 times or more. Ha ha.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    The current educational system denies the idea of free speech derived from a free thinking mind that is the root of advancing science such as the above.
    once again i say, that might be your system, in our, where i come from, we encourage new ideas. new way of thinkings and such.

    Another great scientist that has been driven out of the US because his observations were not enhancing the fictitious BB creation theory and the cause of the Cosmological Redshift is Halton Arp who had to go to Germany to continue his work.
    thats a lie, just stating driven out makes its impossible. thats now how science works. btw it isnt fictinuos. it is based on science and observations, observations confirm the big bang theory. How where they universe created according to you and in what way does known observations support it? math plz

    t is about time that the current science establishment discarded this 'fictitious BB' that has NO REAL evidence for its existence.
    if it werent science wouldnt have supported it when its new, when a theory is new it ahs the biggest resistence. if it passes that it has evidence. as new observations comes into the picture that doesnt support it science comes with a new theory, or modified theory

    This would be a tremendous embarrassement if they did. This would outdo Einteins embarrassement by 10 times or more. Ha ha
    not really, the emberessment is a small price for knowing how it is. but i say once again, big bang dont come from einsteins theory, wich you don understand btw, but his work says the universe cant be stable therefor should either expand or contract, by seeing things move away we can easly draw the conclution its expanding, therefor also it should have been gathered at one spot once. Simple logic, even new teenagers can get that.

    God i hate people who dont udnerstand einstein but threws it away becuase of some fucked reason. Mike, some minds are capable to understand the world as we see it better than others. you seem to not be one of them
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    NS wrote:
    In concluding this article of my evaluation of Einstein's work and the subsequent refutation of it, does that mean that I can now claim the title of 'greatest scientist'?
    NS,
    I'm sure you had a bit of sarcasm in this statement... but I think there is a bit of truth in it also. I see your motivations now - you want personal glory - it has nothing to do with science for you.

    By the way,
    you still make me feel like this
    <----------------------------------
    (EDIT) I changed the picture since the old one I felt incited antagonism - so this line will no longer make much sense.... (end edit)

    Sincerely, william

    P.S. Free neutrons are actually STABLE in neutron stars - hence they exist for a very long period of time in such a star. We had this discussion before....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    william is right, the condition is so extreme they are stable there
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Guest
    I agree with Zelos on this one Mike. Wtf are you thinking, or not thinking?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Zelos wrote
    once again i say, that might be your system, in our, where i come from, we encourage new ideas. new way of thinkings and such
    Are you in Israel? Good for you. Einstein was a jew so you are defending him because of your religion or because you understand his math?

    thats a lie, just stating driven out makes its impossible. thats now how science works. btw it isnt fictinuos. it is based on science and observations, observations confirm the big bang theory. How where they universe created according to you and in what way does known observations support it? math plz
    Since Arp was denied the use of the Hale telescope (200 inch) he had no choice but to go where he had freedom.

    The only REAL evidence the BB is based on is the Doppler observations done in the late 1920's. This, apparently gave the preist Lemaitrae the idea of an expanding universe.
    Why was Doppler replaced by the 'expansion of space' as the cause of the Cosmological redshift? Answer that!
    Can you provide the math for this EoS?

    God i hate people who dont understand einstein but threws it away becuase of some fucked reason. Mike, some minds are capable to understand the world as we see it better than others. you seem to not be one of them
    I understand real science. I do not understand fictional science that does NOT comply with the real evidence of physics and its experiments and observations.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Are you in Israel? Good for you. Einstein was a jew so you are defending him because of your religion or because you understand his math?
    sorry, im a atheist, i dont belive in any superstition and consider religion humanities enemy nr1
    also im from europe
    i defend him becuase science search for how it is, and dont care what theories it is. unless its controversial and have no proof yet. when it got any proof its disembled and analysed, iof it worx then better than the last one its accpeted, therefor einstein must have yet been right.

    The only REAL evidence the BB is based on is the Doppler observations done in the late 1920's.
    haha, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_ban...ional_evidence as you can see there is several evidence pointing toward it

    Why was Doppler replaced by the 'expansion of space' as the cause of the Cosmological redshift? Answer that!
    because its logical it comes from one point when everything redshifts, almsot everything

    I understand real science
    then dont go against it, if you do without udnerstanding it you dont. im ready to bet my precius parts you dont understand einsteins theory in details.

    I do not understand fictional science that does NOT comply with the real evidence of physics and its experiments and observations.
    this is common, but all our current accepted theories dont belong to this subject
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    William wrote:
    I'm sure you had a bit of sarcasm in this statement... but I think there is a bit of truth in it also. I see your motivations now - you want personal glory - it has nothing to do with science for you
    Thst is not true. Just the opposite of truth as I see it.

    By the way,
    you still make me feel like this
    <----------------------------------
    Did you bump into a door?

    P.S. Free neutrons are actually STABLE in neutron stars - hence they exist for a very long period of time in such a star. We had this discussion before....
    Decay is a process when the neutrons exceed the proton ratios of 3 - 2 in the heavy elements

    In the neutron stars, the 'weak' force exceeds the gravitational force by about 10^35 th. Therefore, it would also cause the neutron stars to decay.
    Proof? All the 'gamma' ray bursters are detected as 'high' velocity protons. In the universe, they would number in the billions^ ?.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    magnestars arent familiar you familiar with?

    i ask you, why would science accpet a theory that doesnt work when its job is to find how it is?
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Guest
    Tell me Mike, what *proves* that the Big Bang is false? You have hinted at evidence but shied away like a virgin in a porn studio.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    (me):
    P.S. Free neutrons are actually STABLE in neutron stars - hence they exist for a very long period of time in such a star. We had this discussion before....
    (You):
    Decay is a process when the neutrons exceed the proton ratios of 3 - 2 in the heavy elements

    In the neutron stars, the 'weak' force exceeds the gravitational force by about 10^35 th. Therefore, it would also cause the neutron stars to decay.
    Proof? All the 'gamma' ray bursters are detected as 'high' velocity protons. In the universe, they would number in the billions^ ?.

    NS
    Gorby (Mike),
    We've had this discussion before. You are wrong. No matter how much you repeat this, it will not become true.

    I hate you.

    Sincerely,
    william
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    william you dont hate him. hate is such strong feeling no one have ever hated anyone. But i agree he is annoyingly ignorant
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Guest
    I would choose Sir Isaac Newton and here are my reasons;

    1) Although he was in contact with other scientists of the day via letters delivered by horse and cart, he mostly worked alone. He had to 'invent' calculus to solve the problems he considered.

    2) He lived in difficult times, (witch burnings, hangings etc. Witchcraft only being finally 'de-criminalised' in 1735)

    3) Undoubtedly many who stoked the fires of the industrial revolution were able to benefit from his work.

    4) His legacy of our understanding of the world in which we live is used today throughout the engineering disciplines.

    5) And here's the real clincher! almost everbody with a basic education in maths can understand his works, and prove many of his ideas on their kitchen table!

    If you can't buy Newton, vote for Bill Shockley. (inventor of the transistor) Without him? No travel to mars, or the other planets or moon, no mobile phones, computers, internet, pcoket calculators. Hardly any scientific electronic equipment, no Hubble, pacemakers, De-fibs etc.That list is endless.

    Sadly Bill shockley is only today mostly remembered for his racist views.

    The work of BOTH of these men immediately and forever benefited and changed the world in which they lived.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    billco,
    The point of this thread was for Mike NS to spout his ideas. He never asks sincere questions. He was not looking for an answer....

    william
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by william
    billco,
    The point of this thread was for Mike NS to spout his ideas. He never asks sincere questions. He was not looking for an answer....

    william
    Perhaps instead of 'The Science Forum' you might like it renamed: 'The Humpty Dumpty' forum then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    thats just a a morron, not the entire forum, its mostly science
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Hi billco,
    I see you joined on August 18 - so you haven't had enough time to get familiar with Mike NS yet....

    You really should read the entire thread.
    And his other posts....

