Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Alternate Creation Theory: Genic Energy
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 122 of 181 (672768)
09-11-2012 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by onifre
09-11-2012 8:11 AM


Re: Not enough.
Um, I don't think you know what "religious" means.
Is his son's name Jesus?
- Oni
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Um, on the contrary I think it is you that doesn't know what "religious" means. With all due respect. To me "religious" means belonging to a particular organized religion, like the Catholic Protestant, Presbyterian, Baptist or Seventh Day Adventist, etc. Or being an Orthodox, Reform or Conservative Jew. Or a Hindu, Moslem or a Buddhist.
My belief in God and Christ came about on a personal spiritual basis and includes an "expanding philosophy" that embraces the truths and beauty found in all religions and "non-religions". Truths pursued by atheists, agnostics, and philosophers of all kinds. The key for me is "Truth".
Yes I have "Faith" now, but in my case it needed, unlike with many others, a lifetime of experiencing the Love God has for me and us all. And I will not be constrained by the dogmas that form the basis for too many religions.
Trou.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by onifre, posted 09-11-2012 8:11 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-11-2012 10:37 AM TheRestOfUs has not replied
 Message 125 by onifre, posted 09-11-2012 10:39 AM TheRestOfUs has not replied

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 127 of 181 (672783)
09-11-2012 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by New Cat's Eye
09-11-2012 1:06 AM


Thanks for the reply, Thou.
"On the other hand SN1987A precisely fits the circumstances that would be expected if supernovae were powered by genic energy."
How so?
If genic energy is a major component of the older larger stars energy output besides nuclear fusion and stored heat, it could be the source of the tremendous energy put out in supernovas.
Wait... No. Not: "What if?".
How so?
How does SN1987A precisely fits the circumstances that would be expected if supernovae were powered by genic energy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catholic Scientist,
First it's "Trou" not "Thou". Second the words including "precisely fit" were LaViolette's.
I believe what he meant is clear. As I mentioned the convention at the time of his prediction No. 9 (1985) was "that supernovae are produced by red giant stars which have exhausted their supply of nuclear fuel. It is presumed that once the red giant's nuclear reactions subside, the star collapses and subsequently rebounds as a supernova explosion."
In prediction No. 9 he does say that; "Subquantum kinetics predicts that supernovae are produced, not by red giant stars, but by blue supergiant stars, that is, by stars that are exceedingly luminous and hence energetically unstable. It predicts that, rather than collapsing, the star undergoes a nonlinear increase in its production of genic energy which leads to a stellar explosion. LaViolette published this prediction in 1985 (IJGS pp. 342-343).
I call your attention to the words; "That is, by stars that are exceedingly luminous and hence energetically unstable." As I have already mentioned in my dialogue with "NoNukes" in Post 115, LaViolette says on page 236 of Subquantum Kinetics;
"As the radiation pressure intensity progressively increases to the point that it overcomes the inward pull of the star's gravatational field, the star rapidly expands, it's surface temperature progressively decreasing, and it begins moving off the main sequence toward the right end of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram into the RED SUPERGIANT region. In the course of this departure, it will have entered its post main sequence phase of evolution. During this supergiant phase it could adopt any one of several spectral classes (O through M). The particular spectral class it adopts would depend on its characteristic mass, luminosity, and internal structure (e.g., on the fraction of genic energy generated in its metallic core as opposed to its gaseous envelope.)"
The above points out that when stars have "grown" luminous enough, processes may come into play which may move the star into "Post Main Sequence". And to the right on the Hertzsprung- Russell Diagram into a spectral class where it may "oscillate" between appearing Blue OR Red. But the "Red" Supergiant star has already been a "Blue" (exceedingly HOT exceedingly luminous) Supergiant and OLD enough to have synthesized heavier elements AND presumably (as per LaViolette) have even a majority of it's energy output coming from his theorized "genic energy".
So, as to answering your question, "How so?"- does SN 1987A being found to be blue supergiant Sandulek -69 202 "precisely fit the circumstances that would be expected IF supernovae were powered by genic energy"? I think what he meant was just that; Sandulek-69 202 was NOT a star that FIT the conventional "wisdom" at the time of a star that had exhausted its nuclear fuel supply. If ANYTHING it was the opposite; a highly energetic star FULL of fuel!
Does that answer your question adequately?
Trou
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-11-2012 1:06 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-11-2012 11:56 AM TheRestOfUs has not replied
 Message 131 by ringo, posted 09-11-2012 12:49 PM TheRestOfUs has replied

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 130 of 181 (672790)
09-11-2012 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by NoNukes
09-10-2012 10:41 PM


I found something that might answer your finding that 5 Supernovae were found to have had red supergiant precursors. It may be a matter of the scenario I described earlier where red switches to blue and back again.
Apparently I have completely and utterly failed to make my point.
Understanding how blue or red super giants become type II super novas does not require genic energy and therefore SN1987A is not evidence supporting LaViolette's work. Expressed another way, there is no reason to believe that genic energy even exists and thus no reason to indulge in fantasies about how wrong conventional astrophysics and cosmology are if such energy did exist.
If LaViolette thinks that genic energy causes some stars to produce type II supernova for reasons other than a process involving using up materials to fuse, where is his evidence?
LaViolette may have not been precise enough in that prediction he did nail it with SN 1987A
But a super human result is what you are advertising. Your claim is that he has predicted something no else could have predicted using convention science not based on subquantum kinetics and genic energy, with genic energy being something for which there is no evidence. The sole reason you have for accepting LaViolette's work is that it is an alternative to conventional physics gives results you are motivated to reject.
I am not so motivated, so what is a reason for me to believe LaViolette is not yet another crank?
I disagree that is my sole reason and that there is no evidence and disagree that predicting that blue supergiants going supernova does not confirm or require a concept of a separate power source, (genic energy). Both FOR the event itself and AS a better explanation to account for the observed energy released BY the event.
Conventional explanations fail to account for the energy released by a collapsing star that has presumably ""run out of fuel".
Take for example Eta Carinae. Eta Carinae (approx 150 Solar Masses) has a luminosity according to LaViolette "of about 4 x 10 to the 6th L (Solar Luminosities)., whereupon it became the second brightest star in the sky." It has released so much energy over such a long period of time some astronomers call it a "slow nova". LaViolette writes; "Since the time of its 1843 peak luminosity it is estimated to have released upwards of 2 x 10 to the 50th ergs, comparable to the energy released in some of the most energetic supernova explosions.
Astrophysicists have been puzzled as to what energy source could produce such enormous outputs over such an extended period of time. One theory suggested that material expelled from the star's poles might return at the equator to replenish the star with energy. However new observations with the Hubble Space Telescope demonstrate that matter is flowig outward in all directions, with no sign of inward motion. The mystery is easily resolved if Eta Carinae is spontaneiously creating its energy in the form of genic energy."
"Genic energy" could also account for the highly energetic cosmic ray outbursts emitted from active galactic nuclei. At present, no reasonable explanation has been found..."
"Conventional explanations, such as energy produced by matter entering a black hole, fall short by many orders of magnitude in being able to to account for the energy radiated from the nuclei of certain quasars and radio galaxies." (reference Burbridge, G. "physical problems associated with BL Lac Objects and QSQ's." Physica Scripta 17 (1978): 281-283. and Burbridge, G. R., T. Jones and S. O'Dell. "Physics of compact nonthermal sources III. Energetic considerations." Ap. J. 193 (1974): 43-54.)
"Even if the material said to orbit a black hole could overcome the intense pressure of the outgoing radiation wind, it simply would not be able to fall in fast enough to yeild the observed luminosity. (reference Barnes, J., L. Hernquist, and Schweizer. "Colliding galaxies." Sci. Am. 265(2) 1991): 40-47.) "
Trou

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by NoNukes, posted 09-10-2012 10:41 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Coragyps, posted 09-11-2012 1:00 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied
 Message 133 by NoNukes, posted 09-11-2012 1:45 PM TheRestOfUs has replied

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 134 of 181 (672811)
09-11-2012 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by JonF
09-11-2012 11:49 AM


Re: Not enough.
So, there's nothing about the CMB? And, I see a Google search for"Laviolette cosmic microwave" turns up no evidence that he has any explanation for the CMB, except for a few nutjobs denying the existence of the CMB.
That's the last nail in the coffin. No CMB explanation, no theory.
The only remaining question, a minor one, is WTF are you doing? You obviously don't understand LaViolette's theory, you can't post anything other than quotes from his writings, you can't explain or expand on or discuss the theory, you can't respond meaningfully to any questions or criticisms… so what's the point?
Even though you deserve no answer I will try to present what I've read and understand myself. (yes read. I did not come up with the theory nor have I the scientific knowledge to expand significantly of what he theorizes).
From what I understand the MBR (Microwave Backround Raditaion) is presently measured at a temperature of 2.73 K (Kelvin) and is said to be evidence of the Big Bang. However I myself have heard other theories. I remember hearing of one a while ago that the radiation might be from dust particles throughout the universe absorbing random cosmic rays and re-emitting them but I didn't know where it came from. I know the Microwave Background Radiation was first discovered by accident by the two Bell Lab scientists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1964 who received a Nobel Prize for the discovery. It was quickly asserted as evidence of the Big Bang.
I admit I was not focused enough on or familar with every detail of Dr. LaViolette's work. I was fascinated by the "growth" of stars as an alternative paradigm to the "Supremacy of Entropy" concept which I feel is spiritually impoverished.
So I was caught flatfooted by your throwing graphs at me and your demand I reproduce his math on the spot. But at your "genial" request I did a little more research in the book Subquantum Kinetics and I find reference to the subject on page 169. He states what I thought was that "dust particle theory" except he's talking about something else and references it (Lerner, E."The Big Bang Never Happened". New York: Vintage, 992, p.156.).
Then he references himself in his earlier Phd. thesis work (Appendix B) Portland State University, 1983. and to another of his books; "Beyond the Big Bang" (2nd ed. working title: "Genesis of the Cosmos") Rochester, VT: Park Street Press, 1995, 2004.).
So in "reading" what he says about it: "Such magnetized plasma filaments might be energized by the cosmic ray particle background radiation. If 100 percent of the cosmic ray energy flux were absorbed by these filaments, a 6.1 K thermal microwave spectrum would result. However, a lower temperature would be more likely since absorption would be relatively inefficient. The observed 2.73 K blackbody temperature could be entirely accounted for if 4 percent of the ambient cosmic ray energy flux were absorbed."
He's making a case of course for an alternate explanation for the Microwave Background Radiation having some source other than the Big Bang. In his alternate theory matter and energy would be continously created in a universe which is cosmologically stationary. In that he references some similar ideas presented by others like Jeans and McCrea. (Jeans, J. Astrononmy and Cosmogony, Cambridge University Press, London, 1928, p. 352. and McCrea, W. H. "Continual creation." Mon Not. R. Astr. Soc. 128 (1964): 335-344.)
He goes on to say that Fred Hoyle's Steady State Theory was another example of "a continuous creation cosmology". However those theories ( both the classical version and he C- Field version (with some regions being more "fertile" than others), differ from his because they continue the assumption that the universe is expanding and therefore encounter the same problems with observational data as the Big Bang. (Like his four cosmological tests showing the tired light model making a better fit on ALL the tests than the standard qo = 0 Friedman Model).
If you want me to present the other two Cosmological Tests he's talking about,( "The Galaxy Number Count Magnitude Test" and the "Hubble Diagram Test) I will do so.
One note: Dr. LaViolette addresses the unjustified criticisms in his appedices in updated reprints. The one I have was last updated in 2003. Nine years ago. In it in Appendix B he writes th title: "The Differential Number Count Test: Unjustified Criticisms Rebutted."
So don't ask me to rebutt scientific criticisms expressed in mathematical language I am untrained in. I have a reasonable understanding of his work and am intelligent enough to discuss it as I believe I have shown. If that's not good enough for you you'll just have to live with it. I know I can.
Trou
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by JonF, posted 09-11-2012 11:49 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by JonF, posted 09-11-2012 8:02 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 135 of 181 (672818)
09-11-2012 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by NoNukes
09-11-2012 1:45 PM


Conventional explanations fail to account for the energy released by a collapsing star that has presumably ""run out of fuel".
Take for example Eta Carinae. Eta Carinae (approx 150 Solar Masses) has a luminosity according to LaViolette "of about 4 x 10 to the 6th L (Solar Luminosities).,
First of all "according to LaViolette" is not any kind of argument when we are discussing whether he is right. In short this is a issue raised by LaViolette and conveniently answered by filling in genic energy. "LaViolette said so" is not evidence of a gap in conventional theory to close with a missing energy source.
More importantly Eta Carinae is not a collapsing star. It is a big blue variable star, or more accurately a star system including a humongous star and at least one smaller but still humongous star. Conventional explanations for its brightness don't leave a gap that needs a genic energy fill in.
Neither of the other two references you cited deal with super nova, and there is not enough context for me to tell even whether they raise issues that are without a current explanation. Two sources are articles about 30-40 years old, and the third citation is to a twenty plus year old Scientific American article. Do either of them reflect the current state of knowledge or lack thereof regarding sources of energy? Well that's for you to show.
disagree that predicting that blue supergiants going supernova does not confirm or require a concept of a separate power source, (genic energy).
You have yet to present anything like an argument for this idea. I haven't seen any reasonable response to messages from me or PaulK on this issue. You haven't even shown that conventional astrophysics (from the last few years and not from 20-30 years ago cannot account for exploding red and blue super giants. Nobody thinks that red giants explode as type II supernovas without becoming one of the known pre-cursors first.
Let me ask you a personal question. Do you believe that you have enough personal knowledge of the subject to be able to identify gaps in current explanation of science requiring genic energy, or are you simply taking LaViolette's word that there are gaps.[/qs]
End of NoNuke's Quotes.
Start of Trou's Post:
Let me answer your last question first. No. I don't believe I have enough personal knowledge myself to adequately fill in the gaps. As I've said I am fascinated by the entire subject and am very interested in it for philosophical reasons. But that's all. If that disqualifies me from being on this site all the moderator or the owner of this site has to do is ask me to leave and I'll be gone.
Now if that's out of the way I will attempt to continue discussng this fascinating new theory that if proven would have major implications everywhere.
"Genic energy" (nonDoppler photon blueshifting or amplification) according to his theory is supposed to be continuously created in "super-critical" regions. Particularly in stars and other celestial bodies including planets. If that is so, then even though this violation of the first law of thermodynamics he claims is so small it cannot be detected in laboratory experiments might show up in monumental (global) or astronomical magnitudes of manifestation.
I will now attempt to present recent events that I've become aware of in the area related to Astrophysics (as well as what I can find in LaViolette's and other's work) that may be further evidence of genic energy in celestial bodies.
I've already mentioned the neutrino gap in regards to our Sun. I heard about this myself years before I read LaViolette's books and wondered what it might mean. Genic Energy could resolve that mystery and account for the descrepencies observed. I also mentioned his finding the jovian planets being located inordinately near the slope for the Mass - Luminosity Relation. No one else had thought to check that. Once again genic energy could account for some of this. He also discusses the M-L relation in regards the rocky planets like our earth and bodies like our moon and the differing theories put forth to account for the excess of the earth's total thermal output in particular.
But in recent years I recall seeing some tv programs discussing the discoveries by various probes of unexplained geysers of liquid nitrogen or in some cases even liquid water coming from some of the Jovian planets' frozen moons that do not have elipitical orbits and therefore wouldn't be subject to the tidal gravitational forces that sceintists use to explain the heating up of the interior of Titan for example. I am not sure but I believe Astrophysicists are puzzled to account for the observed evidence of unexplained sources of heat from these places. Once again genic energy being contnuously created within the interiors of these bodies could account for this unexplained heat.
Trou.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by NoNukes, posted 09-11-2012 1:45 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by NoNukes, posted 09-11-2012 3:41 PM TheRestOfUs has replied
 Message 138 by NoNukes, posted 09-11-2012 3:45 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied
 Message 146 by Admin, posted 09-11-2012 8:14 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 137 of 181 (672822)
09-11-2012 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by ringo
09-11-2012 12:49 PM


Rather than restate what I've said. In answer to your question please read my answer to "NoNukes" in post 135.
Trou

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by ringo, posted 09-11-2012 12:49 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by ringo, posted 09-11-2012 4:43 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 139 of 181 (672824)
09-11-2012 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by NoNukes
09-11-2012 3:41 PM


Re: No neutrino gap.
[q=NoNukes]
I've already mentioned the neutrino gap in regards to our Sun. I heard about this myself years before I read LaViolette's books and wondered what it might mean.
Perhaps I can save you the trouble of worrying about this issue. The case of the missing neutrinos was solved at least 10 years ago, and the answer was anticipated maybe about 20 years ago. It turns out that there are three kinds of neutrinos produced by stellar fusion and that those detectors from 20 years ago only detected one of the three types. It has since been verified that the sun produces the expected number of neutrinos.
Bye-bye genic energy? Or at least there is one less place to find verification for the concept.
In a sense, your arguments are a "genic energy of the gaps" argument. You (and perhaps LaViolette) are looking at descriptions of old problems and filing in genic energy without looking to see if the problem has been filled in by conventional science (i.e. current science). Genic energy fits into the gap until conventional science and investigation advance to fill in the gap and push genic energy aside.
LaViolette can be forgiven if he made his predictions contemporary with the problems he identifies (at least in those cases where he is correct about the state of science when he made his prediction). But if you want to convince someone today that LaViolette was right back in 1978 or 1985, then LaViolette's predictions must be compared to current science and not to whatever scientist thought in 1978.
As an aside, your posts would be a little less confusing if you put my text inside of a [q=NoNukes] [ /q] set. Use a separate set of quotes for your own text from previous messsages.
TheRestOfUs writes:
Let me answer your last question first. No. I don't believe I have enough personal knowledge myself to adequately fill in the gaps.
I did not ask you if you had enough knowledge to fill in the gaps. That's way too high a standard, and neither you nor I would meet that standard. Instead I ask whether you have enough understanding to have an informed opinion of whether there is or is not a gap that needs to be filled in with "genic energy". [/q]
End of NoNuke's post.
Start of Trou's post.
If what you say is true about there being three types of neutrinos ( and this isn't just a continuation of the endless "force carrier parade") then I guess LaViolette and thereby myself are out of touch with the latest. As I mentioned I have a copy of Subquantum Kinetics last updated in 2003. I will look for more recent updates wherein he may address this data. Well it's been enjoyable anyway.
Trou
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by NoNukes, posted 09-11-2012 3:41 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by hooah212002, posted 09-11-2012 4:06 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied
 Message 142 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-11-2012 4:58 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied
 Message 143 by PaulK, posted 09-11-2012 5:28 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied
 Message 145 by Admin, posted 09-11-2012 8:06 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 142 of 181 (672834)
09-11-2012 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by TheRestOfUs
09-11-2012 3:59 PM


Re: No neutrino gap.
I am trying to contact Dr. LaViolette on his blog and get some updated answers to some of the questions here. Don't know how long that will take. But while at the Starburt Foundation site I came across a prediction that relates to the foundation of Subquantum Kinetics about spontaneous creation of particles of matter in the universe which is intregal to his entire theory and forms the basis for the"genic energy" hypothesis. Apparently his "Model G" reaction diffusion system theory has had some current verification regarding computer simulation. I present it here as something old and something new. Now I just need to find something "blue" eh?
Trou
Dissipative Solitons in Reaction-Diffusion Systems (1978 — 80): At this time when Model G was developed, no reaction-diffusion systems were known that were capable of producing autonomous self-stabilizing localized dissipative structures.
Prediction No. 12 (1978 — 80): LaViolette develops a Brusselator-like reaction-diffusion system called Model G as the main ether model for subquantum kinetics. Based on simulation work others had done on the Brusselator, he makes predictive extrapolations that Model G is capable of producing autonomous, self-stabilizing localized dissipative structures — dissipative solitons — that have a bell-shaped core surrounded by an asymptotically declining periodicity of precise wavelength. Also he predicts that these solitons should be able to bind to one another, spawn progeny particles in their immediate vicinity, and move when subjected to a concentration gradient. Published in: 1985 (IJGS).
Verification (2010): M. Pulver conducts computer simulations of the Model G reaction system and confirms that it does produce dissipative solitons and shows that the resulting solitons have the above predicted characteristics. Results to be published by Pulver and LaViolette (2012). Other researchers in 1998 had published computer simulations of a nonlinear system of the FitzHugh-Nagumo type, showing that it could produce dissipative solitons capable of bonding, particle replication, and scattering. However, it is not clear that this system qualifies as a reaction-diffusion system. It is usually expressed as a set of partial differential equations instead of in a kinetic equation format, which leaves open the possibility that its variables might adopt negative values in the course of producing their dissipative solitons. Thus, besides being the first soliton-producing model to be proposed in the literature, Model G may also be the only true reaction-diffusion system to demonstrate the ability to produce dissipative solitons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-11-2012 3:59 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by zaius137, posted 09-12-2012 12:37 PM TheRestOfUs has not replied

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


(1)
Message 147 of 181 (672852)
09-11-2012 9:21 PM


Hmm.. I guess I won't be here much longer. I'll be suspended or banned for one reason or another. Percy no need to warn me further. I'll save you the trouble. This will be my last post here.
I have enjoyed getting something off my chest that's been there for years. And I really can't blame anyone else as I did come here with a chip on my shoulder. You see I've been quiet about my thoughts about the cosmos and creation for many years and when I read LaViolette's books I admit I felt an inner joy that I had finally found a cogent explanation to refute the "dismal paradigm" that the universe just popped into existence from nowhere and was expanding at greater and greater speeds and would eventually after all the stars go out and the remains are eaten by who knows how many black holes; just tear itself to smithereens down to the atomic level. It didn't matter how far into the future this would be it was still a bleak outlook.
So I did get energized when I read of an alternative by a man full of constructive thought who hypothesized in a cogent and intelligible manner that the universe was not only alive but was growing not fading. That light and order had defeated entropy and would for untold eons to come. "God is alive, Love is afoot" so to speak. I know... well I've already confessed I believe in God so I guess you are right that maybe I do have a spiritual motivation. Maybe it blinded me a little and maybe filled me with a bit too much zeal. I apologize to whomever I offended.
But when I saw that this man whom I saw in a interview in 2009 admit that he may have put out too many new thoughts too soon and caused his own ostracism because of it. But confessed he was only motivated by a dedication to the truth and the benefit of mankind I did get a little hot under the collar.
Especially when I did some searching and found discussions by other scientists like this one by Frank Tipler Prof of Mathematics at Tulane: http://www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_PeerReview_070103.pdf. And this from a group of 33 Scientists who've individually put out 2000 papers challenging the mainstream paradigm on Black Holes and the Big Bang since I believe 2004; and have received absolute silence from their collegues: A Cosmology Group. And I found many more examples. It confirmed my worst suspicions. But I wasn't fair that I "hang" you here with that baggage.
Well I have learned a few things in these few days so that's good - for me. Once again thanks for your time.
Moderator you can take me off the members list as I won't be returning. God Bless you all.
Trou

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Admin, posted 09-12-2012 8:47 AM TheRestOfUs has not replied

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


(2)
Message 150 of 181 (672863)
09-12-2012 12:39 AM


I could have edited my "last post" but I've decided to avoid hiding what I intended at the time to do. That is "leave". Let's just say I thought about it and have decided not to give up on my "quest".
Don't mean I still won't be suspended or even banned soon. But I won't give up until I am.
Trou.

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by dwise1, posted 09-12-2012 3:09 AM TheRestOfUs has not replied

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 4211 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


(2)
Message 163 of 181 (673166)
09-14-2012 5:50 PM


I've been studying the story of how scientists solved the Neutrino Deficit Mystery. I first went to a site called "NobelPrize.org." where one scientist named John N. Bahcall writes the story out: Page not found - NobelPrize.org
Subsequentley I googled and found a PDF of a report in 2005 called "Report of the Solar and Atmospheric Neutrino Experiments Working Group of the APS Multidivisional
Neutrino Study." http://www.aps.org/...ospheric_Experiments_Working_Group.pdf In reading as much as I could understand it seems also like a proposal for funding for a bigger detector to conduct deeper more precise research on the Sun to find out a number of crucial things. On page 6 & 7 I found one of those priorities;
I quote:
" Is nuclear fusion the only source of the Sun's energy, and is it a steady state system?
Comparison of the total energy output of the Sun measured in neutrinos must agree
with the total measured in photons, if nuclear fusion is the only energy generation
mechanism at work. In addition, the comparison of neutrino to photon luminosities
will tell us whether the Sun is in an approximately steady state by telling us whether
the rate of energy generation in the core is equal to that radiated through the solar
surface|the heat and light we see today at the solar surface was created in the interior
~ 40,000 years ago, while the neutrinos are just over eight minutes old."
Unquote.
Hmmm. Could it be they are still not sure that nuclear fusion is the sole source of energy powering the Sun? I have asked a friend of mine who has a Masters in Physics to check this report over and help me understand it better.
Also I did some more googling to see if the experiment proposed to count photons and match them up with the total neutrino count has gotten off the ground yet. I found his proposal for a new detector. The paper was published in 2008: Physics | Brown University
I don't know if they've conducted the experiment yet and what results they've got. Anybody here know?
I am also studying LaViolette's Subquantum Kinetics more closely on "Genic Energy Modeling" and he presents some interesting theories related to the Earth and the Moon's total thermal flux that may provide better evidence of genic energy.
So I just thought I'd let you all know what I'm doing. I will be back soon.
Trou
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by NoNukes, posted 09-15-2012 3:43 AM TheRestOfUs has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024