Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Greg M

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Copyright

Greg M's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)



  1. It should come to no surprise to anyone here to see government funded "science" go down the tubes. Here is an example of a NASA electromagnetic specialist investigating the hot scientific topic of prayer. http://www.newsnet5.com/news/15369444/detail.html
  2. I see this topic has been unlocked; it is now OK to post on this subject?
  3. Hello Bob, the work of Alfven is fascinating. He was a smart guy and as you say not a crank. I find it interesting in his speech you link to his criticism on the state of plasma and thermonuclear physics. Quote: “The cosmical plasma physics of today is far less advanced than the thermonuclear research physics. It is to some extent the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong. The astrophysical correspondence to the thermonuclear crisis has not yet come. I think it is evident now that in certain respects the first approach to the physics of cosmical plasmas has been a failure. It turns out that in several important cases this approach has not given even a first approximation to truth but led into dead-end streets from which we now have to turn back. The reason for this is that several of the basic concepts on which the theories are founded, are not applicable to the condition prevailing in cosmos. They are « generally accepted » by most theoreticians, they are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself which does not « understand », how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them."
  4. Yes a little. I do not think it is possible. What have you come up with?
  5. Yes it appears but not really. Like a pencile appears bent in that water but isnt. To say time can speed up or slow down is to steal the concept of "time". Otherwise what unit is used to measure the change in time?
  6. I do not know much about it and I am a lay person but I will attempt an explanation. The island of stability is a theory of creating an isotope with a “magic number” of neutrons and protons with a long enough half-life to sustain fusion. The problem is that when tried we find a substantial repelling force between neutrons preventing them from being packed together that close. If neutrons can’t be crammed together so tightly then sustained fusion is not possible current theories of Neutron Stars are falsified. Have you found anything interesting in your research?
  7. That is like saying is Ayn Rands theory of ethics even a theory because I don't see any math? There is no number 7 in reality. Math is just a conceptual tool.
  8. Relativity Theory Einstein's Special Theory was designed to define simultaneity in a universe where the fastest force or signal was restricted to the measured speed of detection of light from a distant source. With an electrostatic force of near-infinite speed acting between the sub-particles of all matter, relativity theory reduces to classical physics. This leaves open the question of what we are measuring when we determine the speed of light. The speed of light in galactic terms is exceedingly slow, requiring about 150,000 years to cross our galaxy. However, the astronomer Halton Arp has shown that the redshifts of entire galaxies are quantized which requires some form of near instantaneous, galaxy-wide communication at the sub-atomic level. There are now several reported experiments that demonstrate faster than light effects. With the Special Theory gone, and the universe in communication with its parts effectively in real-time, there can be no time travel and space and time are independent. Common sense has always suggested that this was so. Einstein's General Theory was devised to explain gravity. It attempts to discard the observed action-at-a-distance of gravity by proposing a counter-intuitive warping of space in the presence of massive objects. This unnecessary complication of space is then added to the current metaphysical concepts of what constitutes the mass of an object. But space must also "warp" at near infinite speed to produce the observed planetary orbits. Common sense, observation, and parsimony of hypotheses all suggest that the electrostatic model of gravity (see below) is superior. There is now experimental evidence from gravity measurements at the time of a total solar eclipse that supports the Electric Universe model and discounts the General Relativity model. http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=11
  9. Something like this is easily explained with EU theory where the current gravity model must essentially insert unobservable postulations to attempt and explanination and then it still comes up short.
  10. The movie claims we can measure these currents and magnetic fields with radio telescopes.
  11. I really dont see how the above invalidates EU theory? As far as I can tell there areWAY more contradictions in the standard model. Have you seen the movie? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=47...h&plindex=0
  12. Interesting. Read this, then comment: http://www.thunderbolts.info/EU%20Intro%20and%20Chap1.pdf
  13. I just started researching this topic and so far it seems to make much more sense to me than the current gravity based cosmological model. I am only a laymen with basic college physics and astronomy. It is concerning that the current model says nothing of electrical forces in the universe and the Electric Universe model would account for several philosophical conundrums such as the ‘vacuum of space’ and the ‘Big Bang’. I am wondering if anyone else has heard of this theory or if there is anyone here more qualified than myself that better judge such things?
  14. Well that's my point. Time has to be consistent because we made it that way. In order for time as a concept to have identity it has to be consistent. An inch an inch everywhere. An inch only has meaning because we are specific. How is time different than any other sort of measurement?
  15. I realize that time does not apply to existence as a whole because time is within existence. But in order for time as a concept to have identity doesn’t it have to be consistent? Isn’t an inch an inch everywhere? How is time different than any other sort of measurement? Exactly that.
  • Create New...