|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: An Alternate Creation Theory: Genic Energy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
"Nucleon Core Field - prevailing concept (1978): The electric field in the core of a nucleon is assumed to be aperiodic and to rise to a sharp cusp at the particle's center." "Prediction No.1 (1973 - 1978): Subquantum kinetics predicted that the electric potential fieldin the core of a subatomic particle should be Gaussian-shaped and should continue outward as a periodic field pattern of diminishing amplitude having a radial wavelength equal to the particle's Compton wavelength, further that this field pattern should be positively biased in positively charged particles. Prediction published in: 1985 (IJGS), 1994 (Subquantum Kinetics), and 1995 (Beyond the Big Bang)." "Verification (2002) Particle scattering form factor data for the proton and neutron is found to be best fit by a model in which the nucleon core electric charge density distribution has characteristics similar to those that subquantum kinetics had predicted. Energy boosting during collision, however, did cause the target nucleons to exhibit a wavelength slightly shorter than had been predicted." "2. Gravatational Repulsion - Prevailing concept (1985): Electrons are assumed to produce matter attracting fields just like protons. Gravatational Repulsion is considered a speculative idea." "Prediction No. 2 (1985): Subquantum kinetics predicted that gravity should have two polarities correlated with charge and that the electron should produce a matter-repelling gravity field. Furthermore it predicted that monopolar electric discharges should produce longitudinal electric potential waves accompanied by a gravity potential component. Published in: 1985 (IJGS), and 1994 (Subquantum Kinetics)." "Verification (2001): Podkletnov and Modanese discover that an axial high-voltage electron discharge produces a matter-repelling gravity wave that travels in the direction of the discharge exerting a longitudinal repulsive gravatational force on a distant test mass." "Concept No. 3 : Energy Conservation and Photon Reshifting - prevailing concept (1978): The cosmological redshift is conventionally attributed to the assumed expansion of space. Photon energy is assumed to be perfectly conserved." "Prediction No. 3 (1978: As a basic requirement of the validity of its methodology, subquantum kinetics predicted that photons should gradually redshift with time when passing through regions of low (less negative) gravatational field potential, e.g. intergalactic space. It predicted a "tired light effect," that distant galaxies should appear redshifted without the need of postulating recessional motion." "Verification (1979- 1986): I check this photon redshifting prediction by comparing the tired light non-expanding universe model and the expanding universe model (standard Friedman cosmology) to observational data on four different cosmology tests (AP.J., 1986). The tired light model is found to make a closer fit to observational data on all tests confirming subquantum kinetics tired-light prediction and the notion that the universe is cosmologically stationary. These findings at the same time undermine a key support of the big bang theory. An update of this evidence is presented in Chapter 7 of Subquantum Kinetics (2003)." I see a lot of claims, and claims about claims, but no math and no verifiable tests
Want more? He's got 9 in this book alone. We want to see the math and the details of the tests that he claims to have caried out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheRestOfUs Member (Idle past 4234 days) Posts: 56 Joined: |
Quote from JonF:
Really? Reference for that claim about red supergiants please. Hint: tain't so. "Concept 9. Supernova Precursor Stars - prevailing concept (1985): It is conventionally believed that supernovae are produced by red giant stars which have exhausted their supply of nuclear fuel. It is presumed that once the red giant's nuclear reactions subside, the star collapses and subsequently rebounds as a supernova explosion. Prediction No. 9 (1985): Subquantum kinetics predicts that supernovae are produced not by red giant stars, but by blue supergiant stars, that is, by stars that are exceedingly luminous and hence energetically unstable. It predicts that, rather than collapsing, the star undergoes a nonlinear increase in its production of genic energy which leads to a stellar explosion. This prediction was published in 1985 (IJGS, pp. 342-343). Verification (1987): Supernova 1987A is observed in the Large Magellenic Cloud. This is the closest supernova in the history of modern astronomy. Astronomers locate its percursor star on old photographic plates. Surprisingly, they find that this precursor was a blue supergiant star contradicting established theory and confirming the subquantum kinetics prediction." Above from Subquantum Kinetics (2003) p. 272 Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given. Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given. Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Fix quotes. Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheRestOfUs Member (Idle past 4234 days) Posts: 56 Joined: |
Quote from JonF:
I find that claimed predictions re not always as good as they appear. So I did a little research, choosing this one: quote: It turns out that Podkletnov's work sounds very dubious, and hasn't been replicated. Eugene Podkletnov It's not a good sign that this should be mentioned high up the list, without mentioning the questionable nature of the alleged verification. End of Quote from JonF LaViolette writes; "...In his article in Janes Defense Weekly, Nick Cook reports that a laboratory installation in Russia has demonstrated that this beam is able to repel objects one kilometer away and that it exhibits negligible power loss at distances of up to 200 kilometers!"* "Podkletnov and Modanese acknowledge that conventional theories of gravity fail to explain the action of their gravity impulse beam." "* Cook writes that Boeing Aerospace Corporation was actively interested in investigating this beam technology with the aim of developing it into an R&D project named GRASP (Gravity Research for Advanced Space Propulsion). A GRASP briefing document states "If gravity modification is real, it will alter the entire areospace business." Other interested areospace companies included BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin. He reported, however, that the Russian government had resisted allowing this gravity research beam technology to be exported." Everything above in quotation marks are from Subquantum Kinetics (2003) pp. 126-127. Below are the references in the notes section. "Podkletnov, E. and G., Modanese, "Impulse gravity generator based on charged YBa2 CU3 O7-y Superconductor with composite crystal structure." August 2001, Eprint: arXiv.org/abs/ physics/ 0108005. "Podkletnov, E. and G., Modanese, "Investigation of high voltage discharges in low pressure gases through large ceramic superconducting electrodes." September 2002, Eprint: arXiv.org/abs/ physics/ 0209051 "*Cook, N. "Antigravity propulsion comes out of the closet." Janes Defense Weekly, July 31, 2002" "*Cook, N. "Airpower Electric." Janes Defense Weekly, July 24, 2002" Trou. Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given. Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given. Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Fix quote codes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Concept 9. Supernova Precursor Stars - prevailing concept (1985): Prediction No. 9 (1985): Subquantum kinetics predicts that supernovae are produced not by red giant stars, but by blue supergiant stars http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.1298v2.pdf The prediction was wrong. Although SN1987 did form from a blue supergiant, the prediction that only blue super giants can form super novas is definitely wrong. Here is a paper. You may recognize one of the authors, Dr. Filippenko, whose Cal Berkeley based team has discovered more recent supernovas than any other group. "Peculiar Type II Supernovae from Blue Supergiants" [2011] Io K. W. Kleiser, Dovi Poznanski, Daniel Kasen, Timothy R. Young, Ryan Chornock, Alexei V. Filippenko, Peter Challis, Mohan Ganeshalingam, Robert P. Kirshner, Weidong Li, Thomas Matheson, Peter E. Nugent, Jeffrey M. Silverman
quote: quote: Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
[qs]...quote...[/qs]
"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Yup (except perhaps for the surprise part, I find no trace of that). So what? Apparently it was a surprise to many that a blue super giant would explode as a Type II supernova. But Blue super giant is only a temporary stage. Blue super giants become red super giants. It is thought that such a thing happened to Betelgeuese. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Really? Reference for that claim about red supergiants please. Hint: tain't so. "Concept 9. Supernova Precursor Stars - prevailing concept (1985): It is conventionally believed that supernovae are produced by red giant stars which have exhausted their supply of nuclear fuel. It is presumed that once the red giant's nuclear reactions subside, the star collapses and subsequently rebounds as a supernova explosion. Prediction No. 9 (1985): Subquantum kinetics predicts that supernovae are produced not by red giant stars, but by blue supergiant stars, that is, by stars that are exceedingly luminous and hence energetically unstable. It predicts that, rather than collapsing, the star undergoes a nonlinear increase in its production of genic energy which leads to a stellar explosion. This prediction was published in 1985 (IJGS, pp. 342-343). Verification (1987): Supernova 1987A is observed in the Large Magellenic Cloud. This is the closest supernova in the history of modern astronomy. Astronomers locate its percursor star on old photographic pltes. Surprisingly, they find that this precursor was a blue supergiant star contradicting established theory and confirming the subquantum kinetics prediction." Above from Subquantum Kinetics (2003) p. 272 Repeating a bare assertion isn't a reference for your claim. Peer-reviewed literature, please, from this century if possible. And "the closest supernova in the history of modern astronomy" was correct in 1987 but is no longer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheRestOfUs Member (Idle past 4234 days) Posts: 56 Joined: |
Quote from JonF:
I see a lot of claims, and claims about claims, but no math and no verifiable tests We want to see the math and the details of the tests that he claims to have caried out. Because of your overwhelming charm I am willing to oblige your requests. But what math specifically do you want me to laboriously copy from Subquantum Kinetics JonF? If you can't be more specifc in your questions I politely suggest you read the book yourself. Trou Edited by Admin, : Fix quote codes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Quote from JonF:
I find that claimed predictions re not always as good as they appear. So I did a little research, choosing this one: quote: "Prediction No. 2 (1985): Subquantum kinetics predicted that gravity should have two polarities correlated with charge and that the electron should produce a matter-repelling gravity field. Furthermore it predicted that monopolar electric discharges should produce longitudinal electric potential waves accompanied by a gravity potential component. Published in: 1985 (IJGS), and 1994 (Subquantum Kinetics)." "Verification (2001): Podkletnov and Modanese discover that an axial high-voltage electron discharge produces a matter-repelling gravity wave that travels in the direction of the discharge exerting a longitudinal repulsive gravatational force on a distant test mass." It turns out that Podkletnov's work sounds very dubious, and hasn't been replicated. Eugene Podkletnov It's not a good sign that this should be mentioned high up the list, without mentioning the questionable nature of the alleged verification. End of Quote from JonF LaViolette writes; "...In his article in Janes Defense Weekly, Nick Cook reports that a laboratory installation in Russia has demonstrated that this beam is able to repel objects one kilometer away and that it exhibits negligible power loss at distances of up to 200 kilometers!"* "Podkletnov and Modanese acknowledge that conventional theories of gravity fail to explain the action of their gravity impulse beam." "* Cook writes that Boeing Aerospace Corporation was actively interested in investigating this beam technology with the aim of developing it into an R&D project named GRASP (Gravity Research for Advanced Space Propulsion). A GRASP briefing document states "If gravity modification is real, it will alter the entire areospace business." Other interested areospace companies included BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin. He reported, however, that the Russian government had resisted allowing this gravity research beam technology to be exported." Everything above in quotation marks are from Subquantum Kinetics (2003) pp. 126-127. Below are the references in the notes section. "Podkletnov, E. and G., Modanese, "Impulse gravity generator based on charged YBa2 CU3 O7-y Superconductor with composite crystal structure." August 2001, Eprint: arXiv.org/abs/ physics/ 0108005. "Podkletnov, E. and G., Modanese, "Investigation of high voltage discharges in low pressure gases through large ceramic superconducting electrodes." September 2002, Eprint: arXiv.org/abs/ physics/ 0209051 "*Cook, N. "Antigravity propulsion comes out of the closet." Janes Defense Weekly, July 31, 2002" "*Cook, N. "Airpower Electric." Janes Defense Weekly, July 24, 2002" The quote isn't from me, and you need a [/qs] instead of a [qs] at the end of the quote. So, his work hasn't been replicated (as PaulK noted) and is suspect (as PaulK noted). I see that Boeing's involvement is also suspect. Repeating claims isn't a useful debate tactic. You are being challenged to support your claims,m which means amplifying on them and providing references, especially references other than LaViolette. The Podkletnov references are good, but his work isn't very convincing without replication.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Dupe.
Edited by JonF, : Duplicate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheRestOfUs Member (Idle past 4234 days) Posts: 56 Joined: |
Repeating a bare assertion isn't a reference for your claim. Peer-reviewed literature, please, from this century if possible. And "the closest supernova in the history of modern astronomy" was correct in 1987 but is no longer. What? The International Journal of General Systems isn't a peer reviewed publication? I think you are wrong about that. And LaViolette has a PHD in Systems Science. And I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to say to your second sentence. Trou. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by Admin, : Fix quote codes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheRestOfUs Member (Idle past 4234 days) Posts: 56 Joined: |
LOL!
I would like to reply in the manner you deserve but I have already been suspended once for defending myself from loutish behavior. However if you continue to make snide remarks and demand I (a non-scientist) jump through your hoops I will respond as I see fit and suspension be damned. Sincerely Trou Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Let's see the math for the existence and characteristics of the Cosmic Microwave Background, which is notable by its exclusion from your list of claims.
You don't need to laboriously copy the math. Assuming you are using a PC, press Alt-PrtSc to copy the current window to the clipboard as a picture. You can then use any of many programs (Windows includes paint.exe) to paste that and save it as an image (usually .PNG format is best for equations and line work). Then upload to any of the many free photo sharing sites (I use photobucket.com, which will do the [img]...[/img] tags for you) and paste it in your message.
I might read the book if you can convince me that LaViolette isn't an ignorant crank. You're not doing a great job of that thus far.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
What? The International Journal of General Systems isn't a peer reviewed publication? I think you are wrong about that Restoring the context:
Really? Reference for that claim about red supergiants please. Hint: tain't so. "Concept 9. Supernova Precursor Stars - prevailing concept (1985): It is conventionally believed that supernovae are produced by red giant stars which have exhausted their supply of nuclear fuel. It is presumed that once the red giant's nuclear reactions subside, the star collapses and subsequently rebounds as a supernova explosion. Prediction No. 9 (1985): Subquantum kinetics predicts that supernovae are produced not by red giant stars, but by blue supergiant stars, that is, by stars that are exceedingly luminous and hence energetically unstable. It predicts that, rather than collapsing, the star undergoes a nonlinear increase in its production of genic energy which leads to a stellar explosion. This prediction was published in 1985 (IJGS, pp. 342-343). Verification (1987): Supernova 1987A is observed in the Large Magellenic Cloud. This is the closest supernova in the history of modern astronomy. Astronomers locate its percursor star on old photographic pltes. Surprisingly, they find that this precursor was a blue supergiant star contradicting established theory and confirming the subquantum kinetics prediction." Above from Subquantum Kinetics (2003) p. 272 I don't see any reference to International Journal of General Systems saying that conventional wisdom was that only red supergiants go supernova, and given the subject classifications at that link I'd be very surprised if a relevant paper were to be found there.
And LaViolette has a PHD in Systems Science. Ah, so there's no reason to assume he has relevant expertise.
And I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to say to your second sentence. Well, I suggest "Thank you for pointing out my error in saying that SN1987A is the closest supernova in modern times". See LMGTFY - Let Me Google That For You. It's not a major error, but it does confirm that you are unfamiliar with the field you claim to be evaluation. Edited by JonF, : Clzarify reference to IJGS
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
In other words, the papers are on arxiv with nothing to suggest that they have been published or even accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
There are no replications, and no evidence that the Boeing involvement got so far as a speculative punt on a project that just might pay off. And now - ten years later - we still have practically nothing. So, the second "verification" on the list is so sketchy that it's barely worth mentioning. Normally you lead with the strongest points, saving poor quality points like this for the end. For the second item to be so weak is a red flag in itself.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024