Post Reply
Page 4 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View They are lying to us.
3 years ago  ::  Mar 07, 2012 - 8:05PM #31
amcolph
Posts: 18,287

Mar 7, 2012 -- 7:18PM, caduceus wrote:



Science has not given any meaningful explanation for ball lightening apart from ignited dust, which is incapable of passing through a window. Also proffered: plasma balls, something science admits it knows nothing about.



Phenomena similar to ball lightning have been reproduced under laboratory conditions but whether these are identical to their natural occurrences is unkown on account of the rarity of their occurance.  The International Committee on Ball Lightening holds regular symposia--one due this year, I believe--maybe you ought to attend, as your understanding of what science has to say on the subject seems singularly uninformed.


Can this be the reason why they reject cold fusion, something we all need at this time of austerity? The distinct possibility of a cheap and clean energy source is kicked around like a political football to save the jobs of those who have singly failed to get hot fusion working for over fifty years.




Research into cold fusion--some of it government funded--has been ongoing, at a modest level consistent with the lack of reproducible results.  Here again, your knowlege of what scientists are actually doing about it is uninformed.  Your notion that cold fusion is being suppressed by mainstream science is nothing but a lurid and ignorant fantasy.




This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 08, 2012 - 8:49AM #32
caduceus
Posts: 1,274

PS: They reject cold fusion as described by Fleischmann and Pons because shortly after the experiment was anounced and described, scientists attempted to replicate the experiment and failed to get the same results.  Sorry again, but that's science.  There are some researchers still working on it, so science hasn't "rejected" it.  Perhaps because of the stigma of the F-P fiasco, few scientists want to get into it.  Nothing is stopping you, is there?



Phenomena similar to ball lightning have been reproduced under laboratory conditions but whether these are identical to their natural occurrences is unkown on account of the rarity of their occurance.  The International Committee on Ball Lightening holds regular symposia--one due this year, I believe--maybe you ought to attend, as your understanding of what science has to say on the subject seems singularly uninformed.



I can't think of even one of what are called Fortean phenomena that has been adopted by science due to an increase in knowledge, or a study. Not ball lightning or even meteorites, that in a Fortean sense are all manner of materials that fall from the sky rather than the limited scientific version. Science thrives in the mundane and the safe options.


As I read what is online I find several positive results for cold fusion, but then I probably don't look in the same places as you. But it's not all about cold fusion... its about what we have been trained to accept as bona fide.


I have a problem when I watch TV and encounter a scientist expounding the virtues of windmills to generate our electricity. At a time when we have more scientists than ever before in the history of the world, we find them presenting the worlds oldest technology. I don't know about other readers, but I personally find this to be odd, a Fortean phenomena in itself?


I'm told that ninety nine percent of the universe is plasma, just like ball lightening.
I'm also told that the Sun is electrically charged and that it has a surface potential of 10 to the 19 volts.
NASA has recently discovered and was surprised by what it calls "Ropes" of plasma between Sun and Earth.


The universe obviously has an electrical nature that is ignored by astronomers, physicists and cosmologists alike who refer to such things as magnetic fields.
More puzzling, the theories of Newton (who can be excused) and later those of Einstein (who can't) neglect to mention what must be, by far, the most energetic force in the universe...


Yes, I'm sure they are either lying to us or they're as blind as bats because "they" are spending billions on hot fusion supported by a theory that is obviously wrong..

“We live at the level of our language. Whatever we can articulate we can imagine or explore. All you have to do to educate a child is leave him alone and teach him to read. The rest is brainwashing.”
Ellen Gilcrist
Visit my website
www.n-atlantis.com
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 08, 2012 - 9:43AM #33
ozero
Posts: 1,411

Sorry, Caduceus, but you've got a lot of learning to do.  First step, learn what all that stuff about "electromagnetism" is all about.  Learn what a plasma is.  And don't get this information from crazy people.  Even Wikipedia is better than your sources. Come back and tell us how it is that astronomy is ignoring the electrical nature of the universe.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 08, 2012 - 1:55PM #34
caduceus
Posts: 1,274

In physics and chemistry, plasma is a state of matter similar to gas in which a certain portion of the particles are ionized.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)


More than 99 percent of matter in the Universe exists in the plasma state...  www.sciencemaster.com/jump/space/plasma....


The mention of cosmic-scale magnetic fields is still likely to met with an uncomfortable silence in some astronomical circles – and after a bit of foot-shuffling and throat-clearing, the discussion will be moved on to safer topics...
...Within galaxies, ‘seed’ magnetic fields may arise from the turbulent flow of ionised material...
www.universetoday.com/85087/astronomy-wi...


Alfvén Triumphs Again (and Again)
www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/thorn...



But, of course, this was all presented to Albert Einstein in person in the 1950's by our old friend Immanuel Velikovsky who throws an angst into the heart of every astronomer even to this day. We must keep such theories out of science even if it means that science becomes fictitious.


The Sun's electrical potential.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Howard_Menz...
(Ace UFO debunker Donald)"Menzel had offered calculations to show that if Velikovsky were right about electromagnetic forces in the solar system, the sun would have to have a surface electric potential of 10 to the19 (10 billion billion) volts - an absolute impossibility according to Menzel; but in 1960, V. A. Bailey, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Sydney claimed that the sun is electrically charged, and that it has a surface potential of 10 to the 19 volts -- precisely the "impossible value" calculated by Menzel. Bailey, at the time his theory was first published, was entirely unaware of Velikovsky's work and of Menzel's repudiation of it."
www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/Q...

“We live at the level of our language. Whatever we can articulate we can imagine or explore. All you have to do to educate a child is leave him alone and teach him to read. The rest is brainwashing.”
Ellen Gilcrist
Visit my website
www.n-atlantis.com
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 08, 2012 - 2:07PM #35
amcolph
Posts: 18,287

Mar 8, 2012 -- 1:55PM, caduceus wrote:



But, of course, this was all presented to Albert Einstein in person in the 1950's by our old friend Immanuel Velikovsky who throws an angst into the heart of every astronomer even to this day. We must keep such theories out of science even if it means that science becomes fictitious.





Angst?  You've got to be kidding.  Scientists aren't afraid of sloppy work--they just despise it.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 08, 2012 - 2:18PM #36
ozero
Posts: 1,411

Aha, a Velikovsky supporter.  It's good to see there are some still around.  Like flat earthers, but more recent.  Well, keep at it.  Maybe you can find something there. Nobody is bothered by Velikovsky.  After you get to the flying Venus and oil spewing out, well...

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 08, 2012 - 2:50PM #37
JimRigas
Posts: 2,950

I remember reading Velikovsky's "...Collision" book in 1950 and was greatly impressed.  Of course I was 16 at the time.  The only thing I remember about it now is his effort to scientifically explain the ten plagues in Egypt.  That was a waste of effort.  It is far easier to assume that they were figments of the OT writer's imagination. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 08, 2012 - 6:26PM #38
Blü
Posts: 25,274

Caduceus


Welcome back.


In our last episode, you'll recall, I pointed out that you consistently preferred explanations that were antagonistic to science, apparently for no other reason than that the explanations gave the rude finger to scientists, a tribe you dislike.


I asked you what test of correctness we should use instead of scientific method. As I recall the conversation, you had no alternative to offer.  This led me to the conclusion that your judgments were what they appeared to be, emotional rather than reasoned.


Has anything changed since then?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 08, 2012 - 7:44PM #39
caduceus
Posts: 1,274

Angst?  You've got to be kidding.  Scientists aren't afraid of sloppy work--they just despise it.



I've heard Velikovsky called many names, but never sloppy, not even Sagan.


Hi Blu,
How good it is to hear from you again. The last time I visited I seem to recall, I was told you'd been absent for some time.
Your new icon appears to be someone stabbing themselves in the heart? I preferred the zombie.


I can answer your question after writing to the professor physicist here about glaring mistakes on another page:
www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/logic.htm  
All was revealed and the missing ingredient exposed. It seems that logic is anathemised, not at all favoured by those who run the show. He seemed to think it was something to do with math'?
A science community who welcome logical critical thinking would be refreshing. After all, a subject that is above criticism is just dogma.


I thought maybe someone would run with my observation of the stranglehold that science has on education?


I've done a page on Velikovsky at the following link that says much that would be too long for a forum if any of the scientifically inclined have the honesty to read it with an open mind (whoops). I have this theory that almost all of his detractors have never read WIC, preferring someone else to do their thinking for them. www.n-atlantis.com/velikovsky.htm


As for a flat Earth: A modern myth that I suspect is part of revisionism. That everyone in past times was a little thick.


Wiki starts: "The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception"   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
There are two versions with the same URL:
This one starts: The Flat Earth model is a belief that the Earth's shape is a plane or disk. Most ancient cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth, including Greece until the classical period,   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth


The truth is that the enlightened of all past civilisations preferred a spherical Earth.

“We live at the level of our language. Whatever we can articulate we can imagine or explore. All you have to do to educate a child is leave him alone and teach him to read. The rest is brainwashing.”
Ellen Gilcrist
Visit my website
www.n-atlantis.com
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 08, 2012 - 7:53PM #40
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Mar 8, 2012 -- 7:44PM, caduceus wrote:


Angst?  You've got to be kidding.  Scientists aren't afraid of sloppy work--they just despise it.



I've heard Velikovsky called many names, but never sloppy, not even Sagan.


I've never heard Velikovsky called Sagan either.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook