posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 02:18 PM
originally posted by: Kashai
The topic relates to what would happen if one were to spin an object the size of a ball bearing to near of light.
I have requested physical evidence not theoretical mumbo jumbo.
Pauli..... is that not the same person that appeared on the Johnny Carson show repeatedly and insisting high dosages of Vitamin C could cure
Or was that Pauling?
Either way what physical evidence do you have to support your position Sir?
Linus Pauling PhD (and double Nobel Prize winner), in 1976, stated that he had done a study indicating that mega doses of Vitamin C could improve
outcomes in Cancer treatment. This study and its conclusions have been called into question by later studies.
Wolfgang Pauli was an Austrian physicist. His 'Pauli Exclusion Principle' (note, not a theory) states that two of the same kind of Fermions cannot
have the same quantum numbers. It is a very important principle in physics, because the particles that make up ordinary matter are Fermions.
Just because physics is always, to some extent, theoretical, does not mean that it is "mumbo jumbo". It is verified mathematically and experimentally,
daily, by scientists and students across the world (all physics students do 'lab' classes, repeating past experiments to verify those results and to
hone the experimenters' technique). It is predictive and allows for those predictions to be tested to verify not only occurrence, but also that
magnitude values are correctly calculable and exact.
As I mentioned in a previous post, the physical paradigms I referred to have all been verified experimentally, e.g: like in particle accelerators (the
LHC is one such accelerator). Experimental results are physical evidence!
I'll concede that SUSY is largely theoretical because it relates to the creation of matter but it solves and gives sensible answers to inconsistencies
in the Standard Model of Physics.
The fact that you propose something that would be physically unachievable and is therefore totally speculative (not even theoretical) at best, yet you
request physical evidence for the reasons offered (repeatedly, by many), as to why, does not suggest a weakness in understanding of those offering
reasons, nor in the precepts of physical science.