Revelations of an Elite Family Insinder

[Tefal]

If you were after a decent discussion you should have posted it in SC instead, then people would have taken the time to give their reasoned objections about how the guy's theory has little evidence to back it, and in order to work as a theory requires a paradigmn shift in physics theory away from the current theory that has a vast wealth of evidence for it.

As it was you posted it in GD with little explanation, so I responded how the unofficial law of GD states I must; with a captioned picture of a spastic.

Actually both ideas where dissmised with evidence then a captioned picture of a spastic was posted

 

[Monkey Puzzle]

Ah right, so the spastic was just the icing on the cake. Win win.

 

[jas72]

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17879493



What a pathetic show tbh, I post something I thought was genuinely interesting over the typical junk on the forums and thats the kind of response you get, I suppose I should know better really how some on the forums can be so petty and small minded at times, oh and the cheek of someone to call me the troll for posting an alternate theory on something, certainly felt he and others were trolling with their comments, also nothing the mod listed was reasonable in the slightest, I suppose its easier to ridicule and stop discussion than give it a fair chance when it goes against current views, hmm that sounds familiar...

What has that to do with this thread?

 

[Radiation]

You posted a theory which has no empirical evidence, and is in direct contradiction of scientific theories which have observable, quantifiable validations (eg general relativity). The physics behind such a claim were formulated *just to explain the phenomena he believes is true*.

I have to ask - what exactly did you expect? Rubbish in = rubbish out.

If there was evidence the earth grew wouldn't it require a theory to explain it? You're basically saying because he's had to come up with a new theory and we have one already its has to be wrong, how is that the scientific way?

Ok take general relativity for example, I believe someone mentioned in the other thread how the guy believes the planets orbit along magnetic lines of force, gravity is taken to be bending space time but scientists still don't know exactly what gravity is, here is another idea, gravity is essentially magnetism, you think of a magnet as having poles and it will either attract or repel another pole, however put a piece of metal near it and it will only attract, this is whats likely happening as net effect that’s especially noticeable over long distances on a large enough mass like a planet, so what about space bending etc, well it’s exactly what you would expect to see, space is also believed to be filled with dark matter, which I take as another name for the ether, so you could say that’s actually whats bending or simply anything that passes through it, the idea that space aka nothing can bend is silly at best.

If you were after a decent discussion you should have posted it in SC instead, then people would have taken the time to give their reasoned objections about how the guy's theory has little evidence to back it, and in order to work as a theory requires a paradigmn shift in physics theory away from the current theory that has a vast wealth of evidence for it.

Perhaps but purely objecting to a theory thats disliked would be a discredit to science, you have to take both view points and even go along with some of the ideas until they can be disproven, i've seen little evidence that all his ideas have been so.

As it was you posted it in GD with little explanation, so I responded how the unofficial law of GD states I must; with a captioned picture of a spastic.

There's plenty of explanation but you have to watch the video and listen to the radio talk first, also as i said following the mob and posting such pictures shows what kind of person you are.

What has that to do with this thread?

I didn't get a chance to respond and it started from this thread so i came back here.

 

[jas72]

Spelling and grammar errors. Slang and accented words. Mix of American and British English. Incorrect facts. BS posted as fact with no evidence. List of meaningless and contentless vague statements interpretable in numerous ways. Numerous common poetic phrases taken from pop. literature. Nothing that couldn't be faked. An amazing ability to fail to answer a single question. Playing with a bunch of exited conspiracy theorists.


All adds up to one thing, a moderately intelligent, knowledgeable nut-job.

+1

 

[Tefal]

If there was evidence the earth grew wouldn't it require a theory to explain it? You're basically saying because he's had to come up with a new theory and we have one already its has to be wrong, how is that the scientific way?

No he's saying (and the creator of the theory is too) that the theory directly contradicts experimental results.

Why exactly do you expect this one man who had to come up with his own laws of physics to explain his theory to be correct over several thousand other scientists and experimental evidence?

You post links to a video/radio show not a peer reviewed journal, on something which people who are qualified to comment on have said is total tosh, and some how expect a large collection of people to believe it?

WE are not quantum physicists so cannot reasonably come up with counter claims of our own so we look to people who are and see what they say and they say he is wrong, and show us evidence of this, So why exactly should we believe him with no evidence over them?

Also would you care to explain

* The medical imaging technique relies on electron-positron annihilation to form two gamma photons of 511 keV, while the growing earth theory is based on the suggestion that they are converted to "prime matter".

