Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Hey Cosmo!!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by J Raymond Redbourne on November 14, 2002 13:52:23 UTC

I see you're coming up to speed. Good!!!

Like Bruce, you're paying attention. Pretty soon it'll start to come together for you. Then you'll do the headsmacking Mama mia! Why couldn't I see that before??!!

Relativity is NOT understood, and you know it. It is an inbred collection of math stuff, with recidivist genes that keep popping up in the progeny.

Particle accelerators use empirically derived data. They are experiments, which by definition declares they don't know what they're doing. And the High Energy Physicists use renormalization math to get their "predictions to be confirmed to 10-place accuracy".

Nuclear plants have to go down on a continuing basis to replace cracked tubes and other stuff that they have not been able to design to stand up to radiation;...in anticipation. Try Chernoble, Three Mile Island, and other nuclear "accidents" on for size.

And now they're looking at burying nuclear waste for a minimum of 50,000 years in the American Mid-West, just like they didn't know this was going to happen.

Do you have any comprehension of what 50,000 years means? Have a look at the condition of ~5,000 year old stone monuments in Egypt.

In that time, the Earth could begin to separate at the nuclear-waste dump site, just as at the Afar Triangle. The package splits, and the guts fall out. Worse yet, a volcano. The past cannot be extrapolated into the future, with the expectation of geologic stability. How many horrendous mistakes does it take to illustrate the point?

This is not solving the problem. It is masking it, just like Relativity does. They might check the oil refinery techniques for "odour masks".

There is the very real possibility that a developed knowledge of aether nuclear physics will allow us to restore radioactive waste to benign-ness. Bite that if you need something productive to do. Let me know if you require elaboration on it.

But how about just a polite question instead of the usual infantile provocative baiting. I am grateful for your pumping action, because it gets my stuff into the Public Domain. But you're not doing yourself any favors.

The origin of Cosmic Ray Bursts energy is a complete mystery, and you must know that too, if you mention them. The latest astronomical source-indicators are still being evaluated, but the bursts occur randomly in time and direction. The few possible sources identified, may very well be statistically-supported coincidences.

DickT of Superstrings forum challenged me to explain the muon and Cerenkov radiation from Cosmic ray bursts. I pointed out that the so-called muon is just an electron that had one hell of a kick in the Language Removed. See my website. The stated mass and lifetime of a muon are AVERAGES, not absolute particle properties.

How can you possibly try to use trash like that to support your ideas and ridicule mine?

Astronomical observations include surprises like the apparent accelerated redshift of starlight, the orbital-velocity / distance curve of stars in spiral galaxies, the Spiral Galaxy Windup Dilemma and the space probe unexpected trajectory.

Now please understand that I have nothing against such surprises. What I don't like is the insistence that their basic theories are correct, when in fact they just about have a collective heart attack every time astronomy makes a new discovery.

This is because their basic theories have no umbrella-unity into which new discoveries automatically fit. That means Sir, their basic theories, like Relativity and Big Bang, are crapola.

As to accelerating things to c (and beyond), please see Popular Science, May/01, Warp Speed, where Millis and Frisbee of NASA blatantly stole my stuff and claimed they got it from the "lunatic fringe". Yet NASA and PopSci thought enough of it to publish it. Have YOU had anything stolen and published? People only steal things they see value in.

Know why they did it? Because they have no original ideas of their own. Check the magazines for the last ten years, or longer. There is nothing new in theory development. Relativity is dead in the water. It is a millstone about the neck of progress, and YOU KNOW IT!

Superstrings is a crock. Just read Greene's Elegant Universe. His string theory is anything but elegant. There is awkwardness on almost every page, "supported" by caveats, apologies and prommises for the future, when they develop better "math tools".

You know what that means as well as I do. They are looking for new mathbabble techniques. What's wrong with the existing math;- that the mathemateers are so proud of, they like to shove it up everyone's nose?

You have absolutely no excuse for being part of the arthritic community that perpetuates the absurdities of Relativity.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins