Gravity is Energy moving towards lower Energy

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Pincho Paxton, Mar 6, 2012.

  1. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,883
    Whatever - this is just useless flaming and quite boring.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. HectorDecimal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    438
    Now we agree on something.

    Too much pure scientific thought becomes lost in semantics, just as this has degenerated into baby crap. To make any educated commentary on someone's original thought you have to be able to tune into their way of thinking. John Baez made a list of traits describing pseudoscientists. The problem with his list is it's a mirror image, because it is composed of his own confirmational bias. Thus we can rib him a bit by calling him "Johnny Bi-Ass."

    Pseudo science is when we say something to the effect that we're going to make an unending power source by coupling the shaft of a generator to the shaft of a motor.

    Bean Counting is just as bad. It sees data as strictly numerical and calls it mathematic proof, regardless of the logic from which pure math evolves. Numbers are merely a symbol to represent the logic. For example, we can count the figurate numbers of a triangle till doomsday only to complain that the computer can only add till we reach ^497 or ^-497 or whatever the compiler allows. For another example, we can count beans till suddenly we reach some "eureka moment" and proclaim we have the intrinsic quantity of the fine structure constant, only to have some new fact about the discovery of some unfathomably megalithic presence of dark matter that fails our proclamation because it tends to change the cosmological constant to 0 or 1 or -1, when we had it all counted up be one of the others. Suddenly a dimensionless quantity has dimension.

    Einstein abhorred bean counters for this reason and it's absurd to not think many bean counters abhorred Einstein and labeled him a pseudoscientist... till one day an eclipse changed all the beans again.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    Do you have a response for my last post?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. HectorDecimal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    438
    Still we have less likelihood of proving the sun's core is a solid sphere than we do this planet's. MDI only digs so deep accurately.

    This, also, is not Pincho's point. He's showing us the vortices are where his mind is drifting. I pointed out the correctness by describing the fundamental equation of that motion around the outermost plane of the vortex. He started simple with his argument. I followed suit.

    We have to believe in one another a bit in that we don't come here to deceive. Some do, though. Nonetheless a manifest deception is discovered sooner or later. Just ask Tim Durham or Bernie Madoff(with your money)...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This discussion, where gravity is concerned, has the potential to revisit LeSage's proposition verses Newton's. Believe me, the Christian in me wants to follow the fundamentals of Newton, but he claimed that the cause of gravity is imparted by the Holy Spirit. Even if we stretch that to mean quantum gravitational loops, it still fails the test of Occam's Razor. Lesage's concept was never developed enough to realize this and, in those days, there were STILL shepherds in the field watching over their flocks by night and they didn't have a Hummer 2 or a Remmington with a magazine...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    "Still we have less likelihood of proving the sun's core is a solid sphere than we do this planet's. MDI only digs so deep accurately. "

    What does this have to do with anything? The sun could be a square or a unicorn with the same mass and the gravitational effect on the earth would still be the same.
     
  9. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    HD seems less rational than usual today. Hell, Pincho made more sense than he does.
     
  10. HectorDecimal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    438
    At least you are consistent in constantly trolling with cyberbullying flamebait.

    Here two of us are really attempting to work toward the middle of understanding and you come in with a can of gasoline and a match. Please. Dump it on youself, strike the match then we'll kindly pour this jug of H2 O on you to put it out...

    OOPS! Sorry alex, the S and the 4 were obscurred by your BS...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. HectorDecimal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    438
    BINGO!! The keywords: gravitational effect

    Pincho started a thread headed in the direction of gravity's CAUSE, not it's effect, by pointing out the contradicting examples of 2 versions of the effect. No. If the sun's center is solid, it would produce one effect, where if it is hollow it would produce quite another. Two ping pong balls can be electrostatically charged to repel one another with relatively little emf. The same size ceramic balls would require a sensationally larger amount of emf to cause them to repel each other.
     
  12. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    That is because they have a different amount of MASS (ceramic is higher density). The sun very much is not hollow so your argument invalid, also (and again) it's shape has nothing to do with it's gravity so even if it was somehow a hollow sphere it's mass is the same. IF Pincho's theory was correct the solar system would be in orbit about the smallest dust grain which is not observed.
     
  13. HectorDecimal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    438
    Only if gravity is caused by mass attraction. If gravity is an inbound force it would simply head toward the center of flow, like the vortex. If, as Newton postulated, the force of gravity is imparted by the Holy Spirit, it would not matter because gravity would be whimsical.

    As I stated, MDI can only dig as deep as the source of a disturbance, such as a tremor. I pointed this out in my Yellowstone thread, but was pretty much treated as a liar because NASA changed the caption of their MDI cutaway illustration between 1997's proposal, which had one set of accompanying data, and 2002 when they started publicizing the work more widely. In that we truly don't know if the core of either the Earth or the sun is completely solid, and logic, coupled to experiments and even spin casting processes, suggest that any metallic mass solidifying around a spinning center will have a void in the center, implies it isn't.
     
  14. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    Yes, except that the center of the solar system is not a void, it is the sun, which IS massive. How would it make it heat and light as it does if it was not? You have to take reality into consideration and reality only when you talk about reality. Compairing it to a drain does not automatically make it just like a drain. For instance there are no orbits in a drain, all the water in a bath tub goes down the tube. Have you ever seen a drop of water just keep spinning around the drain without going down?
     
  15. HectorDecimal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    438
    The center of the solar system is the center of the sun's mass.

    What are the differences in terminal velocity of the Earth, Jupiter and the Sun? Do you remember the REALITY of the impacts of the SL9 fragments upon Jupiter? When the comet was approaching there was a question concerning whether the deeper impacts might cause fusion. They didn't for a number of reasons, but one of those reasons involved the terminal velocity versus the viscosity of the metalic liquid hydrogen layers. Even though no fusion occurred, plumes of combustion did erupt upon the surface once the fragments finally ignited deep in the gas giant's interior.

    Actually, yes. There is generally a residue of drops left after the most of the water descends. Once the total energy of the water is reduced to the same energy of the air in the pipe, centrifugal force terminates ans so does the descent. The fluid pressure of the air resumes its balance. A gallon of water falls through a gallon of air, not the other way around. The water has greater total energy.

    I'd remind that the topic really is about the direction of gravity. Would gravity conform to the demands of Occam's Razor?
     
  16. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Errr... that's hardly taking the moral high ground.

    I was commenting on how the combination of buzzwords you posted cannot be taken to be anything other than satire because it makes no sense. And in return you hope I get tortured to death?

    It would seem being called a poe is nowhere near the top of issues in your life......

    I'm a professional researcher, I am paid to produce creative original viable solutions to problems and quite frankly I love my job, I don't need to pass comment on you to give myself existential motivation.

    I commented that you must be a poe not because I have some fear I might not be imaginative, I don't because I have proof I'm creative in problem solving. I commented I thought you must be a poe because the post of yours I quoted was such a ramshackle of nonsense that no one with your level of lucidity could consider it anything other than nonsense.

    As has been said, you're lucid enough to read and write, you have sufficient grasp of language to communicate decently, you know the meaning of plenty of words in the English language. As such I gave you enough credit to assume you weren't daft enough to believe what you said was meaningful. I see now I was being too generous, I'll remember not to give you any credit in future.

    Simply spouting buzzwords isn't creative or novel or intelligent. Anyone with access to Wikipedia can pump out a couple of paragraphs which have buzzwords in them. Here :

    Given it's intrinsic magnetic moment, the anti-neutrino is able to couple with the spectrum of the Higgs field. This causes it to undergo a phase transition which changes it's flavour. As the neutrinos move between the Sun and the Earth this oscillation causes a bifurcation in the background metric, which is detected as ionisation in the magnetosphere of the Earth.

    There, that explains both neutrino oscillations and the aurora! Wow, two phenomena with one stone, I must be bloody damn creative! Right? Right? I know you're jealous, everyone is!

    Or rather no one is because it's nonsense I just spewed out using a set of vaguely related buzzwords anyone who reads a few Wiki pages will have seen. Some of the buzzwords even appear on the same pages together, to add an extra air of legitimacy to suckers.

    It seems to me you have trouble accepting any negative comments, given the way you've flown off the handle about being called a poe. Everyone gets negative comments about themselves or their work at some point in their life. If you can't take negative comments then perhaps you shouldn't be saying anything about physics on a science forum? After all, you know you aren't terribly knowledgable on it and so if you knowingly make up something which you knowingly don't have any justification or logic behind then why are you so shocked when someone says "That's nonsense"?

    It's like going to France, then talking to the locals in a language you made up yourself and getting annoyed when they shrug their shoulders and make it clear you aren't making any sense to them.

    Even here in AT there's a distinction made between alternative ideas and just nonsense. When you bolt together as many buzzwords as you did into a single statement it's no surprise that some of us have commented on it. No one wished you to be tortured to death though, only that you don't make any sense. The "I hope you die a horrible death" was all you, which is the sort of comments bullies say to their victims so good job on the massive pile of hypocrisy you just dove into. Go you!

    I know a fair few dyslexic people, all of whom are completely rational. Being dyslexic or having ADHD doesn't magically give one license to be willfully dishonest and ignorant, like PP was. Dyslexic doesn't detach one from reality to the point of being delusional.

    Anyway, I hope you don't die a horrible death. Instead I just hope you at some point learn a little bit of science, as I hope everyone does.
     
  17. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    Residue is not an orbit, I asked, "Have you ever seen a drop of water just keep spinning around the drain without going down?" Answer the question asked not a straw man.

    Also, what does Jupiter and fusion have to do with anything that we are talking about? Who exactly was worrried about Jupiter starting fusion exactly? I have never even heard of this being considered as a possiblity for a comet strike.
     
  18. HectorDecimal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    438
    You mean you are a consumer in a mental ward who is trusted to salt and pepper the roast beef?

    The rest of it sounds like a babbling rant extracted from an AA meeting. What did you do get drunk and nail someone's granny?
     
  19. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    I'd say that Hector has left the bounds of rational thought, but I'm not sure he was ever in them.
     
  20. HectorDecimal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    438
    I think what you are driving at is an absurdity. How many drops of water are in a drop of water? Have you ever examined the effect of the last traces of water circling the drain with a 15x magnifier? I haven't, so maybe you know more than I about drops and drips circling the drain. The fact is I'm dissecting YOUR strawman, because, as I've stated, the discussion is not as much about the water in a vortex as about the cause of gravity and you've still not answered the question, so I'll ask again:






    "Would gravity conform to the demands of Occam's Razor? "







    As for SL9 and some of the related announcements prior to the comet's return, you know damn well they aren't at a C&P's advantage, so don't expect absurd responses to absurd demands. If you want data, go to the horse's mouth via the library and get a copy of David Levy's book on the event.

    Now if we can stay on topic and cease from the 3 year old type remarks lke "strawman" accusations that amount to "No it's not!" and please answer the question above... far away from everything else...
     
  21. HectorDecimal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    438
    Back with your can of gasoline and matches? Mommy took the matches from you? Well you still have the option of soaking your head.

    And I'm sure all your GIGO is simply a compulsion to respond by throwing your chimp feces since you can't stay on topic and answer the question concerning gravity and Occam's Razor.

    Try again.
     
  22. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Occam's Razor is a principle, not a natural law. It simply says that 'entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity'. Another way to state it is that given competing theories, the simplest one which explains observation and experimentation is usually correct.

    So yes, gravity conforms to Occam's Razor, because there is no competing theory which both accurately and completely explains the physical universe we observe, and which is simpler.

    Certainly not the drivel that Pincho posted and you agree with.
     
  23. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,194
    To have a straw man I would actually have to attempt to answer your question, which I have not, you should maybe look up the definition before you speak or you risk looking stupid:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

    What is C&P's? If you use uncommon abbreviations you need to explain them.

    You understand that occams razor involves compairing at least 2 things right? Occams razor states "other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one". The key word here is OFTEN. This is not always the case. The current gravitational theory allows one to make PREDITIONS based on that theory. That is SCIENCE and, pinchos off shoot offers no math and nothing to make testable preditions with which is not science meaning that the other things that they speak of are not equal. What are these predications you may ask? Do you have a smart phone? Download google sky, that little program will allow you to look up the location of any constillation at any time of the year. It also includes the postioning of the planets and other celestial bodies. Do that with pinchos theory, go on I'll wait.
     

Share This Page