    And do this before you refer to me in any way as "Humpty Dumpty."

    william
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by william
    Hi billco,
    I see you joined on August 18 - so you haven't had enough time to get familiar with Mike NS yet....

    You really should read the entire thread.
    And his other posts....

    And do this before you refer to me in any way as "Humpty Dumpty."

    william
    Er where exactly did I call you 'Humpty Dumpty' ?

    I thought I said "you might like it renamed: 'The Humpty Dumpty' forum ", a reference to Humpty Dumpty who said "a word means what I say it means", a reference in itself to this thread being called greatest scientist yet containing only text which looked to me like it was written by Mr Carroll.

    Some might think "If the cap fits" But not I.


    Quote Originally Posted by zelos
    its mostly science
    Yes and as a freshman I'm still trying to decide what type of science
    real, hollywood, Lewis Carrol, Asimov or direct from the funny farm! LMAO.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    billco wrote:
    Er where exactly did I call you 'Humpty Dumpty' ?

    I thought I said perhaps you think THE FORUM should be called etc etc

    Either way you were insulting me....

    Read Mike NS's posts to see what I meant by my original comment to you as far as him not wanting an answer.

    No harm done.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    By the way billco,
    Since you are new here, "Mike NS" is the reason for this picture by my name. He drives me THIS crazy!

    william
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Guest
    I have not insulted you, you have merely put a different interpretation on my words, If you choose that my words "mean what you think they mean" rather than what I intend them to mean you merely mis-understood a handful of words constructed into a simple sentence.

    That is the common definition of a misunderstanding - your misunderstanding not mine.

    As for your picture I am sure it is an accurate portrait of you.

    Now can we move on please?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    You just insulted me again!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    P.S. billco,
    Please read my other posts here. There are not that many... maybe ~30. You'll see that I'm not one to pick fights. Yet you are here for only a few days, and well...
    and you try to pass it off as the other guy's misunderstanding. Of course... it's not your fault.

    NOW we can move on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by william
    You just insulted me again!

    Look William, IF I said something like "you are a loud-mouthed clot"
    THAT would be an insult.

    IF I say "you misunderstood the meaning of the words I used"
    THAT is a statement of FACT.

    It is very clear you tend to write something before you have thought it out because you keep posting in pairs, take a little more time to understand what is being written.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    my opologies...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    nevermind...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    again, nevermind....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    William, restrain your ad hominems and gratuitous insults forthwith. Cease this argument with billco now. Is this direct enough for you? Billco's ill chosen remarks about morons do not excuse, justify or mandate your descent into a suite of belligerent posts. Stop it.

    Billco, I have always believed that the responsibility for communication rests largely with the person communicating. If you were misunderstood the most probable explanation is that you wrote unclearly. That is something I think you would find worth contemplating.

    Will both of you now please return to the subject of this thread. If you have any gripes with what I written please take this up with me via pm, not on this thread.

    Thank you.

    Ophiolite
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    To my detractors, I repeat:

    Do you consider the Laws of Conservation as evidence?
    Do you constder the M-M interferometry experiment as credible?
    Do you accept the Arp redshift analomy as real?

    When it comes to the BBU, this evidence is ignored as 'not applicable' because they did not exist during the BB creation. Ha ha.

    FYI, the Conservation Laws imply that matter, energy, charge and momentum are not destroyed but only transformed.
    This then refutes the 'creation' theory of the BB as a violation of these laws.

    The Arp redshift anamoly refutes the expansion of space as the cause of the cosmological redshifts and implies that these RS's are temperature dependant because the quasars are much higher temperature radiating objects.

    The M-M experiment also refutes the idea that space has an influence on the light waves. Therefore, this also refutes space as a cause of the CRS.

    I cite the above as 'empirical' evidence to refute the BB.

    Regarding the Einstein theorues, the mass/energy formula was easy to refute with the 'fission' bomb that sacrificed NO matter to create its energy. On the contrary, there was an actual mass increase resulting from this fragmentation.

    Those tiny miniscule corrections to Newtonian gravity are not supported by the massive gravitational enhancements of gravity by Zwicky's MDM problem.
    On the contrary, I cannot believe that todays science cannot solve this problem that I have done.
    I think the reason for this is that my solution discredits Einsteins GR.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    FYI, the Conservation Laws imply that matter, energy, charge and momentum are not destroyed but only transformed.
    This then refutes the 'creation' theory of the BB as a violation of these laws.
    you mean that becuase big bang happened its against conservation laws? you are forgetting all our laws are braking apart at big bang, therefor they dont apply there

    The M-M experiment also refutes the idea that space has an influence on the light waves. Therefore, this also refutes space as a cause of the CRS.
    you mean that experiment that determened C is constant?

    Regarding the Einstein theorues, the mass/energy formula was easy to refute with the 'fission' bomb that sacrificed NO matter to create its energy. On the contrary, there was an actual mass increase resulting from this fragmentation.
    god, you are one fucking stuborn man, realise it, it worx. why go against facts? if it didnt work science wouldnt use it. case clsoed

    On the contrary, I cannot believe that todays science cannot solve this problem that I have done.
    its easy for a teenager to come with the ways to solve all the problem. Becuase they dont have the entire picture. You are the same, its easy cauyse you dont have the entire picture, and dont know everything

    I think the reason for this is that my solution discredits Einsteins GR.
    wich makes it go against evidence and is therefor discarded
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Zelos

    Your interpretations of real evidence are not compatible with real physics.

    Just as your signature at the bottom of your posts is fantasy.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Your interpretations of real evidence are not compatible with real physics.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    To my detractors, I repeat:
    Do you consider the Laws of Conservation as evidence?
    .........
    ........
    When it comes to the BBU, this evidence is ignored as 'not applicable' because they did not exist during the BB creation. Ha ha.

    FYI, the Conservation Laws imply that matter, energy, charge and momentum are not destroyed but only transformed.
    This then refutes the 'creation' theory of the BB as a violation of these laws.
    Do I consider the Laws of Conservation as evidence, you ask. Evidence of what Mike?

    There are four simple explanations, any one of which allows us to set aside the Laws of Conservation.

    1) The Big Bang was an event occuring to an already exisiting matter/energy object. Although the BB was the start of space-time for our Universe this simply represented a change in form, not a change of the total mass/energy. Thus Conservation is not violated.

    2) The Universe is merely an unusually large quantum vacuum fluctuation, whose energy will need to repaid at some future point. Again, conservation is not violated.

    3) The Laws of the Universe and the constants that determine its character and the behaviour of matter and energy within it, are characteristics of this specific Universe that came into existence when the BB occured. In this setting the Conservation Laws are irrelevant. (The Dutch police can't charge me for speeding in Australia. It's a different legislation.)

    4) The Universe is a sub-set of a larger multiverse, so that all matter and energy derived from that larger 'object'. No violation of conservation.

    Each of these explanations is compatible with real physics, Mike. You cannot dismiss them by simply saying "Ha, ha". That won't work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Your interpretations of real evidence are not compatible with real physics.
    more than yours, i look things up. you just take it out from nowhere

    Just as your signature at the bottom of your posts is fantasy.
    HAHAHAH mike is getting low on comments. He is then trying to hit my signature that is ment to be fantasy HAHAHAHAHA how pathetic
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    1) The Big Bang was an event occuring to an already exisiting matter/energy object. Although the BB was the start of space-time for our Universe this simply represented a change in form, not a change of the total mass/energy. Thus Conservation is not violated
    Lemaitrae, plus some others, came up with the idea of an 'expanding universe'. He was a catholic preist and also a PhD.
    He also had the idea that our universe originated from a huge 'primeval' atom. Apparently to conform to the Conservation Laws.

    Is that what you believe in as a conservation issue? The BB establishment accepted the idea of the EU, but discarded the PA.
    So, technically, the universe has no material start. This violates the Conservation of Matter.
    The only idea of the 'spacetime' that I can see is the 'light year' that can represent both space and time.
    The science establishment prefers the 'parsec' as a unit of measurement.

    Light does not have an absolute velocity relative to space because the carrier is moving with the emitter. In other words, the EM fields that transmit the photons are surrounding the emitters and so the emotters velocity adds to the VoL relative to space.
    Light velocity is only a constant within the EM fields that tranmit it.

    2) The Universe is merely an unusually large quantum vacuum fluctuation, whose energy will need to repaid at some future point. Again, conservation is not violated
    What is that? Can you cite an experiment that proves that other than mathematics?

    3) The Laws of the Universe and the constants that determine its character and the behaviour of matter and energy within it, are characteristics of this specific Universe that came into existence when the BB occured. In this setting the Conservation Laws are irrelevant
    Your answer here is 'unscientific'. You tried to conform to the CL's above but refute them here.

    4) The Universe is a sub-set of a larger multiverse, so that all matter and energy derived from that larger 'object'. No violation of conservation.
    What you say here is an opinion.
    There may be other universes, but that is strictly 'conjecture'.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Mike,
    I should like to discuss this matter with you further, but I really must insist that you
    a) do me the courtesy of actually reading my arguments
    b) do yourself the courtesy of employing some basic logic, so that you do not appear quite so foolish

    I have offered you four explanations that are wholly consistent with present day physics and you have failed utterly to refute these. Only one of these need stand in order to invalidate your claim that the Conservation Laws render the Big Bang invalid.

    Explanation 1: You have made no attempt to refute this, and so, on this point alone, your argument must fall.

    Explanation 2: Your rejection is based on this statement. "Can you cite an experiment that proves that other than mathematics?"
    I do not need to cite an experiment. You claim that the Conservation Laws are definitely violated. All I require to do is to demonstrate that there is a plausible and possible explanatio. This does not need to be demonstrated experimentally for me to make my case, but simply needs to be consistent with current physics. It is.

    Explanation 3:
    You claim my explanation is unscientific. In what way. What do you not understand. It is entirely possible, is consistent with known physics, and is thought ot be the case by many physicists and cosmologists, that the Laws and constants governing this Universe are unique to this Universe and came into play at the time of the Big Bang. If you are going to reject this well established view you need to come up with something better than arm waving and meaningless declarations that my explanation is 'unscientific'.

    Explanation 4:Again use logic, for God's sake man. You admit that there may be other Universes. All that is required to invalidate your claim is to establish this as a possibility. It is not necessary to prove it as a fact. This is simple, basic, Logic 101.

    In summary, you have failed to deal with any of the four explanations, ony one of which need be possible to invalidate your claim.

    Finally, I am well aware of the history of Big Bang theory, the role of the Jesuit priest Lemaitre. I have absolutely no idea what you mean by the sentence "Is that what you believe in as a conservation issue? The BB establishment accepted the idea of the EU, but discarded the PA."

    Equally your statement "So, technically, the universe has no material start." is both incorrect and does not follow logically from anything you have said.

    You then go on to make some comments about the speed of light. I am tempted to ask what the **** these have to do with the topic under discussion. NEvertheless, you make these statements with absolutely zero justification. Zero evidence.
    Your argument exists, yet is has emerged from absolutely no evidential or theoretical base. That seems to be a violation of the notion that soemthing can come out of nothing, so perhaps the Conservation Laws don't always apply, even in this Universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Mike remember also. that in the big bang our laws doesnt apply as it do everyday. But for your information. The conservation laws are broken every single day.

    According to quantum mechanic energy is constantly created and destroyed according to the formula
    dT*dE ~ h/(4*pi)

    energy is created, only for a short period of time, but still created, and after that is destroyed, conservation laws is broken in everyday life, so its likly it is at the big bang even more
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Ophi

    Rather than drag these discussions out to great lengths and time consuming, I would rather just post the reasons why the BB is falacious.

    Origin of the BB:
    The Doppler observations of the late 20's that imply that all the galaxies are receding from us.
    The DO's were refuted and replaced by the Expansion of Space. How can you refute the implications of the DO's geocentric and receding implications but accept the idea of the expansion only? This is 'subjective editing' and unscientific.

    Creation out of Nothing:
    There is still no solution given for what happened before the Planck time of 10^ -44 seconds.

    Violation of the Canservation laws:
    Lemaitrae's 'primeval atom' (matter) was discarded and 'space time' does not represent matter or energy as a starting point.

    The EoS as a cosmological redshift:
    This is invalidated by the M-M experiment that proved that space has no influence over the light pulses. The Arp anamoly also refutes the EoS RS.

    The BB is not an explosion:
    So what is driving the expansion?

    Physical size of the BB:
    There is no solution to this problem.

    The giagantic clusters:
    One mathematician [Anthony Peratt(?)] calculated that it it would take hundreds of billions of years for these clusters to form.

    There is 'no space' outside the BB:
    Are they serious?

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    There is still no solution given for what happened before the Planck time of 10^ -44 seconds
    since you can't go any further back in time. It´s like starting at a wall moving forward then decieding to check where you have gone. You can´t go further back than just before the wall. at the wall it takes stop. Planck time is the smallest amount of time there is.

    There is 'no space' outside the BB:
    Are they serious?
    yes, there can be space there, but there can also be no space there. and then everything belongs to this universe
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565

    Zelos wrote
    energy is created, only for a short period of time, but still created, and after that is destroyed, conservation laws is broken in everyday life, so its likly it is at the big bang even more
    Energy is not created for a short time. Practically all the energy is created by the stars.
    Since the photons continue until absorbed by other matter, they would be conserved in the BB. The universe would suffer a 'heat death' if it were not for the expansion that to me is fiction.

    In my SSU, the 'expanding light waves' expand to 'oblivion' to balance out the new photons that are contually created.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Energy is not created for a short time. Practically all the energy is created by the stars.
    we are talking quantum mechanic. in there energy is created and destroyed. the more energy it is the shorter period of time does it exist.

    But for all other energy we are familiar with it's stars and gravity who "created" that energy. You aren't familiar with dEdT > h/4pi
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68 [size=24]science holds the key to life[/size] 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    DELHI
    Posts
    8
    science is not stationery. scientists have altered their researches for the best. you are defining these changes as flaws[/b]
    " impossible is a word in dictionary of fools"
    -napoleon bonaparte
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    well said dexter
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    since you can't go any further back in time. It´s like starting at a wall moving forward then decieding to check where you have gone. You can´t go further back than just before the wall. at the wall it takes stop. Planck time is the smallest amount of time there is
    ?

    yes, there can be space there, but there can also be no space there. and then everything belongs to this universe
    The BB is supposed to be an 'expansion of space'. So, it is 'space' carrying the galaxies with it.
    One professor said 'you cannot 'step' outside the BB to see what shape it is because there is 'no' space out there. Ha ha.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    [quote="Zelos"]
    we are talking quantum mechanic. in there energy is created and destroyed. the more energy it is the shorter period of time does it exist
    ?.....The Quantum theory did only one thing. It transformed light from a 'continuous wave' to a pulse of energy called a photon.

    But for all other energy we are familiar with it's stars and gravity who "created" that energy. You aren't familiar with dEdT > h/4pi
    I prefer 'visualization' to math. A picture is worth more that a thousand 'symbols'. Ha ha.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72 Re: [size=24]science holds the key to life[/size] 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by dexter
    science is not stationery. scientists have altered their researches for the best. you are defining these changes as flaws[/b]
    Is that why the BB was invented? To comply to a changing universe?

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    You are thereby locked to evolution and its experience and can therefor not understand the fundamental parts of the universe. Our brains can comprehend the universes most fundamental parts as a picture. Its impossible for it. While mathematic is something it can understand, and also gives a accurate answer of the universe. Visualize 4 dimensions, if your brain can do that you have the most unique gift on the planet. ask a 2 dimensional person to visualize 3 dimension. they cant.

    Math >>>>>> Visualization
    when it comes to the universe. end of story

    A picture is worth more that a thousand 'symbols'. Ha ha
    only in art, in physics its vice versal, a symbol is worth 1000 visualizations
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    You are thereby locked to evolution and its experience and can therefor not understand the fundamental parts of the universe. Our brains can comprehend the universes most fundamental parts as a picture. Its impossible for it. While mathematic is something it can understand, and also gives a accurate answer of the universe. Visualize 4 dimensions, if your brain can do that you have the most unique gift on the planet. ask a 2 dimensional person to visualize 3 dimension. they cant.

    Math >>>>>> Visualization
    when it comes to the universe. end of story

    A picture is worth more that a thousand 'symbols'. Ha ha
    only in art, in physics its vice versal, a symbol is worth 1000 visualizations
    Zelos,

    I have to say I totalyl disagere wiht you. it is easy to picurte 4 or even seven dminenshoins - You just need to change what you are drinking!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    you cant no matter how much you try. If we could all illustrations of einsteins general relativity would be a 3D net bending in 4D or something. But since neither computers or us can imagen that they use a 2D net bent in the third dimension
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    you cant no matter how much you try. If we could all illustrations of einsteins general relativity would be a 3D net bending in 4D or something. But since neither computers or us can imagen that they use a 2D net bent in the third dimension
    Using 2 dimensions to explain 3 dimentional expansion is a 'false'
    analogy.
    The radial expansion would not be the same as the lateral expansion.
    There would be differences.

    Regarding the science of mathematics, see my last post in my article
    in 'Mathematics'.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    It is not the expansion, but the CURVATION, wich is a fact
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    It is not the expansion, but the CURVATION, wich is a fact
    Curvation sounds nice, 'swelling curvature' sounds even nicer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    It is not the expansion, but the CURVATION, wich is a fact
    Did you ever stop to think about what curvature Einstein was talking about?
    A woman on another thread with MSN about a year ago, suggested that men think of a womans womb as the space they are interested in fillimg.
    Maybe Einsteins spouse was the curvature he had in mind.
    I wonder what data he used for his theory? Do you have an answer?

    At the time Guth created his 'inflation' theory, his wfe provided him with a new born son. This could also given him the idea of his 'inflation' theory.

    Now they come out with multiple universes (families)? Ha ha.

    I do not see how nothing (space) can have any curvature.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    I do not see how nothing (space) can have any curvature.
    a limited mind can't understand the universe. so i suggest you stop. you can't accept it

    Space isn't empty since of dEdT=h/4pi is all the time

    another thing why you can't understand. you rely on visualisation. its not possible to use here.
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    a limited mind can't understand the universe. so i suggest you stop. you can't accept it
    Space isn't empty since of dEdT=h/4pi is all the time
    another thing why you can't understand. you rely on visualisation. its not possible to use here.
    I prefer to believe in the Law of Conservation of Momentum.
    It tells me that their is no matter content that can erode momentum of the orbitting bodies.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    and it doesn't. In the large scale picture all conservation laws that allawys apply allways apply
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    and it doesn't. In the large scale picture all conservation laws that allawys apply allways apply
    Except when it applies to the BB where the Conservation of Matter is ignored and a new universe is created out of nothing. Ha ha.
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Mike, if you can divide X with 0 and get a finite number we can speak. All laws of physics COLLAPSE in big bang, they dont apply like we are used to there. show me that x/0 < infinite and we can speak
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565

    Zelos

    There may not be anything less than zero, but the bible created a universe out of a zero.

    Ignore the biological psychology here, ha ha.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    There may not be anything less than zero
    -1 is less than 0
    but the bible created a universe out of a zero.
    who cares?

    big bang dont say everything came from nothing, it says what happen. big bang can have come from something else.
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    There may not be anything less than zero
    -1 is less than 0
    but the bible created a universe out of a zero.
    who cares?

    big bang dont say everything came from nothing, it says what happen. big bang can have come from something else.
    Zelos is correct, If scientists believed the big bang came from nothing they would not be trying to find out what 'existed' before it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Zelos

    Your use of -1 as an example of being less that zero is one reason why math can be purely subjective.

    Minus one used by itself has no real meaning unless used in context with other numbers.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •