Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
32 online now:
DrJones*, GDR, jar, Theodoric (4 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,865 Year: 16,901/19,786 Month: 1,026/2,598 Week: 272/251 Day: 43/58 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Alternate Creation Theory: Genic Energy
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 2471 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 46 of 181 (672569)
09-09-2012 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Son Goku
09-09-2012 9:30 AM


Re: Not enough.
Son Goku,

In re-reading the threads I find I have done you a dis-service. You have been polite to me so far and I have not been to you in my post answering both you and JonF. I publicly apologize for my error. I respect everyone if they show me the same respect in return. I admit I got mad at the name-calling and was a bit too ready to lash out. Again my apologies.

To everyone else. If you treat me as you would want to be treated you'll get the same from me.

Just the way it is.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Son Goku, posted 09-09-2012 9:30 AM Son Goku has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 3:29 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded
 Message 51 by Admin, posted 09-09-2012 5:05 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 181 (672570)
09-09-2012 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Son Goku
09-09-2012 9:30 AM


Re: Not enough.
Newtonian mechanics accounts for the bulk of the advance of the perihelion, with the advance itself being a relatively small effect. About 50" out of 5600" seconds of arc per century of perihelion advance are explained by differences in GR and Newtonian mechanics.

But those 50 seconds of arc are real and are not explained by Newtonian mechanics. There were some attempts to make ad hoc modifications to Newtonian gravity, but thosse modifications fail to explain the orbits of Venus and Earth properly. GR gravitational theory works for all of the inner planets.

This science buff is all bluff. He cannot find a Newtonian explanation for the otbit of Mercury that works.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

“Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own.” George Bernard Shaw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Son Goku, posted 09-09-2012 9:30 AM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 3:46 PM NoNukes has responded
 Message 50 by Son Goku, posted 09-09-2012 4:06 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 52 by Admin, posted 09-09-2012 5:06 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 2471 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 48 of 181 (672571)
09-09-2012 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by TheRestOfUs
09-09-2012 2:17 PM


Re: Not enough.
Now that that's out of the way I'd like to focus on the main proposal I have found way more compelling than the Big Bang Theory. But first let me deal with this;

I have been "accused" of being a "creationist".

While I am aware this is supposed to be a derogatory, implying even imbecility in believing in God, I will cop to it with humility and thankfulness.

Yes, I believe in God. The Creator. Not ashamed of it in the least. You see I believe in a God of both Love and Truth. And I believe those two things are interchangable and indespensible to each other.

I mentioned before that the Big Bang Theory with its subsequent concepts is spiritually impoverished and factually failing. If as I say I believe God is Truth then following the observed and or experimental evidence where it leads is no "blasphemy". Indeed the only "blasphemy" I believe exists is when truth is not followed. Especially for a scientist who has an obligation to it

You might find it surprising that I don't blame the average scientist for what I see as an almost religious adherence to the mainstream paradigm. Because I believe we've made it almost impossible to do otherwise. As in many other institutions and in government and society in general I believe we've allowed money to be what we "worship" and not Truth, or God if you will. What other scientists charge as a herd like rejection of new information, (or new papers), that challenge the status quo is just human nature when we distort the innocence, the purity of any vocation; science included. For example when I was a kid I couldn't decide whether I wanted to be a scientist or a cop. Then I saw "Serpico" and I decided to turn towards science. By that time my life had taken a different path but that's not relevant.

I am not religious by any means. There is way too much "dogma" involved in almost all religions for me to belong to any. But I do remember sunday school and being taught what Christ said. Among the very wise sayings was one I didn't understand until recently, (if indeed I've got the meaning right.). He said "Suffer the little children to come unto me." And; "Lest ye be as these, (the children gathered around Him), you cannot enter the Kingdom of God." I wasn't sure for the longest time what exactly He meant. Were only children going to be allowed in the Kingdom? Or were we supposed to be AS children? And what did that mean? I recently decided it meant like what I just said about wanting to be a cop until I saw "Serpico". The corruption that tainted the pure (child-like?) desire to protect and serve. Or a fireman wanting to save lives. Or a nurse or doctor wanting to heal the sick, etc. And like a scientist wanting to pursue truth.

We've allowed our society to become so concerned with money that we've corrupted the central premises of almost all vocations. It's not hopeless, especially in the field of science because it's been said that science, like mankind, often climbs uphill on the backs of its eccentrics. Mark Twain commented that, "The man with a new idea is a "crank," until the idea succeeds."

Allright enough "preaching".

What I wanted to say since I came on this forum is that I've come across a much more compelling alternative creation theory than the dying (IMO) Big Bang. I am not promoting any book for sale on or through this forum. In fact I am not saying anyone should buy any book or even go googling to any particular website. I do have to mention the author and refer to his books only because as a non-scientist I need to answer any questions put to me about this new physics by people more learned.

If that is acceptable to the moderator that I mention the author and refer to his writings in explaining what I mean I will continue.

The Theory is touted by Paul LaViolette as a new Unified Field Theory and all that means. The "Tired Light" hypothesis is just part of what's predicted by the new physics he calls "Sub-Quantum Kinetics".

He describes it as an "Etheric" theory of continous creation to replace the Big Bang. Further he predicts that there are no such things as "Black Holes" and that what formed the galaxies and what lies now at the center of each "creation center" is a super massive super dense "primordial" or "Mother Star" continuing to create matter and energy at a prodigious rate even today.

He postulates that subatomic particles, (protons, photons, etc.), nucleate in free space arising from an etheric substrate according to a specific receipe in what he calls "super-critical regions" and have been doing so for likely much longer than 13.7 billion years. He postulates that the emergence of this matter and energy is sustained by this etheric substrate and that particles and all energy are not absolutely conserved because the universe is an "open system" as opposed to a closed one favored by modern cosmologists and quantum theorists.

I realize that's quite a lot to absorb so I'll take a breather.

Later,

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 2:17 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Straggler, posted 09-09-2012 5:08 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

    
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 2471 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 49 of 181 (672572)
09-09-2012 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by NoNukes
09-09-2012 2:31 PM


Re: Not enough.
Hey NoNukes,

Eat this: http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/mercury/index.html

Just a "suggestion".

Trou

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2012 2:31 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Admin, posted 09-09-2012 5:15 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded
 Message 55 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2012 6:31 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

    
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1150
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 50 of 181 (672576)
09-09-2012 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by NoNukes
09-09-2012 2:31 PM


Re: Not enough.
Sorry, yes.

I should have said the fine details of the orbits of the outer planets, the original hope for the discrepancy in the perihelion, don't provide a large enough correction beyond the standard Newtonian result which, as you said, is the largest contributor to the perihelion of Mercury.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2012 2:31 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12624
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 51 of 181 (672579)
09-09-2012 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by TheRestOfUs
09-09-2012 2:17 PM


Re: Not enough.
Please let moderators deal with the structure and process of the debate. Participants should keep their focus on the topic.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 2:17 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12624
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 52 of 181 (672581)
09-09-2012 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by NoNukes
09-09-2012 2:31 PM


NoNukes suspended one hour.
NoNukes writes:

This science buff is all bluff. He cannot find a Newtonian explanation for the otbit of Mercury that works.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2012 2:31 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 53 of 181 (672582)
09-09-2012 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by TheRestOfUs
09-09-2012 3:29 PM


Re: Not enough.
This alternative to the Big Bang that you are advocating - What predictions has it made and what discoveries have resulted as a direct consequence of the theory in question?

Can you name one?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 3:29 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 6:57 PM Straggler has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12624
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 54 of 181 (672583)
09-09-2012 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by TheRestOfUs
09-09-2012 3:46 PM


TheRestOfUs Suspended One Hour
TheRestOfUs writes:

Hey NoNukes,
Eat this: http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/mercury/index.html

Violations of these rules from the Forum Guidelines:

  1. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

  2. Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 3:46 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 181 (672585)
09-09-2012 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by TheRestOfUs
09-09-2012 3:46 PM


Re: Not good enough.
Remove pointless erroneus response

Edited by NoNukes, : In error


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

“Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own.” George Bernard Shaw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 3:46 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 2471 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 56 of 181 (672586)
09-09-2012 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Straggler
09-09-2012 5:08 PM


Re: Not enough.
Sure Straggler,

The first concept he lists is:

"Nucleon Core Field - prevailing concept (1978): The electric field in the core of a nucleon is assumed to be aperiodic and to rise to a sharp cusp at the particle's center."

"Prediction No.1 (1973 - 1978): Subquantum kinetics predicted that the electric potential field
in the core of a subatomic particle should be Gaussian-shaped and should continue outward as a periodic field pattern of diminishing amplitude having a radial wavelength equal to the particle's Compton wavelength, further that this field pattern should be positively biased in positively charged particles. Prediction published in: 1985 (IJGS), 1994 (Subquantum Kinetics), and 1995 (Beyond the Big Bang)."

"Verification (2002) Particle scattering form factor data for the proton and neutron is found to be best fit by a model in which the nucleon core electric charge density distribution has characteristics similar to those that subquantum kinetics had predicted. Energy boosting during collision, however, did cause the target nucleons to exhibit a wavelength slightly shorter than had been predicted."

"2. Gravatational Repulsion - Prevailing concept (1985): Electrons are assumed to produce matter attracting fields just like protons. Gravatational Repulsion is considered a speculative idea."

"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."

"Concept No. 3 : Energy Conservation and Photon Reshifting - prevailing concept (1978): The cosmological redshift is conventionally attributed to the assumed expansion of space. Photon energy is assumed to be perfectly conserved."

"Prediction No. 3 (1978: As a basic requirement of the validity of its methodology, subquantum kinetics predicted that photons should gradually redshift with time when passing through regions of low (less negative) gravatational field potential, e.g. intergalactic space. It predicted a "tired light effect," that distant galaxies should appear redshifted without the need of postulating recessional motion."

"Verification (1979- 1986): I check this photon redshifting prediction by comparing the tired light non-expanding universe model and the expanding universe model (standard Friedman cosmology) to observational data on four different cosmology tests (AP.J., 1986). The tired light model is found to make a closer fit to observational data on all tests confirming subquantum kinetics tired-light prediction and the notion that the universe is cosmologically stationary. These findings at the same time undermine a key support of the big bang theory. An update of this evidence is presented in Chapter 7 of Subquantum Kinetics (2003)."

Want more? He's got 9 in this book alone.

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.

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 53 by Straggler, posted 09-09-2012 5:08 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 8:01 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2012 2:40 AM TheRestOfUs has responded
 Message 76 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 9:22 AM TheRestOfUs has responded
 Message 96 by Straggler, posted 09-10-2012 2:41 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

    
zaius137
Member (Idle past 1668 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 57 of 181 (672589)
09-09-2012 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Son Goku
09-09-2012 9:19 AM


Re: A few choice comments...
To the friendly participants…

If the emphasis of redshift is placed on the wrong terms of the redshift equation there stands to be a gross violation of total energy conservation of the universe caused by redshifting.

The classic assumption of “expansion of space”and not Doppler redshift violates fundamental conservation of energy in the universe.

Here is a paper attempting a explanation… still not complete.

quote:
“One problematic aspect of the cosmological expansion is the apparent loss of energy associated with the redshift. The effect is particularly bad with cosmological background photons received in the current epoch – they are received with only about 0.1% of their emission energy. Attempts to account for the missing energy within the framework of general relativity have met with severe problems because of the difficulty in defining a local gravitational energy density (gravitational energy cannot be expressed in tensor form). As a
result, it is widely accepted that energy is not locally conserved in general relativity 3 , although claims are made that energy is globally conserved during expansion. This is in stark contrast to the normal Doppler shift where, as demonstrated in the text, energy is conserved on a photonby-photon basis.”
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0407/0407077.pdf

Now the big rub comes when recessional velocity (Doppler) approaches the speed of light… a violation of Special Relativity develops.

My friend Son…. Off point really but I think some reply is warranted and only for curiosity reasons. I release you from necessity to respond….

My deepest apologies to the “Admin”….

I don't really understand how:
(a) Quantum Gravity shatters on the warping of spacetime. The warping of spacetime is a feature of classical gravity, which would be a subset of quantum gravity.

If warping of spacetime is a subset of General Relativity, (I assume you meant to say that) what is the direct relation between Quantum Gravity and the Curvature Tensor? Only food for thought….

(b) The Higgs boson has nothing to do with the warping of spacetime. Just because physicists deal with and write papers about two topics doesn't mean the two topics themselves are directly related in some way. The Higgs boson has nothing more to do with the warping of spacetime than electric charge or chemistry does.

I never said the Higgs was responsible for the warping of spacetime but maybe it is. If it represents an energy or mass then it will distort space.

I agree with most of the statement except the “electric charge” or electric field part. If it contains energy, it can be said to warp-space.

Quote:

quote:
“ As another example, a beam of light (produced from, say, a laser) consists of an electromagnetic field, and it will exert a force on charged particles. Thus the electromagnetic field carries momentum. Because an electromagnetic field contains energy, momentum, and so on, it will produce a gravitational field of its own. This gravitational field is in addition to that produced by the matter of the charge or magnet.” http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-elect...

The Higgs Boson mechanism cannot impart mass to a black hole…

This doesn't make sense. A Black Hole has the mass of the object that formed it and any additional matter that fell into the black hole. The Higgs boson isn't really involved.

Exactly, so what is the Boson responsible for? Certainly not the impartation of mass to a black hole and by the way most of the ordinary matter to boot. The Higgs boson is an artifact of a failed paradigm.

Now back to the point…


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Son Goku, posted 09-09-2012 9:19 AM Son Goku has not yet responded

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 2471 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 58 of 181 (672596)
09-09-2012 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by TheRestOfUs
09-09-2012 6:57 PM


Re: Not enough.
I've decided to include more. What the hey.

"4. Energy Conservation/Generation - prevailing concept (1978): Energy is assumed to be perfectly conserved. Stars are assumed to generate their energy either through nuclear fusion or from heat released from gravatational accretion. Planets are instead thought to acquire their luminosity from stored heat. There is no reason to believe that planets should conform to the stellar M-L relation."

"Prediction No. 4 (1978- 1979): As a basic requirement of the validity of its methodology, subquantum kinetics predicted that photons should progressively blueshift in regions of high (more negative) gravatational field potential, e.g., within stars and planets and in interplanetary and interstellar space. It predicted that "genic energy" should be continuously created within all celestial bodies."

"Verification (1979 -1992): I tested this genic energy prediction by plotting the mass-luminosity coordinates of the jovian planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus) to compare them with the mass-luminosity relation for red dwarf stars and found that they conform to this relation. Others had not previously checked this because doing so didn't make sense in the context of the conventional astrophysical paradigm. This conformance suggests that the heat coming from the interiors of planets is produced in the same way as that radiating from the interiors of red dwarf stars, just as subquantum kinetics predicts. I also showed that the genic energy hypothesis predicts a slope for the "planetary stellar M-L relation" similar to the observed slope and that genic energy is able to account for about 50% of the Sun's luminosity, thus explaining the solar neutrino deficit. The required violation of energy conervation is 10 orders of magnitude smaller than what could be observed in laboratory experiments."

"5. Brown Dwarf Stars - prevailing concept (1985): Based on conventional theory, brown dwarf stars are not expected to have any particular mass-luminosity ratio. They are assumed to be stars that are not massive enough to ignite nuclear fusion and hence are merely dead stars that are cooling off."

"Prediction No. 5 (1985 - August 1995): Subquantum kinetics predicted that brown dwarf stars should also generate genic energy and hence, like the jovian planets, should lie along the lower main-sequence mass-luminoity relation for red dwarf stars. This prediction was published on four occasions: 1985 (IJGS, p. 339), 1992 (Physics Essays,) 1994 (Subquantum Kinetics, p. 125), and 1995 (Beyond the Big Bang, p. 304)."

"Verification (November 1995, 1998): Masses and luminosiies are published for brown dwarfs GL 229B and G 196-3B. I demonstrate that the M-L data points for these dwarfs lie along the planetary-stellar M-L relation as earlier predicted. This indicates that brown dwarfs are not dead stars as previously supposed, but bodies that are actively producing genic energy in their interiors."

I think this guy has got something.

Just my opinion.

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 56 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 6:57 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Admin, posted 09-09-2012 8:13 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12624
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 59 of 181 (672597)
09-09-2012 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by TheRestOfUs
09-09-2012 8:01 PM


Moderator Warning
Please make it clear which words are yours and which words are not. You can use quotation marks, the discussion board quote codes, indentation, text color, boldness, font or italicization, or anything else you wish that is easily recognizable.

Also, please do not include lengthy excerpts. Make the points in your own words and provide links to the source as a reference. Without this rule we find that some participants have a tendency to quote passages they do not understand and cannot defend.

What I'm asking for is covered in the Forum Guidelines.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 8:01 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 8:16 PM Admin has responded

    
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 2471 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 60 of 181 (672598)
09-09-2012 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Admin
09-09-2012 8:13 PM


Re: Moderator Warning
Will do to the best of my ability not being a scientist.

Trou


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Admin, posted 09-09-2012 8:13 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Admin, posted 09-09-2012 8:29 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019