"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So, scientists are wrong about the big bang therefore the Earth's rotation is caused by magnets coming from the sun because Mary has a gut feeling.

I can't argue with that logic because I don't even understand it

You know what?

I would very much appreciate it if you would not exaggerate when you try to quote me.

I did not make the statement that the Earth's rotation is caused by magnets coming from the sun. I said that Leedskalnin's theory sounds reasonable to me:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
In general it seems reasonable to me though.

I relate to theories from independent thinkers, as I have said. People who start from scratch rather than assuming that mainstream science is an authority.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Even if scientists are wrong about the big bang, that seems unrelated.

No, it is related, because it's an example of a theory that is treated as fact sometimes in the media and a theory on which tons of money have been spent trying to prove it at CERN.

I want funding to go into new energy research, instead.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
By the way, I have no objection to the sun causing things to rotate, since this was one of my favorite childhood toys:

"Crooke's Radiometer"

But buddhasystem earlier noted a lack of sufficient dipole asymmetry in the Earth's magnetic field to support Leedskalnin's idea, and it is because of asymmetry that this toy functions (not dipole asymmetry, but the point is that asymmetry enables the rotation).

That's interesting. Your link didn't work for me. But it looks like it is to the Wikipedia article.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
On the other hand, if a bunch of magnets shooting out of the sun were discovered, they might actually get more funding to explore the newly discovered phenomenon.

Only if it didn't conflict with vested interests.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

But buddhasystem earlier noted a lack of sufficient dipole asymmetry in the Earth's magnetic field to support Leedskalnin's idea, and it is because of asymmetry that this toy functions (not dipole asymmetry, but the point is that asymmetry enables the rotation).

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If the explanation was posted on Peswiki, would that help?

At least I would know the explanation were probably less apt to be part of an attempt to keep funding coming in for an established livelihood for certain folks.

On the other hand, if a bunch of magnets shooting out of the sun were discovered, they might actually get more funding to explore the newly discovered phenomenon.

en.wikipedia.org...

maybe we cant measure the dipole asymmetry in the earths magnetic field because it is constantly subjected to flux. maybe its rotation, the suns energy, and the dynamo action which supposedly causes earths magnetic field all account for its lack of being a perfect dipole magnet.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I did not make the statement that the Earth's rotation is caused by magnets coming from the sun. I said that Leedskalnin's theory sounds reasonable to me:

This doesn't seem like a huge distinction. If I say theory sounds reasonable to me and someone accused me of believing what the theory stated, I would have no objection to someone drawing such a conclusion. So somewhere we have some semantic differences in how we interpret these concepts...I didn't intend any offense.

However, Leedskalnin's idea isn't really a theory using the scientific definition of the term, since theories are normally supported by evidence, and he has none. One person might call it a highly speculative hypothesis, while another person might call it a "brain fart" since experimentally confirmed conservation of angular momentum obviates the need to even bring up such speculation.

That's interesting. Your link didn't work for me. But it looks like it is to the Wikipedia article.

Thanks for pointing out the bad link, yes it was supposed to link to Wikipedia, and that was a good guess...I fixed it.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by LawrenceWippler

 

atoms are composed of n/s monopoles and what I call a particle of matter, it's this particle of matter that determines what element the atom will become.

How did you determine this? It appears to me that you are simply repeating Leedskalnin's beliefs.

Can you please explain HOW this particle of matter determines the element?

Read the excerpt on Energy posted earlier.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

That says nothing about how these particles of matter differentiate the elements. I want Ed Jr. to explain this:

In the core of every atom is a particle of matter, which represents one of the many elements from the periodic table. Each element has its own unique properties that differ from other elements, and no two elements are identical.
theoryofeverythingsolved.com...

If each element has its own unique particle how can an element be transmuted to another?

I've only been at this science-y stuff for a short while but this just seems silly.

They can't, the particle of matter which makes up the atoms core cannot be changed from one element to another. However atoms/elements can store a lot of energy, as this energy dissipates it will radiate EM waves, Alpha and Beta for example.

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
They can't, the particle of matter which makes up the atoms core cannot be changed from one element to another. However atoms/elements can store a lot of energy, as this energy dissipates it will radiate EM waves, Alpha and Beta for example.

So then, you're saying that nuclear reactors, which operate by changing one element to another, don't really work?

Fission Reaction

Nuclear Fission is the process of splitting a heavy nucleus to form two new elements with smaller nuclei. One of the most important nuclear reactions is that of uranium 235 which is used in nuclear reactors and atomic weapons. The fission of uranium 235 is initiated when a neutron of enough velocity collides with the nucleus of uranium 235. This collision produces uranium 236 which immediately splits into two lighter elements i.e. krypton 91 and barium 142. This event also releases three neutrons and energy. The neutrons produced are capable of producing more nuclear fission events if they encounter a uranium 235 nucleus.

How do we get krypton 91 and barium 142 if the uranium 235 can't be changed into other elements?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Why don't you ask a more challenging question... How is transmutation possible with cold fusion?

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Why don't you ask a more challenging question... How is transmutation possible with cold fusion?

I'm all for challenging questions. But let's answer the less challenging first, just to make sure we make the cut, shall we? For the self-proclaimed author of "simple theory of everything" appears to be woefully unaware of some basic physics processes all around us, and how humans managed to find a system in all of that and call it physics. No wonder the auteur feels it's OK to just discard the physics as we know it, since he doesn't have any idea of what it is in the first place. Take his astonishing ignorance of nuclear reactions, for instance. Wow, just wow.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
They can't, the particle of matter which makes up the atoms core cannot be changed from one element to another. However atoms/elements can store a lot of energy, as this energy dissipates it will radiate EM waves, Alpha and Beta for example.

So then, you're saying that nuclear reactors, which operate by changing one element to another, don't really work?

A person who says that electrons don's exist and that alpha particles are in fact bursts of gamma radiation is capable of saying pretty much anything, regardless of how stupid or patently false, or both, it is.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Wait.
Are you saying that in order to think outside the box one should first know what is inside the box?
Are you saying that just tossing out everything that has come before, ignoring it, isn't a valid approach?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Wait.
Are you saying that in order to think outside the box one should first know what is inside the box?

For starters I would say they must know WHERE said box is. I doubt that many of the "researchers" here do.

Are you saying that just tossing out everything that has come before isn't a valid approach?

It is a completely valid approach if you are willing to trade the appearance of smart for appearance of stupid, in order to achieve short-lived satisfaction of actually feeling smart (which in truth is hard to get, you know)

Are you saying that just tossing out everything that has come before, ignoring it, isn't a valid approach?

reply to post by Phage


Wait.

Are you saying we should continue working on the same problems with the same methods that are not advancing us?

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."- Albert Einstein

Free thinking will get us somewhere, why would anyone want to shut someone down just because they do not understand another method or way?

By giving people the opportunity to voice theories, without ridicule (cough, cough) we are more apt to be open and allow new opportunities for growth.

Why the hate put forth in this thread? People are thinking in a creative manner, all the while being called an idiot.

This is what I hate about ATS.

reply to post by MamaJ

Are you saying we should continue working on the same problems with the same methods that are not advancing us?

Wait. Are you saying we are learning nothing new? You have thread going which is full of very new discoveries about the edge of the Solar System. All of those discoveries are based on technology and theory developed directly from that stogey old way of looking at the way atoms and electromagnetic energy work (electrons and photons and stuff). Are you saying those discoveries mean nothing?

Not advancing. Right. Got it. But I will admit that I really was hoping to be flying my own helicopter to work. This is the 21st century for crying out loud. I want my helicopter!

By giving people the opportunity to voice theories, without ridicule (cough, cough) we are more apt to be open and allow new opportunities for growth.

Ridicule can serve a purpose. Ideas which "sound right" but are based on...nothing...serve no purpose unless you're in a college dorm and just returned from a trip south of the border with a bit of "cargo" (that sort of dates me, doesn't it?). In that case it can be fun but it still doesn't accomplish anything.

This is what I like about ATS.
+

Wait. Are you saying we are learning nothing new? You have thread going which is full of very new discoveries about the edge of the Solar System. All of those discoveries are based on technology developed directly from that stogey old way of looking at the way atoms and electromagnetic energy work. Are you saying those discoveries mean nothing? Not advancing. Right. Got it.

reply to post by Phage


I didn't say we are learning nothing new.

I am participating in a thread about new insight into the LIC, correct. Some are conflicted as to what the new insight means. There have been a lot of surprises whereas old data was not accurate. If they just stopped with what we have now, we would not advance with new understanding.

Technology? I never implied or spoke of technology advances. As we learn more we will be better able to do more with new technology based on new findings. Do you not think these scientists use more than we they know at present? The use their imagination. New discoveries will be made with not just logic and old understandings.

Change is constant so why not welcome it instead of hindering it? Some of us on ATS are open to new ideas and understandings. Maybe it takes some us longer to understand and dismiss, still no need in ridicule.

Ridicule can serve a purpose. Ideas which "sound right" but are based on...nothing...serve no purpose unless you're in a college dorm and just returned from a trip south of the border. In that case it can be fun but it still doesn't accomplish anything.

Ridicule serves zero purpose, its surprises me you are ok with it. I also thought it was against the rules of ATS, but again, surprised they too are ok with it.

Talking down to someone shows ignorance in personality. So be it.

Originally posted by MamaJ
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."- Albert Einstein

Free thinking will get us somewhere, why would anyone want to shut someone down just because they do not understand another method or way?

Since you brought up Einstein, here is another quote from him:
Albert Einstein:

"Bear in mind that the wonderful things you learn in your schools are the work of many generations. All this is put in your hands as your inheritance in order that you may receive it, honor it, add to it, and one day faithfully hand it on to your children."

Even though he proved that the science used for centuries before him was, in some respects wrong...he didn't completely set it aside. He had to explain all the previous observations in promoting his new theory...a concept which some people utterly fail to grasp when they set aside the work of all previous and current scientists.

If people want succeed in advancing science, take a lesson from someone who actually did that...Einstein...and add to it in the way he did...not by setting previous laws aside, but by explaining how the other scientists made the measurements they did, without conflicting with his new theory.

I don't think we have all the answers and I think some of our current models have some problems, so I welcome a new theory which explains observations better than the current models do. Creative thinking and new approaches are also welcome, but if these creative ideas are not tested with observation and experiment, then they aren't advancing science.

reply to post by MamaJ

Do you not think these scientists use more than we they know at present? The use their imagination.

But they don't completely disregard the basis, they build on it. That's what this thread is full of. A complete disregard for what is known to work. And a complete lack of an explanation for why those things do what they do. It's full of proclamations of "That old theory is wrong but mine is right" with no accounting for how they come to their conclusions or demonstrating that there is actually anything wrong with the old theory. They just say "mine is better"... no evidence...no facts.

I'm not saying that the old theories are perfectly accurate or set in stone but none of these "ground breaking" theorists (hypothesizers) have shown that they are wrong. And none of them have provided any evidence that their own are right. There is a big difference.

Sure. Listen to 'em. Have fun with 'em. But don't act like there is anything really important being presented.

I don't think we have all the answers and I think some of our current models have some problems, so I welcome a new theory which explains observations better than the current models do. Creative thinking and new approaches are also welcome, but if these creative ideas are not tested with observation and experiment, then they aren't advancing science.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Glad we agree.

Einstein is my all time favorite person in this world. I have read everything there is to read from him and about him from beginning at the age of ten. I LOVE him for many reasons but the main reason is because he was humble.

He was a free thinker and very creative. He played the violin for gods sake. Great man... but not one to ridicule another for trying. Thats what I love about his nature.

reply to post by MamaJ

Great man... but not one to ridicule another for trying.

Actually, I think you might find that he had what could be called a rather biting wit.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."

reply to post by Phage


Phage if you go back in this thread, my participation in the exact science of things is not had. Why? Because I do not like to entertain conversations with someone who demeans another's intellect for trying to present something... anything. It doesn't even matter what is presented, its the reaction that bothers me. I would like to see a good thread whereas an idea can be presented and the participants dissect the presentation in a way that brings meaning and not discontent. This thread is way of course from where it started because of the insults, in my opinion.

Sometimes you do have to disregard what you know to form a new basis and or guideline. It happens and its a possibility. I remain open.

"Mine is better" type of thinking with nothing to back it up is quite understandably frustrating, however one first needs to read and understand a theory in order to break it down as to whether its workable or not. This takes time, for me anyway. Also, it takes someone with patience to understand and maybe even ask questions to what is not workable in their view.

If I want to "act" like someone is presenting something good, then I have that right. I have the right to be nice, understanding, and ask questions when something doesn't make sense.

My son wants to be a Theoretical Physicist. He has great ideas and thinks freely because I do not ridicule him, I try to understand and teach him where he may be wrong within the details or data he provides. I am no different with a poster who wants to present an idea. I do it because its the nice thing to do.

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere." - Albert Einstein

reply to post by Phage


Do you really want to go back and forth with quotes? Do you not think this is silly?