Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Do you science?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Senior Member DiabloViejo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    12,547

    Do you science?

    Physicist Brian Greene (co-founder of the World Science Festival in New York) has just introduced an online science education website called World Science U with content for people of every level. For those just getting introduced to the concepts of physics and cosmology, there are dozens of videos explaining the basic concepts and terminology ranging from “what is mathematics” to quantum mechanics. For those interested in going a little deeper, there are 3-week-long short courses available, though there is no homework or grading. The website also features full length University-level courses with the option of gaining certification if all of the coursework is successfully completed.

    Interested? Head to the website and get registered for your courses here: http://bit.ly/1kj07jE

    Image via: World Science U




  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,804
    String theory krapp, 11 dimensions krapp, kurved space and time krapp, quantum krapp, bigbang krapp, expanding universe krapp, nuclear atom krapp -- its all there, and its all krapp.

    If u want to learn something before u die, google Reg Cahill and Stephen Crothers and Ranzan and Miles Mathis. Theze will also take u to many other good science sites. Their aether stuff and speed of gravity stuff and speed of light stuff will giv u happy reading for months. Cahill's latest work on the Shnoll Effect iz out of this world.
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 03-12-2014 at 06:56 PM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,804
    Einstein krappstein, Heisenberg krappenberg, Feynman krappman.
    Greene iz a fraud.
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 03-13-2014 at 06:48 PM.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,804
    MILES MATHIS.
    I will end by analyzing a short quote by David Gross, which I also steal from Greene's book. "It used to be that as we were climbing the mountain of nature the experimentalists would lead the way. We lazy theorists would lag behind. . . . We all long for the return of those days. But we theorists might have to take the lead. This is a much more lonely enterprise."8
    You can almost hear the violins. Those poor put-upon theorists, saving us from the past, leading us bravely into the future. I am not an experimentalist, but when I read this quote my eyes rolled so far back in my head I nearly broke into St. Vitus' dance. The dishonesty literally pours off the page. The string theorist pretending to be an unwilling leader, a humble servant. When in fact he is little more than a shallow revolutionary, a completely monomaniacal, delusional person who has convinced himself that by hoodwinking us he has done us some great favor. Salesmanship posing as magnanimity.
    I think you can tell by the tone of this paper that I am angry at string theory, and I don't deny it. The last century would try any honest person's patience, in any number of fields. In my opinion we are past the point of a mild rebuke. The physics department needs a good kick in the pants, and the math department too. Both have degenerated nearly past the point of recognition, and they might as well join up with the art department and begin putting on Dali-esque plays and masked balls. I had hoped that QED would someday develop some humility and that we, as physicists, would get back to work. That we would recognize the huge gaps in our theories, going all the way back to Euclid, and make some effort to fill them. Instead young physicists have continued to learn all the wrong lessons from the recent past and to fail to learn the most-needed lessons. What they have taken from QED is only its Berkeleyan idealism and its intellectual dishonesty. They have remained buried so far under their esoteric maths that they cannot see daylight. And they have continued to dig. They are now at a depth that apparently precludes all cries of logic, all ropes of humility, all ladders of embarrassment. It seems likely that they will continue to dig until the air runs out. Or until they hit the baby black hole at the center of the earth, and the self-created chasm at the center of their own theory sucks them into a well-earned hell.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,804
    Dark Matter krapp, Dark Energy krapp, Black Hole krapp, Dark Flow krapp, Higgs krapp.
    Hawking krappking.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    20,878
    Quote Originally Posted by DiabloViejo View Post
    Physicist Brian Greene (co-founder of the World Science Festival in New York) has just introduced an online science education website called World Science U with content for people of every level. For those just getting introduced to the concepts of physics and cosmology, there are dozens of videos explaining the basic concepts and terminology ranging from “what is mathematics” to quantum mechanics. For those interested in going a little deeper, there are 3-week-long short courses available, though there is no homework or grading. The website also features full length University-level courses with the option of gaining certification if all of the coursework is successfully completed.

