Immanuel Velikovsky, scientist or twit?

[Dexter Sinister]

There are no sheets in space...

That's not the point at all, that's just a simplified case that'll show you what happens to unconstrained charges. Can't do it, can you.

in no case, ever, does math precede observation or invention, it is handy in but it is not science.

That's absolute nonsense. The history of science is full of cases where the math has predicted things that were later observed, particularly in particle physics. You haven't a clue.

 

[darkbeaver]

That's not the point at all, that's just a simplified case that'll show you what happens to unconstrained charges. Can't do it, can you. That's absolute nonsense. The history of science is full of cases where the math has predicted things that were later observed, particularly in particle physics. You haven't a clue.

In no case has the math ever preceeded the thinking.

 

[#juan]

quoting darkbeaver
You still believe the original cock and bull story of millions of years of accreation, even in the face of very good math proving it to be exactly that and you have no trouble swallowing black hole fantasy. Venus is electrically heated it can cool or heat depending on the current available.

I don't remember the exact definition of accreation but it seems to me it is a process by which something can grow with the steady addition of smaller bits. Earth is a good example. Something like a thousand tons of meteorites fall (accrete) onto Earth every day but since the mass of the Earth is around Earth's mass is 6.580 sextillion tons, we don't notice the increase. One sextillion looks like this:1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000.

Btw, just where is that good math telling us that accreation doesn't happen?

Tell me DB, do you feel qualified to criticize Stephen Hawking in physics?

Venus is electrically heated? By what?

 

[darkbeaver]

I don't remember the exact definition of accreation but it seems to me it is a process by which something can grow with the steady addition of smaller bits. Earth is a good example. Something like a thousand tons of meteorites fall (accrete) onto Earth every day but since the mass of the Earth is around Earth's mass is 6.580 sextillion tons, we don't notice the increase. One sextillion looks like this:1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000.

Btw, just where is that good math telling us that accreation doesn't happen?

Tell me DB, do you feel qualified to criticize Stephen Hawking in physics?

Venus is electrically heated? By what?

It may seem presumptuous of me to criticize Mr Hawkings but it's a process of science. I'm doing him a favour, he'll understand, he should get used to it, it isn't like he was real and important like Newton. Venus was electrically heated by Saturn it's parent brown dwarf. I'll find the math for the accreation refutation for you, I was looking at it a few months ago. I read about the accumulated new mass from the chunks that fall on earth, it's amazing how much and how often, but I understand there is every chance that as much is removed from the earth by other means. Hawkings is a con man. Here's a good short refutation of black holes fresh off the woo woo presses.Lightning, Sticky Tape, and Black Hole Observations Part 2

 

[#juan]

You know, both Newton and Hawking held the post of Lucasian professor of mathmatics at Cambridge. I know you're trying to get my goat....The other day you laughed off Carl Sagan as a TV personality...We both know he was a lot more than that. What do you think are your qualifications to criticize Stephen Hawking?????

 

[#juan]

It may seem presumptuous of me to criticize Mr Hawkings but it's a process of science. I'm doing him a favour, he'll understand, he should get used to it, it isn't like he was real and important like Newton. Venus was electrically heated by Saturn it's parent brown dwarf. I'll find the math for the accreation refutation for you, I was looking at it a few months ago. I read about the accumulated new mass from the chunks that fall on earth, it's amazing how much and how often, but I understand there is every chance that as much is removed from the earth by other means. Hawkings is a con man. Here's a good short refutation of black holes fresh off the woo woo presses.Lightning, Sticky Tape, and Black Hole Observations Part 2

Here we go again. A biologist/cum electrical engineer is an expert on black holes. Woo woo press.................couldn't be named better. I suppose a biologist is no worse than a psychiatrist...:roll:

 

[Dexter Sinister]

In no case has the math ever preceeded the thinking.

The math neither precedes nor follows the thinking, it's part of the thinking. The existence of the positron, for instance, was predicted in 1928 from the existence, in the mathematical sense, of negative energy solutions to the Dirac equation, four years before its existence was confirmed in the laboratory. The neutrino was predicted to exist in 1930 as a solution to the apparent violation of energy conservation in certain nuclear reactions, and was treated for years as a real particle in the mathematics of the weak interaction. It was finally detected in 1956. Many of the things we now know were predicted theoretically (i.e. with the mathematics) long before they were discovered in the laboratory.

If you can't do the math, you can't understand the physics, except at best in the loosest qualitative sense.

 

[mt_pockets1000]

NASA's THEMIS project "found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the sun..."

The earth is held in a magnetic field, like a stone...a pebble. I just remembered, there's a whole industry built up around aligning the body's internal magnetic properties. Maybe they're onto something.

And this one...Birkeland Currents

Don't forget, electrical and magnetic phenomenon are part of physics too. We're orbiting around the sun like electrons around the nucleus and I'm getting bloody dizzy.

 

[darkbeaver]

The math neither precedes nor follows the thinking, it's part of the thinking. The existence of the positron, for instance, was predicted in 1928 from the existence, in the mathematical sense, of negative energy solutions to the Dirac equation, four years before its existence was confirmed in the laboratory. The neutrino was predicted to exist in 1930 as a solution to the apparent violation of energy conservation in certain nuclear reactions, and was treated for years as a real particle in the mathematics of the weak interaction. It was finally detected in 1956. Many of the things we now know were predicted theoretically (i.e. with the mathematics) long before they were discovered in the laboratory.

If you can't do the math, you can't understand the physics, except at best in the loosest qualitative sense.

Well sir if my loose base sence allows me to visualize the fizziks correctly and your pious grasp of math dosen't where do you suppose the problem lies? Specialization has ruined millions of otherwise fluid minds eh. :smile:

 

[darkbeaver]

You know, both Newton and Hawking held the post of Lucasian professor of mathmatics at Cambridge. I know you're trying to get my goat....The other day you laughed off Carl Sagan as a TV personality...We both know he was a lot more than that. What do you think are your qualifications to criticize Stephen Hawking?????

So of the two who do you understand? Newton was quite the woo woo man Juan.
I didn't know you kept goats. Lightening strikes the earth three million (3,000,000) times a day.

 

[darkbeaver]

Here we go again. A biologist/cum electrical engineer is an expert on black holes. Woo woo press.................couldn't be named better. I suppose a biologist is no worse than a psychiatrist...:roll:

So you're willing to risk hate mail from biologists and electrical engineers who disagree with the bizarre drug induced dementia like a black hole and black matter and black energy to the tune of 99% of the total sum of the universe? Psychiatrist there's your omen Juan, if I were you I'd talk to someone, from this planet, about your innocence, you'll obviously believe some really strange things for some reason other than evidentury. An expert on black holes or an expert on garden fairies, what is the real difference? I'll wait a week if you need the time. See Newtons checkered woo woo man history.
http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~alford/newton.html
Mysticism as a key to scientific breakthroughs: The Early days of Science - Whole Science - Discover the Power of You.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

And this one...Birkeland Currents

Don't forget, electrical and magnetic phenomenon are part of physics too. We're orbiting around the sun like electrons around the nucleus and I'm getting bloody dizzy.

Yes I know what Birkeland currents are, I even learned some of the mathematics about them as it applies to auroral displays, the university I attended as an undergraduate had a large research program about the aurora and most of my professors were involved in it. Nobody's doubting that electromagnetic phenomena are part of physics, but Alfvén and Peratt's plasma cosmology theories are a long way from the electric universe theories you're promoting, and Donald Scott completely misrepresents them. Alfvén and Peratt can do the math. I also note, however, that plasma cosmology has fallen out of favour since the background radiation in the cosmos as detected by the COBE and WMAP satellites shows no signs of inter-galactic Birkeland currents. The map they produced is an amorphous, irregular scattering of very small differences, if those currents were there it should look like a bowl of spaghetti. You're simply wrong, the data do not support your claims.

 

[mt_pockets1000]

Yes I know what Birkeland currents are, I even learned some of the mathematics about them as it applies to auroral displays, the university I attended as an undergraduate had a large research program about the aurora and most of my professors were involved in it. Nobody's doubting that electromagnetic phenomena are part of physics, but Alfvén and Peratt's plasma cosmology theories are a long way from the electric universe theories you're promoting, and Donald Scott completely misrepresents them. Alfvén and Peratt can do the math. I also note, however, that plasma cosmology has fallen out of favour since the background radiation in the cosmos as detected by the COBE and WMAP satellites shows no signs of inter-galactic Birkeland currents. The map they produced is an amorphous, irregular scattering of very small differences, if those currents were there it should look like a bowl of spaghetti. You're simply wrong, the data do not support your claims.

Geez Dex, I was just throwing something out there for discussion. I'm not promoting any theories or promoting any claims at all. I don't know any of those important people you just listed.

I bet the satellites are cool though.

No, I'm just a schmuck making some casual observations. You gotta admit though with the earth being struck by lightning 3,000,000 times a day it sure looks like long filaments of plasma. And how do we know the currents are not hiding in wait between the planets? Like an open circuit? A surge of energy from the sun could pulse Saturn and blow Venus right out of it's orbit. No wait...that was a bad Star Wars episode.

 

[#juan]

Another man, like Velikovsky, who sold millions of books that were targeted at the general public rather than the scientific community, is Erich von Daniken. Von Daniken's main thrust was that in assorted places in our history, we were visited by aliens who helped us to do difficult stuff like build the great pyramids, or move those big stone carvings on Easter Island to name a couple. In his book "Chariots of the Gods" von Daniken lists many such examples that he offers as proof that aliens have already been here. The books were entertaining for a lot of people but they don't stand up under serious scrutiny.

 

[L Gilbert]

There are definitely more plausible explanations than Velikovsky's alright.
Van Daniken's, too, for that matter. Um, One was a psychiatrist who was "out in space", and the other is just "out in space". lol

 

[#juan]

There are definitely more plausible explanations than Velikovsky's alright.
Van Daniken's, too, for that matter. Um, One was a psychiatrist who was "out in space", and the other is just "out in space". lol

Gilbert both of them were better than me. If I could think of a plot or an idea that would sell 60 or 80 million books, I would do it in a minute..........;-):lol:

 

[L Gilbert]

I can think of a few ideas , but my problem is that I can't seem to be able to embellish them with enough verbiage to make an entire book.

 

[darkbeaver]

Another man, like Velikovsky, who sold millions of books that were targeted at the general public rather than the scientific community, is Erich von Daniken. Von Daniken's main thrust was that in assorted places in our history, we were visited by aliens who helped us to do difficult stuff like build the great pyramids, or move those big stone carvings on Easter Island to name a couple. In his book "Chariots of the Gods" von Daniken lists many such examples that he offers as proof that aliens have already been here. The books were entertaining for a lot of people but they don't stand up under serious scrutiny.

Daniken introduced many readers to many questions, in that respect he and others like him actually initiate serious scrutiny where none at all was brought to bear by orthodoxy. Daniken like Velikovsky can quite literally be said to have contributed far more to science in the end than any of the TV scientists like the late docudramatist Carl Sagan who won several entertainment awards for his speculative work. Sagan also wrote some forgettable science fiction novels that are now out of print. I was visited by aliens once, they told me not to talk about it but it's safe here, nobody reads this thread anyway. Serious Scrutiny played at the Halifax forum in 1978. :lol:

 

[#juan]

FAMOUS SCIENTISTS

ARCHIMEDES
ARISTOTLE
NIELS BOHR
NICHOLAS COPERNICUS
MARIE CURIE
CHARLES DARWIN
LEONARDO DA VINCI
RENE DESCARTES
TH0MAS ALVA EDISON
ALBERT EINSTEIN
BEN FRANKLIN
GALILEI GALILEO
ISAAC NEWTON
MAX PLANCK
WILHELM CONRAD RONTGEN
CARL SAGAN
NIKOLA TESLA

 

[darkbeaver]

I can't argue with the list, they are all famous, but fame is not a substitute for accomplishment is it?