 

[jas72]

If there was evidence the earth grew wouldn't it require a theory to explain it? You're basically saying because he's had to come up with a new theory and we have one already its has to be wrong, how is that the scientific way?

Ok take general relativity for example, I believe someone mentioned in the other thread how the guy believes the planets orbit along magnetic lines of force, gravity is taken to be bending space time but scientists still don't know exactly what gravity is,...snip.

I thought gravity was the sun spinning the earth round at 10, 000 km/h much like the cyclist inside the wheel of death or if you spin a jug of water fast enough over your head the centrifugal force keeps the water in place.


Having just yahooed the question I am enlightened.

However quantum physics makes my brain drip through my nose. It requires a degree of sorts in physics which I sadly lack.

 

[Darkwave]

FAO Radiation: We dismissed your thread because it was unscientific nonsense, that's it. Get over it.

 

[AGD]

snip

This is the problem when non-scientists try to use scientific arguments.

 

[Radiation]

No he's saying (and the creator of the theory is too) that the theory directly contradicts experimental results.

Which results are you referring to?

Why exactly do you expect this one man who had to come up with his own laws of physics to explain his theory to be correct over several thousand other scientists and experimental evidence?

I don't necessarily believe everything but there is evidence and alternate theories that do make sense, take the idea of gravity as an effect of magnetism as just one.

You post links to a video/radio show not a peer reviewed journal, on something which people who are qualified to comment on have said is total tosh, and some how expect a large collection of people to believe it?

No of course not but its interesting enough for discussion, why people can't at least entertain alternate ideas i don't know, people always think others are out to convert them as one person sadly put it, but thats obviously how some feel, a shame.

WE are not quantum physicists so cannot reasonably come up with counter claims of our own so we look to people who are and see what they say and they say he is wrong, and show us evidence of this, So why exactly should we believe him with no evidence over them?

There is evidence though, if the puzzle fits perhaps its right you know? Remember scientists tend to do their own thing in various areas, whos looking out for the bigger picture most of the time? you can bet its few of reputable positions but to say no good comes from the armchair thinker who can collect results and build up theories than surely its a bit unfair, why does everyone only look to the few for answers when new ideas can be found elsewhere as well?

Also would you care to explain

I don't necessarily believe his interpretation of it, i believe it all comes down to waves at the fundamental level, perhaps there are conditions where stable matter is formed post big bang and perhaps not but to say it's impossible out of hand is hardly scientific.

FAO Radiation: We dismissed your thread because it was unscientific nonsense, that's it. Get over it.

You can dismiss it all you like, it is easier to after all, however closing discussion on it without my chance to respond is low even for these forums.

 

[Monkey Puzzle]

If there was evidence the earth grew wouldn't it require a theory to explain it? You're basically saying because he's had to come up with a new theory and we have one already its has to be wrong, how is that the scientific way?

It's not just because we have one already that it's almost certainly a load of rubbish, but because the evidence we have fits with the current theory, and there is no compelling reason to start believing this new theory when it has little to no evidence to support it.

Ok take general relativity for example, I believe someone mentioned in the other thread how the guy believes the planets orbit along magnetic lines of force, gravity is taken to be bending space time


but scientists still don't know exactly what gravity is, here is another idea, gravity is essentially magnetism,

Lol, great idea!! I see, are they interchangeable now then? To make such a bold statement you need to give a better description than "essentially the same". How are they different? Why do magnetic and non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate if there's no such thing as gravity, and that force is instead magnetism? What evidence have that made you start to believe it? Please, for the love of God tell me it wasn't just the morphing globe and his idiotic voice-over explanation?!

you think of a magnet as having poles and it will either attract or repel another pole, however put a piece of metal near it and it will only attract,

No, that's just plain wrong. The metal aligns acording to each metal piece's pole to the larger magnets poles. They don't only attract.

this is whats likely happening as net effect that’s especially noticeable over long distances on a large enough mass like a planet, so what about space bending etc, well it’s exactly what you would expect to see, space is also believed to be filled with dark matter, which I take as another name for the ether, so you could say that’s actually whats bending or simply anything that passes through it, the idea that space aka nothing can bend is silly at best.

Perhaps but purely objecting to a theory thats disliked would be a discredit to science,

No, watching a morphing ball and claiming it is really plausible despite the flaws in the theory, and discarding current theory out of hand is a discredit to science.

you have to take both view points and even go along with some of the ideas until they can be disproven, i've seen little evidence that all his ideas have been so.

People aren't objecting because they have some irrational dislike of it; they're objecting to it because it is a flimsy theory with little evidence for it that requires a far fetched new theory which to be true requires the old theory and all the evidence supporting it to be discarded.

Most people are sensible enough to realise that, make a balanced judgement and laugh at the stupidity of it. You, on the other hand, seem so desperate for things like this to be true, because you feel that you have discovered the truth, that you make poor judgements.

There's plenty of explanation but you have to watch the video and listen to the radio talk first, also as i said following the mob and posting such pictures shows what kind of person you are.

Plenty of explanation?

"How is it that this is so plausible? Is it because it's true?"

It isn't and it's almost certainly not.

I'm not 'following the mob'. Calling the consensus view a petty, ill-informed mob, and throwing a hissy fit because your thread got closed and whinging in another shows what kind of a person you are I guess. It's a conspiracy I tell you!

 

[Tefal]

Which results are you referring to?

The evidence I posted before...

The Growing Earth Hypothesis is considered pseudoscience, because it widely disagrees with the huge amounts of experimental evidence which forms the basis of General Relativity and the Standard Model as well as with geodetic and geophysical observations.

* 10 years of continuous monitoring of the Earth's gravitational field by an international network[13] of ultra sensitive Superconducting Gravimeters[14] robustly demonstrates that terrestrial gravity has not increased and accordingly, there has been no growth.[15][16][17]
* Stars, including the sun, blast out large amounts of photons which in Adams' theory would continuously create huge amounts of protons and electrons from the hypothetical prime matter filling the universe. This has never been observed. [18]
* Adams believes there is no such thing as gravity and so-called "electromagnetic lines" are responsible for the orbit of planets, because they contain iron. Yet, man-made non-ferromagnetic objects still manage to stay in orbit. Also, the world's ocean tide can be observed to be under the influence of gravity every day, even though water is not ferromagnetic.
* The medical imaging technique relies on electron-positron annihilation to form two gamma photons of 511 keV, while the growing earth theory is based on the suggestion that they are converted to "prime matter". [19]
* The International Terrestrial Reference Frame for the Earth in 2005 actually shrank a very small amount (0.2 ppb which would be equivalent to a 5mm reduction of diameter) from the reference frame in 2000.[20]
* McElhinny et al.[21] used paleomagnetic data to calculate that the radius of the Earth 400 million years ago was 102 ± 2.8% of today's radius. This constraint would preclude the dramatic increase in radius required by any expanding earth hypothesis.

I don't necessarily believe everything but there is evidence and alternate theories that do make sense, take the idea of gravity as an effect of magnetism as just one.

Thats been brought up and disproven many times over the last century.

No of course not but its interesting enough for discussion, why people can't at least entertain alternate ideas i don't know, people always think others are out to convert them as one person sadly put it, but thats obviously how some feel, a shame.

No the debate on faster than light travel in the "fastest mans ever been" thread is interesting because it is all hypothetical/theoretical,

this is basically the same as walking into a room and saying 2 +2 = 5

Then when someone pulls out 4 beans places them in pairs them moves them together you say see 5 beans, hen there are still only 4

It has been gone over by people who understand it better and disproved, so theres not much fun to be had in debating it when we can just point to evidence that completely goes against it.

There is evidence though, if the puzzle fits perhaps its right you know? Remember scientists tend to do their own thing in various areas, whos looking out for the bigger picture most of the time? you can bet its few of reputable positions but to say no good comes from the armchair thinker who can collect results and build up theories than surely its a bit unfair, why does everyone only look to the few for answers when new ideas can be found elsewhere as well?

1) what evidence is there for his theory that the continents fit together when there is proof that at that time at least half of the ocean bed was still ocean, it no longer fits together.

2) arm chair thinkers generally can come up with ideas/inventions for basic things but cannot compete at a level of advanced quantum mechanics etc hence why we have places like cern, LHC and the hundreds of other particle colliders/accelerators.

I don't necessarily believe his interpretation of it, i believe it all comes down to waves at the fundamental level, perhaps there are conditions where stable matter is formed post big bang and perhaps not but to say it's impossible out of hand is hardly scientific.

what?

Thats doesn't say you can't create matter (you can, man made elements essentially have created matter (via the nuclear bonds within them) it's just the reverse of fission which destroys tiny amounts of matter and turns it into energy, (massivly simplified from A level physics ))

It's just his version of how matter is created by a pure matter field is disporven.

You can dismiss it all you like, it is easier to after all, however closing discussion on it without my chance to respond is low even for these forums.

Your say however is hardly likely to be of any revenue merely supposition, now if you disproved McElhinny and co (McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant, Nature, 271, pp. 316-321) results on the size of the earth 400 million years ago then It would have some weight.

 

[Radiation]

Lol, great idea!! I see, are they interchangeable now then?

Obviously general relativity works as a theory but is it giving us a true picture or not?

To make such a bold statement you need to give a better description than "essentially the same". How are they different? Why do magnetic and non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate if there's no such thing as gravity, and that force is instead magnetism?

Likely because its a general net effect, you can call it gravity but it’s a part of magnetism.

What evidence have that made you start to believe it? Please, for the love of God tell me it wasn't just the morphing globe and his idiotic voice-over explanation?!

Nope, this is actually getting into other alternate theories I've seen in the past.

No, that's just plain wrong. The metal aligns acording to each metal piece's pole to the larger magnets poles. They don't only attract.

Yes I know and I was making an example but that’s essentially what it comes down to, attraction only, if the poles were stuck there would still be a noticeable net effect though.

Plenty of explanation?

Listened to the whole radio talk?

I'm not 'following the mob'. Calling the consensus view a petty, ill-informed mob, and throwing a hissy fit because your thread got closed and whinging in another shows what kind of a person you are I guess. It's a conspiracy I tell you!

Actually I was referring to the ocuk mob and them being petty, not the consensus view which should welcome new theories and interesting discussion.

 

[aslco]

Bah, why did he/she/thing do it in that forum!

He should have posted on ocuk and then the responses would have been classic.

DITTO.

 

[Tefal]

DITTO.

*imagines the responses to *

Do you think I'm attractive,

Is that a Bugatti veyron

 

[Duff-Man]

If there was evidence the earth grew wouldn't it require a theory to explain it? You're basically saying because he's had to come up with a new theory and we have one already its has to be wrong, how is that the scientific way?

Ok take general relativity for example, I believe someone mentioned in the other thread how the guy believes the planets orbit along magnetic lines of force, gravity is taken to be bending space time but scientists still don't know exactly what gravity is, here is another idea, gravity is essentially magnetism, you think of a magnet as having poles and it will either attract or repel another pole, however put a piece of metal near it and it will only attract, this is whats likely happening as net effect that’s especially noticeable over long distances on a large enough mass like a planet, so what about space bending etc, well it’s exactly what you would expect to see, space is also believed to be filled with dark matter, which I take as another name for the ether, so you could say that’s actually whats bending or simply anything that passes through it, the idea that space aka nothing can bend is silly at best.

*sigh*

The point is that it contradicts an existing theory, without explaining other observable phenomena.

How does this "theory" explain gravitational lensing? How does it explain quantum uncertainty?

Taking ten steps back to explain a supposed phenomenon for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence is not scientific in the slightest.

...and if you're suggesting that "gravity is essentially magnetism" then you certainly haven't studied much math. Google for "Lorentz force" and "gravitational metric".

Until your "theory" explains observable phenomena which currently sit outside of existing theories, explains all phenomena described by existing theories, and is mathematically well-defined and self-consistent, you don't have a theory at all. At best what you have is a fundamentally flawed idea.

 

[MikeHunt79]

tl;dr

 

[Monkey Puzzle]

Obviously general relativity works as a theory but is it giving us a true picture or not?

That's a bit of a philosophical question. Compared to the expanding earth theory it has the benefit of fitting the evidence.

Yes I know and I was making an example but that’s essentially what it comes down to, attraction only, if the poles were stuck there would still be a noticeable net effect though.

Sorry, what?

Listened to the whole radio talk?

Yes, the second link from your post you mean? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrANjQ_Wdis ?

I still don't hear a good explanation. He goes on about science not being able to handle the theory since then they'd have to give up on 100 years of theory.

Sounds like a conspiracy theorist to me.

Remind me where you heard of this again?

Actually I was referring to the ocuk mob and them being petty, not the consensus view which should welcome new theories and interesting discussion.

I was referring to the consensus view of OcUK, since no-one had agreed with you. Don't be fooled by the caption of the spastic pic - I wasn't agreeing with you.

Out of interest, where does Neal Adams think the mountains and all the water came from?