I find that claimed predictions re not always as good as they appear.
So I did a little research, choosing this one:
quote: "Prediction No. 2 (1985): Subquantum kinetics predicted that gravity should have two polarities correlated with charge and that the electron should produce a matter-repelling gravity field. Furthermore it predicted that monopolar electric discharges should produce longitudinal electric potential waves accompanied by a gravity potential component. Published in: 1985 (IJGS), and 1994 (Subquantum Kinetics)."
"Verification (2001): Podkletnov and Modanese discover that an axial high-voltage electron discharge produces a matter-repelling gravity wave that travels in the direction of the discharge exerting a longitudinal repulsive gravatational force on a distant test mass."
It turns out that Podkletnov's work sounds very dubious, and hasn't been replicated. Eugene Podkletnov
It's not a good sign that this should be mentioned high up the list, without mentioning the questionable nature of the alleged verification.
In other words, the papers are on arxiv with nothing to suggest that they have been published or even accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
There are no replications, and no evidence that the Boeing involvement got so far as a speculative punt on a project that just might pay off.
And now - ten years later - we still have practically nothing.
So, the second "verification" on the list is so sketchy that it's barely worth mentioning. Normally you lead with the strongest points, saving poor quality points like this for the end. For the second item to be so weak is a red flag in itself.
It doesn't seem to be the case that all supernovae were blue giant stars.
SN2001fe appears to have been a white dwarf. (Further research indicates that no star was visible at the location, which was held to rule out a red giant - and therefore certainly rules out a blue giant, which would be even more obvious).
SN1993j seems to have originated with a K class (orange) star.
quote: In answer to your question. LaViolette merely predicted that astronomer's would find Supernova precursor stars to be Blue SuperGiants
Alright, so the prediction wasn't verified by SN1987A (one example is insufficient) and has failed. (See the two examples in my post Message 110)
quote: But if you've read through this thread and read the previous post of mine responding to "NoNukes" you'll see that if the findings he reports are true that (5) red supergiants were found to be Supernova precursors then LaViolette's prediction, while nailing SN 1987A right on, leaves some remaining questions that still need to be investigated about those other ones.
If LaViolette was right then you shouldn't need to be doing that investigation. You should have a clear majority (at the least) of the supernova precursors should be blue giants. If you have to explain away the majority of the results as special cases (with only one supposedly "typical" event!) then your theory is almost certainly wrong.
quote: 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.
According to Wikipedia two types of neutrino had been discovered by 1962, the third was predicted in 1975 and proved to exist in 2000 neutrino
In 1962 Leon M. Lederman, Melvin Schwartz and Jack Steinberger showed that more than one type of neutrino exists by first detecting interactions of the muon neutrino
The first detection of tau neutrino interactions was announced in summer of 2000 by the DONUT collaboration at Fermilab
Also, the neutrino problem was explained in 2001 - and the explanation had supporting evidence by 1998, although by my own memory the solution had been proposed before then.
...neutrino oscillation was not conclusively identified as the source of the deficit until the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory provided clear evidence of neutrino flavor change in 2001.
I would have thought that a 2003 update would have had time to deal with this issue. It would have been impossible for anyone following physics news in the mainstream media to have missed the reports from the Sudbury team (I saw them! Ghostly particle mystery 'solved'). And there was evidence of neutrino oscillations a few years before that. And the possibility that the problem was explained by neutrino oscillations goes back to the 1980s at least....
So, just looking at the points I've discussed, we've had one highly questionable "verification", one failed prediction being passed off as a success and a "solution" to a problem which had been solved more than a year before the revised text you are using was published. This is not an impressive record.
quote: Atheists and anti creationists get to define what is and what isn't evidence around here.
Of course that isn't true.
quote: I think every claim that something has supporting evidence should be supported with reasoning for the claim.
Of course, you could simply ask if you want more evidence.
quote: You people are going to go around and around in circles with creationists because of your false paradigm concerning how important "evidence" is when discussing issues.
If you really think that's true there's nothing stopping you from proposing a topic.
quote: "Evidence" doesn't stop you guys when you talk about all the matter and energy of the universe just popping into existence. You just assume its true because no one has been able to come up with an alternative explanation that has its own "evidence" and evidence that meets your definition as well.
Really ? Perhaps in your new topic you can produce some examples of that, Good luck finding some - you will need it.
Now do you have anything to offer that is on topic ? Or are you just going to go on dishonestly attack people who dare to disagree with your religious beliefs ?