gradualism versus catastrophism

Including your opinion about people knowing what they are talking about.

My sympathies. lol

Ahah! Another supposition and opinion.

Sure, Nova has a big name, is intelligent, and whatever other traits you mentioned, but all Nova is is a purveyor of what REAL scientists are telling us. But you avoid those in favor of your Van Danikens and other wingnuts. In my case, I keep following evidence. In your case, you can continue following the ravings of dingbats like Von Daniken et al. And you do this by avoiding what they say and arbitrarily dismissing their findings? Curious. Yup, junk science said Galileo, Newton, Darwin, etc. were wrong, too.

In most cases, they are right; their brains would fall out. Not literally, but such people are easily awe-struck by relatively simple things.

Have I ever stated that what I say is anything other than my opinion? Truth/reality is subjective, not objective.

I am familiar with the map, but it changes nothing of what I stated as the map was lost to history until the 20th century. I have little doubt that much of what we now know may have been discovered earlier, but lost to antiquity. The key thing with any discovery is letting everyone else know about it, otherwise it is completely useless.

There's where you go wrong. There is an objective reality out there that exists regardless of anyone's perceptions of it, it was here long before we were, and it'll carry on long after we're gone.

Row, row, row your boat
gently down the stream
Merrily, merrily, merrily
Life is but a dream.

Basic Buddhist philosophy. The Aborigines of Australia believe the Dream Time is what holds the world together. All we are, all we perceive, all we know, is inside our minds. There is a whole school of thought that says everything out there is just a projection of our consciousness. What we perceive as solid reality is nothing more than a holographic image played inside our minds to learn more about the nature of ourselves. Is it wrong. I don't know any more than I know it is right. It is just another concept to entertain our minds, which in the end, is all thought is, the purpose of our being. Call me crazy, I don't really care. I'm having too much fun inside my head. It is people who take it all seriously that I'm concerned about. They are missing out on all the fun.

Sounds like an up and coming movie.

It is what is playing inside my head everyday. You can't beat your mind for entertainment.

and the human mind has an amazing ability to imagine almost anything.

I dismissed your link because it was directing me to NOVA. My nephew gave me about fifty episodes not long ago. I watched one for maybe twenty minutes or until the background music drove home the consumer nature of the product. I don't do science and music together unless the science is music. You have a lot of faith in the scientific establishment. There's nothing wrong with that. It will just make the realizations all the more pointy. That's if you become a skeptic. Plasma etching and deposition are industrial realities on the human scale as they most certainly are on the cosmic scale. If your crater is round its been cut by an arc, period, nothing but that can strike at ninety degrees, not even a bullet. The lobotomy crack was a joke I didn't expect to see scars. I apologize. Maybe when you recover we can be frens.

Since the Enlightenment, people have made a fairly rigid distinction between ideas about the cosmos as formulated by individual thinkers, on a rational basis, and those as expressed collectively by entire peoples, typically rooted in folk memory. The former are labelled science, theory of nature or cosmology, the latter traditional cosmology or mythology. The theoretical difference between scientific and traditional paradigms of the cosmos certainly cannot be overemphasised.
Whereas the former continuously reinvent themselves in response to the latest insights, the latter are conservative by nature. The former fundamentally look forward as they evolve, the latter look backward as they decay. And whereas the former do not tolerate logical inconsistencies, the latter happily admit them.
Nevertheless, it is equally paramount to recognise the ultimate continuity between concepts that circulate between traditional lore and science. The collection of ideas about the cosmos, whether scholarly or popular, deserves a single denominator, as the same subject matter is involved. With the possible exception of cosmovision, an expression thriving especially in the Spanish-speaking world, cosmology really presents itself as the most suitable term for any sets of ideas about the world.
Modern cosmology, taking its earliest beginnings in the proto-scientific speculations of Greek philosophers, contrasts with traditional cosmology as it has prevailed among people through all ages and cultures.--

It doesn't have to strike at 90 degrees to make a round crater. --

--

-- < that one is a crater index>

For the Electric universe, the cosmic thunderbolt is the mechanism of cratering on the planets and the moons of our solar system. Cosmic lightning is not the small-scale discharge of an ordinary thunderstorm, but the heaven-spanning weapons of the gods celebrated by every human culture. And the craters themselves are the wounds inflicted by these cosmic weapons. This cratering mechanism explains not only the glass beads and brecciated rocks, but many other features which fit poorly into the impact explanation, such as flat bottoms, terraced walls, central peaks and secondary craters centered on the rims of larger craters. All of these typical lightning features are seen in the above photo of craters on Mercury.--

You could only make a round hole in a planet with an asteroid if you stopped the planets rotation first and shot at ninety degrees any other case creates a smear on account of surface speed. Only a lightning speed plasma hole punch is fast enough to bore round on a spinning celestial body.

Yep, ignore the real science as usual and cite another of your junk sites.

What an odd person, you have real confused with popular young man. Perhaps when you are old enough to shave you'll have wit enough to read where there are no pictures to colour. I wish this site would keep teenagers and hoodlums out.

Belief is belief. Evidence trumps belief.

Assumptions. Assumptions based upon opinions rather than evidence, at that.

The shape of a crater also depends upon the geological materials that carry shockwaves. The larger the area of effect, the less likely you'll see uniform geology.

um, -- = all the junk that fit to debunk.

If it did, it`d be consigning itself to the antithesis of analytical and critical thought.

I don't believe anything. I know what I have experienced. I have accumulated all kinds of evidence to support what I know. You can write it off as belief. That is your prerogative but you limit your view of reality. I could just as easily say that belief in evidence is no different than belief in anything else. Although you may like to think so, the evidence I have accumulated is just as valid as those you have accumulated. It is just a different set of evidence because we focused on different interests.

IndisCERNible

Posted on -- by --
The ATLAS particle detector, one of four huge detectors at CERN's Large Hadron Collider.

Mar 01, 2012
The so-called “god particle” is most likely an illusion.
The idea of a Large Hadron Collider (LHC) was originally proposed early in the 1980s. Since the Large Electron Positron Collider (LEP) was at the end of its life, and a machine capable of generating more power was needed, a 20 nation consortium, all members of CERN (Conseil Europeen pour la Recherche Nucleaire), started design work in 1994.
The LHC straddles the border between Switzerland and France, occupying a 27 kilometer long, circular tunnel. Its electromagnets force protons into a narrow beam, split it in two, and then send the two streams of charged particles around the ring in opposite directions, causing the twin beams to collide head on.
Although the LHC was built to carry out a number of experiments, most particle physicists will admit that the $10 billion was spent to find the Higgs boson.
Physicists postulate that matter is built from twelve fundamental particles, six quarks and six leptons. Note that protons and neutrons are not considered “fundamental,” since they are made of quarks. Quarks are defined as elementary particles with electric charges one-third or two-thirds that of the electron. Leptons are a group of elementary particles (and antiparticles), such as electrons, muons, or neutrinos that are affected by electromagnetic and weak interactions.
According to the standard theory of quantum mechanics, quarks are “--” and “flavored,” but a detailed explanation of those fields of influence is not germane to this account. The quark flavors are up, down, bottom, top, strange, and charm. Each of the six quark flavors can have three different colors, red, green, or blue. The lepton table includes the electron, electron-neutrino, muon, muon-neutrino, tau, and tau-neutrino. The muon and the tau leptons are not stable, however, and quickly decay.
While leptons are thought to participate in weak atomic interactions, other particles such as mesons, baryons, and hadrons are more massive and are affected by strong force influences. Quantum mechanics proposes that there are four forces at work in nature: the strong force, which holds atomic nuclei together; the electromagnetic force, which holds atoms and molecules together; the weak force, which governs radioactive decay; and the gravitational force, which attracts matter to itself in an inverse square relationship over infinite distance.
According to nuclear physicists, a “force” is more like an exchange. When the strong force binds an atomic nucleus together, for example, the particles exchange “carrier particles,” called --. Each force requires its own boson. It is the -- that supposedly carries the electromagnetic force, and “--” carry the strong force. An ongoing problem for physicists is the detection of “gravitons” that supposedly carry the gravitational force.
In 1964, Peter Higgs speculated that space is permeated by a “field,” similar to an electromagnetic field. When particles travel through space, they encounter this field, acquiring “mass.” The concept can be illustrated by particles moving through a viscous fluid: the greater interaction of particles with the field, the greater their mass. The existence of the Higgs field is an essential component of his hypothesis.
As previously mentioned, quantum theory requires that fields be associated with carrier particles, so the expectation is that there must be a particle carrying the Higgs field: the Higgs boson. For the last few years, LHC’s focus has been to “find” the Higgs boson and determine if this mass origin hypothesis is correct.
Recently, -- that LHC had shown hints that the Higgs-Boson was “real.” However, experiments in the 145 billion to 466 billion electron volt range have -- the boson’s existence. As Dmitri Denisov of Fermilab said: “We do not see the signal. If it existed, we would see it. But when we look at our data, we basically see nothing.”
Electric Universe advocates propose that the entire quantum mechanical universe requires a new viewpoint. Since it is the -- that governs the cosmos, the behavior, origin, and structure of matter needs to be revised. One of the most interesting aspects of this premise is the clues that exist within quantum mechanics, itself.
Plasma’s electrical and physical properties are scalable over many orders of magnitude. Laboratory experiments can model what is observed in space. Gravity’s force falls off with the square of the distance, while the attraction between electrified plasma filaments is linear and up to 39 orders of magnitude greater than gravity. Looking at the four hypothetical quantum forces, it can be seen that the strong force is also 39 orders of magnitude greater than gravity. Perhaps that relationship is better explained with the electric force.
Virtual models operating within computer algorithms have replaced direct observation in recent years: the natural philosophy of science has been abandoned. Computer models are used to build other models, which, in turn, are used to “confirm” further models. Physics used to mean investigating the nature and properties of matter and energy. Instead, it has become the handmaiden to mathematics.
Stephen Smith

There is the worlds largest scrap copper pile.

Frankly, I think we can combine gradualism and catastrophism. Catastrophic events occur ---erase miles of sediment like seen in the Grand Canyon geology---but when the 'event' is over and it's long term gradualism. You can have both easily. S W Carey presented evidence in his book Earth Universe Cosmos regarding at least two 'expansion' events 50 my apart.
And if Miles Mathis is right and we have been fudging math since the last 100 years, we would have to stop posing inanities like multi verses and dark matter and energy and come back to the center core.

And what is the center core, in you opinion?

Like I've said before, these guys talk physics, they can't actually do physics, and apparently they can't even get some basic facts straight. That claim is wrong by a factor of a thousand in the first case, ten in the second case.

A Blind Man in a Dark Room Looking for a Black Hole that isn’t There

Posted on -- by --
'Nothing to see here. Move along!'

Mar 16, 2012
Schmidt et al. authored the paper Formation of the Black Hole in Nova Scorpii, The Astrophysical Journal, 567:491-502, 2002 March 1.
Editor’s note: Many Picture of the Day articles have been written about the problems with so-called ‘black holes.’ This paper by Stephen J. Crothers addresses the issue in greater depth.
All alleged ‘black hole solutions’ to Einstein’s field equations pertain to a universe that contains only one mass, namely, the mass of the black hole itself, by mathematical construction. There are no known solutions to the field equations for two or more black holes and there is no existence theorem by which it can even be asserted that the field equations contain latent solutions for two or more black holes.
In the model and analysis for Nova Scorpii the authors have inadvertently applied the Principle of Superposition where the Principle of Superposition does not apply. In Newton’s theory of gravitation the Principle of Superposition applies and so one can simply pile up masses at will, although the gravitational interaction of these masses soon becomes intractable.
In Einstein’s theory the gravitational field, manifest in the curvature of spacetime, is coupled to its sources by the field equations, the sources being described by an appropriate energy-momentum tensor, and so the Principle of Superposition does not apply. This means that one cannot simply pile up masses in any given spacetime because the field equations must be solved for each and every configuration of matter proposed.
The proposed model for Nova Scorpii has not done this. For instance, upon what energy-momentum tensor do the authors rely for the black hole close binary system, and hence upon what solution to the field equations do they rely for this binary system? There is in fact no known set of field equations for the model proposed by the authors for Nova Scorpii.
The authors’ model begins with a Newtonian universe and ends with a non-Newtonian universe, manifest as an inadvertent blending of two different and incompatible theories, by means of an inappropriate application of the Principle of Superposition; a Newtonian universe containing a non-Newtonian entity (a black hole), which is impossible; or conversely, a Relativistic universe that contains additional masses besides that of the black hole, which is also impossible, as paragraphs one and two above show.
Owing to the foregoing one cannot, by an analogy with Newton’s gravitational theory, assert that black holes can exist in multitudes, merge or collide, or that a black hole can be a component of a binary system.
According to Einstein his Principle of Equivalence and his Special Relativity must hold in sufficiently small regions of his gravitational field and that these regions can be located anywhere in his gravitational field. Now a simple calculation proves that Special Relativity forbids infinite densities. Thus an infinitely dense point-mass singularity is forbidden by the Theory of Relativity no matter how it is alleged to be formed. It is worth noting that infinitely dense point-mass singularities occur in Newton’s gravitational theory too; they are merely ‘centers of masses’. But a centre of mass is not a physical object – it is a mathematical artifice, nothing more. In the case of the black hole the infinitely dense point-mass singularity is claimed to be a real object.
The subject paper does not clearly specify what type of black hole is allegedly formed in Nova Scorpii. The signatures of the simplest black hole, whether or not it is rotating, are an infinitely dense point-mass singularity and an event horizon. Now it is an irrefutable fact that nobody has ever found an infinitely dense point-mass singularity or an event horizon and so nobody has ever assuredly found a black hole. This is not surprising owing to paragraphs one to five above. Additionally, all reports of black holes being found in multitudes is wishful thinking due to a misapplication of the Principle of Superposition.
The so-called ‘Schwarzschild solution’ upon which black hole theory mostly relies is in actual fact not Schwarzschild’s solution at all. Schwarzschild’s actual solution forbids the black hole. One can easily confirm this by a reading of Schwarzschild’s original paper on the subject1.
Unfortunately most astronomers and astrophysicists are completely unaware of Schwarzschild’s actual paper because it has become buried and all but forgotten in the literature, and the metric which bears his name has thereby become incorrectly associated with him. The ‘Schwarzschild solution’ is due to David Hilbert and is a corruption of the original solution by Schwarzschild. It is from Hilbert’s corruption that the black hole was incorrectly spawned, as pointed out by the late American theoretical physicist Dr. Leonard S. Abrams2.
As an aside, paragraph three above raises some other interesting and relevant issues. Scientists frequently assert that the escape velocity of a black hole is that of light in vacuum and that nothing, not even light, can escape from the black hole. In fact, according to the same scientists, nothing, including light, can even leave the black hole. But there is already a serious problem with these claims. If the escape velocity of a black hole is that of light in vacuum, then light, on the one hand, can escape. On the other hand, light is allegedly not able to even leave the black hole; so the black hole has no escape velocity. If the escape velocity of a black hole is that of light in vacuum, not only can light both leave and escape, material objects can also leave the event horizon, but not escape, even though, according to the Theory of Special Relativity, they can only have a velocity less than that of light in vacuum. This just means that if the black hole has an escape velocity then material bodies can in fact leave the black hole and eventually stop and fall back to the black hole, just like a ball thrown into the air here on Earth with an initial velocity less than the escape velocity for the Earth. So the properties of the alleged black hole event horizon are irretrievably contradictory.
It has also become commonplace in the literature, and in textbooks for students, to claim that Newton’s theory predicts the existence of a kind of black hole. But the black hole is not predicted by Newton’s theory of gravitation either, despite the claims of the astrophysical scientists that the theoretical Michell-Laplace dark body is a kind of black hole. The Michell-Laplace dark body possesses an escape velocity, whereas the black hole has no escape velocity; it does not require irresistible gravitational collapse to form, whereas the black hole does; it has no infinitely dense point-mass singularity, whereas the black hole does; it has no event horizon, whereas the black hole does; there is always a class of observers that can see the dark body (as the late British astronomer G. C. McVittie pointed out), but there is no class of observers that can see the black hole; the Michell-Laplace dark body can persist in a space which contains other masses and interact with those masses, but the spacetime of the black hole is devoid of masses other than that of the black hole itself, by mathematical construction, and so it cannot interact with any other masses.
Thus the Michell-Laplace dark body does not possess the signatures of the alleged black hole and so it is not a black hole. Additionally, escape velocity is a two-body concept; one body escapes from another body. But as pointed out above there are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more bodies and no existence theorem by which it can be asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for two or more masses. A very simple proof that the Michell-Laplace dark body is not a black hole is given by G. C. McVittie (The Observatory, 1973.
Stephen J. Crothers
Astrophysics,
Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies
References
(1) Schwarzschild, K., On the Gravitational Field of a Point Mass According to Einstein’s Theory, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., Phys. Math. Kl. 1916, 189.
--
(2) Abrams, L. S., Black Holes: The Legacy of Hilbert’s Error, Can. J. Phys. 67 (1989) 919, --
(3) McVittie, G. C., Laplace’s Alleged ‘Black Hole’, Observatory, v.98, pp.272-274, December 1978.

Couple hits of windowpane will clear this up.

You gotta a line on some? Don't Bogart man.

Carey provided evidence? Why is "expanding Earth" still a hypothesis then? It wouldn't be because it was debunked by simple observation, would it?
If I remember correctly, Miles Mathis is the dude that says the circumference of a circle is not a distance or a length (among other nutty claims).

I don't think windowpane is awailable anymore

A site I reference some is newgeology.us The professor is in Wikipedia. I have never been too fond of plate tectonics; it seems to me that the identification of fracture ridges had to have a name so plate tectonics was applied. And also have not been too fond of sea floor spreading either.

Doing physics is easy, try walking. Doing science is even easier, use a tape measure and a magnifying glass. "Ya can't do physics" "ya can't do math" "ya don't understand how science works", catastrophists hear that whine all the time from people who can't think for themselves, they're the boxed generation, always fawning over pathetic little shrines to Hawkings or Einstein. Gravity freaks, accretion junkies, mag reconnect lunatics, CO2 retards. We might as well let kiddies watch cartoons and drink beer rather than damage them by exposure to such religious fanatics.