    Interested? Head to the website and get registered for your courses here: http://bit.ly/1kj07jE

    Image via: World Science U



    Great site! Thanks friend.

    G.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,804
    Non Existence of Black Holes March 17, 2014

    I suggest a study of UFT99 and UFT139, where the Einstein field equation is refuted straightforwardly because it violates the fundamental structure of geometry by neglecting torsion. The huge readership of ECE means that the Einstein theory is practiced only by a tiny minority of dogmatic proponents, and that is not natural philosophy at all. In “Criticisms of the Einstein Field Equation” (on www.aias.us and published by CISP in 2011, details on home page of www.aias.us) all the metrics of the Einstein field equation are refuted systematically. Yo may liek to listen to a few esays that refute the Einsteinain theory – these are on www.aias.us. These are hugely popular worldwide and are broadcast by Robert Cheshire in English and Alex Hill in Spanish. So I no longer read or consider work based on the Einstein field equation. The only thing I do in that area is to support the valid criticisms of Stephen Crothers, co author of CEFE with Horst Eckardt and Kerry Pendergast. I have always regarded Hawking’s work on big bang as a complete waste of time. In ECE theory superconductivity is developed in earlier UFT papers such as UFT51. I also recommend study of UFT88 , which his being studied around the world at present and has been studied for the past eight years or so. UFT88 refutes the incorrect second Bianchi identity,and replaces it with the correct Cartan identity. I could not comment on the type of data you mention without a background study which would take time. perhaps you could supply a short synopsis. In general AIAS deals only with ECE theory, anything outside of that framework is reduced to geometry. UFT51 deals with superconductivity, so you may like to study that to see if you can relate it to your own theory. There are no black holes, so as a scientist I have no interest in them. I am interested in replacing them with something rational and scientific, and your theory may be valid.

    In a message dated 16/03/2014 23:43:34 GMT Standard Time, writes:
    Hello, I propose a mathematical method for testing astronomical observations that black holes are cold spinning quantized superfluids. Lab math equations show that a superfluid’s quantized spin rate is a multiple of the trap size (for a black hole) and atomic mass (by using chemistry the atomic number 3 is for 3He). Few galaxy black hole spin rates have been measured, such as NGC 1365. Recently measured Quasar RX J1131-1231 spins about 2/3 c and has 200 million solar masses. The trap size of the quasar’s black hole I don’t know, but can be estimated or determined by the size of the accretion disk. Do you think a mathematical quantized spin multiple for the quasar could be predicted and obtained by using 200 million solar masses of 3He in the equation? Thank you, just a daily blog fan Pat.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,804
    Some Criticisms of the Higgs Boson March 14, 2014

    There are some obious reasons why the Higgs boson does not exist. These have been posted here on this blog many times and also in some very well read essays. So apart from the Higgs boson researchers themselves, no one believes in it. The most obvious reasons are as follows.

    1) The Higgs mechanism relies on the idea of initially massless particles, a contradiction in terms.
    2) The claimed “discovery” of the boson rests on the use of a large number of adjustables, at least seventeen. So by adjusting these parameters one can produce anything, and the procedure is meaningless. I have given the precise definition of the adjustables on this blog. In some theories there are over a hundred adjustables, which is crazy nonsense. If I did that to my Ph. D. supervisor, I would be distilled immediately. In contrast the Newton theory of universal gravitation has only one parameter, G, the Newton constant, and that is not adjustable.
    3) The way in which the data at CERN have been analyzed has been subjected to heavy criticism. In my opinion there is simply nothing there.
    4) None of the particles “predicted” by supersymmetry have been discovered, so in fact, and on the quiet, just between ourselves, the standard model has collapsed. This cannot be admitted because they need tens of billions of our money. They are trying to think of ways of spending our money.
    5) The B(3) theory has destroyed the mythology of zero photon mass, and has been read an embarrassing thirty six million times. It has been regrettably nominated several times for a Nobel prize, which is perfectly awful. It cannot even be censored any more.
    6) The U(1) sector at CERN has evaporated due to (5), leaving a bit of charcoal on the floor.
    7) To make things worse, UFT225 has just shown that the simple algebra used by the Higgs proponents is wrong, a schoolboy error. This was sent to CERN, who covered it up immediately. However, everyone else knows about it, including the tax payer.

    CERN is a nice place to work in, having no taxes and a large lake nearby upon which to go boating. I get seasick looking at a puddle, so have no interest in boating, only in boring old rigorous science. There has been such a drastic decline in natural philosophy that little is left of the methodology of Bacon. Who is going to spend a hundred thousand million replicating Higgsinos? In the past decade physics funding in Britain has been cut by a half, and usually other countries follow. So we are left with a bunch of boating aristocrats near the Byronic Castle of Chillon. George Gordon Lord Byron was one of my predecessors on the Civil List, the archetypical romantic poet who died fighting for freedom. The nominations for Higgs over thirty years were carefully engineered by the same group at CERN who spent all the money. It was a display of vanity. In fact Higgs has a very low h index and has done very little work himself for many years. There are very many good people worthier of a Nobel Prize for real Baconian science.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,804
    Remarks by Stephen Crothers: Torsion refutes Black Holes
    February 13, 2014

    I find Hawking’s work to be of no interest, and this has always been my view as a practical chemist: the view of the great majority of chemists. He is afraid of debate with me so, and afraid of answering my e mails in the accepted scientific manner, so as a Civil List Scientist I do not read his work. Silence is golden. It is simple to follow a paper such as UFT139, and all metrics of the Einstein field equation are incorrect. So I no longer read any work based on the Einstein field equation. Hawking has become a media creation. I do not wish to be cruel, but I find all this to be an embarassment to Baconian science. I understand that he is severely disabled and have nothing against him personally. The same goes for Penrose, who is slightly more open minded but again will not debate.

    Hawking’s latest incantations on black holes
    Friends and Foes alike,
    Foes won’t like these one bit, and in particular Dr. Stefan Gillessen of the Max Planck Institute, whom I have promised a special mention at an appropriate time. That time has now come with Hawking’s latest paper. It’s going to be an interesting year, 2014.

    (1)Hawking’s latest incantations on black holes
    http://www.principia-scientific.org/...ack-holes.html
    (2) Hawking still in the dark on black holes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz2A4qXJQjc
    Stephen J. Crothers

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,804
    Big bang redux March 18, 2014

    Many thanks for this article. As usual it rolls out the same tired dogma, but half understood and second hand. It is in fact well known to genuine scholars that Einstein rejected big bang, which he thought to be a cranky idea, so did Eddington, de Broglie, Vigier and many others. In UFT49 I gave a theory which developed the Einstein de Broglie School’s idea of photon mass and tired light. I see that the readings of UFT88 continue unabated, yesterday at the Perimeter Institute in Canada. The readings of CEFE (“Criticisms of the Einstein Field Equation”) also continue unabated. In extensive tabular matter there Horst Eckardt refuted all the big bang, black hole and string theory metrics based on the Einstein field equation, which is of course totally wrong due to neglect of torsion (UFT88). Steve Bannister, an economics student, can see this fact, so can honest theoretical physicists. I notice that in this article someone at PIAS immediately became personally hostile to any idea that Big Bang has been refuted and knee jerked very offensive, deply insulting, terms such as “crank” and “crackpot”. Prof. Sir Fred Hoyle was certainly not a crank, he was one of the best cosmologists of the twentieth century, as was his group member Halton Arp. Big Bang has been refuted theoretically and experimentally an endless number of times, yet three million prizes are still given to it by corrupt academics. So this reflects the dismal state of establishment physics. Anyone who disagrees with their tedious dogma is called a crank or crackpot. So they make childish fools out of themselves before the world. The latter is very bored with them, and is more interested in making an honest living.

    To: emyrone@aol.com
    Sent: 17/03/2014 21:21:01 GMT Standard Time
    Subj: Big bang redux
    Hello Myron. I found this interesting and supportive of your findings.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4852844.html
    Very best,
    Steve

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •