It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Point of departure from what? Reality.
originally posted by: Caroline13456
a reply to: Caroline13456
A bit more info on spontaneous continuous creation nuts and bolts...
(a nontechnical summary)
Subquantum kinetics is a novel microphysics paradigm that incorporates concepts developed in the fields of system theory and nonequilibrium thermodynamics. One of its distinctive features is that it begins at the subquantum level for its point of departure.
It's too long to post the whole thing but if you read the whole article and still think that Searl isn't a con-man and that LaViolette isn't also a con-man for promoting another con-man, nothing anybody says will probably make any difference to someone who chooses to believe such obvious nonsense.
I recently purchased a book from you that you have been promoting on your website, entitled “Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion,” by one Paul A. LaViolette, Ph.D. May I say at the outset, that I am mystified as to how anyone could possibly have a Ph.D. and write such a book.
I scrolled down the contents page, and was absolutely gob-smacked to find a chapter there, Chapter 10 on Page 296, on what the author called “The Searl Effect.” I thought the author would be calling Searl to heel for misleading the public with his absolute nonsense; but, upon reading the chapter, I found that he went on waxing lyrical, singing the praises of the “Searl” machine....
He spoke of how his first “generator” took off on its own accord, glowing, and went up and bounced against the ceiling, the second one flew off into space, and he lost it – it never came back! The next one he made also took off and did the same thing, and it went up and flew over Denmark, and he had to contact some “amateur radio operators” over there and instruct them to send up some signals to it, which then turned it around and brought it back home, safe and sound! I asked him how he knew it was over Denmark, and he couldn’t answer that. I asked him how he knew who to contact amongst the amateur radio operators in Denmark, and he couldn’t answer that either. I asked him what frequencies he told them to transmit, he couldn’t answer that either. I asked him how they could transmit signals to a “saucer” that didn’t have any radio receivers or controls in it, and no steering gear or navigation equipment (I am a commercial pilot and former flying instructor also), he couldn’t answer that either. I could immediately tell that he was making up his stories as he spoke. Nothing made sense....
I was absolutely flabbergasted how someone could carry on like John Searl did, trying to con money out of people. I am even more flabbergasted how someone with a PhD could write about him the way he has in this book. He hasn’t done any homework whatsoever. It is simply an outrageous compilation of plagiarism, to sell a book. Had I known that he had written up Searl, Townsend Brown, et al in the book, I never would have purchased it. It’s A CON!
Earlier this year Professor Stephen Hawking shocked physicists by saying 'there are no black holes'. In a paper published online, Professor Hawking instead argues there are 'grey holes'
originally posted by: wildespace
Some people are very good at inventing their own brand of "science", but only the maths and scientific method can prove their validity.
I think some scientists think differently and don't self filter like the vast majority. They are important to break up the herd mentality that so often takes over humans. Lumping someone in with cranks because you find one thing he believes wrong sure seems superficial. I prefer to consider each idea on it's merit.
How can we tell if someone is a scientific crank? Gardner offers this advice: (1) "First and most important of these traits is that cranks work in almost total isolation from their colleagues." Cranks typically do not understand how the scientific process operates—that they need to try out their ideas on colleagues, attend conferences and publish their hypotheses in peer-reviewed journals before announcing to the world their startling discovery. Of course, when you explain this to them they say that their ideas are too radical for the conservative scientific establishment to accept. (2) "A second characteristic of the pseudo-scientist, which greatly strengthens his isolation, is a tendency toward paranoia," which manifests itself in several ways:
(1) He considers himself a genius. (2) He regards his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads....(3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against. The recognized societies refuse to let him lecture. The journals reject his papers and either ignore his books or assign them to "enemies" for review. It is all part of a dastardly plot. It never occurs to the crank that this opposition may be due to error in his work....(4) He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories. When Newton was the outstanding name in physics, eccentric works in that science were violently anti-Newton. Today, with Einstein the father-symbol of authority, a crank theory of physics is likely to attack Einstein....(5) He often has a tendency to write in a complex jargon, in many cases making use of terms and phrases he himself has coined.
No why would it? Because LaViolette says so?
originally posted by: noeltrotsky
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Nice to hear a bit of openness.
You guys have commented on all sorts of other stuff Laviolette talks about, but nothing about the recent findings of 'black hole' winds blowing in all directions and carrying Iron atoms. Doesn't the speed of this 'wind' cause problems for black holes 'consuming' objects?
I think it's probably fair to say "a phenomenon that had been suspected" ...by SOME, because there were others that had suspected jets. Well now we know which it is for at least PDS456, and which suspicions were correct.
NASA's Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) and ESA's (European Space Agency) XMM-Newton telescope are showing that fierce winds from a supermassive black hole blow outward in all directions—a phenomenon that had been suspected, but difficult to prove until now.
This persistent wind is expelled at relativistic speeds from the inner accretion disk, and its wide aperture suggests an effective coupling with the ambient gas. The outflow’s kinetic power larger than 10^46 ergs per second is enough to provide the feedback required by models of black hole and host galaxy coevolution.
The Milky Way’s giant black hole, called Sagittarius A* (pronounced “Sagittarius A-star”) has long been theorized to have jets, but evidence was inconclusive. Now researchers have combined x-ray photographs of the galaxy’s center from NASA’s Chandra space telescope with radio data from the Very Large Array (VLA) observatory in New Mexico to offer the best support yet for the idea of jets from Sagittarius A*. The x-ray photos show a wispy bright line of gas that is emitting x-ray light to one side of the black hole—perhaps indicating the jet itself—and the radio observations highlight a wall of gas that scientists think is a shock front created where the jet is slamming into a cloud, snow-plowing the gas into a clump.
originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I agree 100%.
originally posted by: noeltrotsky
Holy crap! This guy has basically proven that Black Holes don't 'eat' anything...they literally can't because the 'wind' coming out is so strong nothing could get inside!!!
" This finding challenges the conventional view that these supermassive black holes are cores energized by in falling material. Because this group acknowledges that with a wind as strong as they are seeing (1046 erg/second) it would be impossible for material to fall into the core to fuel its observed emission. "
That pretty much wipes out the theory of how Black Holes work. I don't know about his theory on where the energy is coming from...a ton more reading before I understand that.