Mythical Mercury

[HysteryDiagnosis]

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=e511t4z2




Myth No. 1. Mercury’s motion is convincing evidence for Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

Einstein’s geometric theory of general relativity makes no real sense whatsoever. It leaves more unanswerable questions than it appears to solve. How, precisely, does matter have an effect on empty space? Nobel Prize nominee, the late Professor C. L. Kervran, stated the problem: “..the word “matter” has no exact meaning; we just do not know what matter is; we do not know what a proton or electron is made of; the word only serves to cloak our ignorance. Matter has not been proved to come from energy.”

In addition, the concept of curved or ‘warped’ empty space has no physical reality. It is a purely mathematical concept where the word ‘dimension’ has a broader meaning than mensuration. It seems that the esoteric theoretical geometry of general relativity may have defeated Einstein too. A fellow Australian has issued a quite simple and specific, yet unanswered, mathematical challenge to hundreds of experts. His conclusion? “The relativists have all fatally erred in their analysis of black holes and relativistic cosmology.* General Relativity does not predict black holes or expansion of the Universe with or without a big bang.” The stark nakedness of our ‘emperors of science’ underlines the power of myth to blind us to reality. Mercury’s perihelion advance is telling us something different. But no one can see that—yet.

* One mistake is a school kid howler. The mathematical infinity generated by treating an extended object as a point mass and letting the radius of gravitational attraction tend to zero is invalid. The center of mass is a geometric convenience that has its uses for such things as calculating moments of inertia and deriving planetary orbits, but to reify it into a gravitating "thing" is an exercise in human imagination, not reality. The expression for gravitational field strength at a point inside an extended object isn't the same as for a point outside it. But invoking a point mass makes every part of the object "outside." Within a gravitating mass, the force diminishes as you move inward from the surface and more of the downward pull is offset by mass that now lies above, until at the center of a sphere it becomes zero.

The surrounding region is therefore not under intense compression, which precludes any formation of a black hole. The debate over general relativity is ephemeral and of no real consequence. Massive public funding of research in relativistic cosmology should stop and those responsible for the unconscionable waste of time and resources held to account. It should be obvious that gravity is a property of matter and not of empty space.

[MineralMan]

1. More undergraduate fantasy.

This is not science. It's speculation, and is unsupported by any data. Embarrassing, really.

Woo for the uneducated, who mistake a decent skill in writing for science. If what you write is incorrect, it is just incorrect, regardless of its correctness in grammar. This looks like a typical undergraduate paper, written by a decent writer, but without any actual information.

I'll give it a B-

[Odin2005]

3. It reminds of the the BS woo spouted over at the Bad Astronomy Blog message boards.

[MineralMan]

6. It's Wal Thornhill...who else?

Woo to go.

You don't have to buy his books at Amazon, you know. You can get them directly from his website. Just like all the other Coast-to-Coast stars.

http://www.holoscience.com/


It's the "Key to the Future," you know.

Following the Velikovsky model of mystical pseudoscience for the gullible.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. Shockingly, agreed. nt

[Ohio Joe]

11. Yes, the attack on science marches forward - nt

[Odin2005]

2. Uneducated ignorant garbage.

Somebody should send this to Bad Astronomy Blog.

[MineralMan]

4. Ah, Wal Thornhill....

I didn't see that. He's a real prize, and a follower of Velikovsky. I thought I recognized some Velikovsky-style nonsense in there.

Here's his bio on the Velikovsky Encyclopedia site:

http://www.velikovsky.info/Wal_Thornhill

A veritable Woo-Master.

Cue the Coast-to-Coast bumper music...

[HysteryDiagnosis]

5. So you are going to replace the hundreds of engineers, researchers, scientists

and so forth in the Alternative Cosmology Group with the name of one man. If that works for you then so be it.

[MineralMan]

7. Uh...you're the one who posted his writing, not me.

Actually, you're the one replacing the thousands of legitimate scientists with this balderdash.

You must think he's pretty spectacular. Many felt the same about Velikovsky, and bought all of his books, too. Woo sells. Filling the heads of the gullible always sells, and it's lots easier than doing science.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

9. He is a member of the alternative cosmology group and they haven't thrown

him out yet.

[MineralMan]

12. I would guess they haven't. Without him, they wouldn't have

any followers at all. He's the leader of the pack of yahoos who are selling all those books full of amateurish, sophomoric arguments designed to fool people who don't actually understand any of it. WooHoo!

I'm a member of a couple of groups of oddballs, too, and they haven't thrown me out yet. Why don't you listen to me?

[KittyWampus]

17. 12 Year Old Genius Sets Out To Disprove Big Bang Theory

Moderators- I intentionally broke t his down into more paragraphs to make it easier to read on the internets.

At 12-years-old, Jacob Barnett is a genius. He’s already in college, his IQ is higher than Einstein’s, and for fun he‘s working on an expanded version of that man’s theory of relativity. So far, the signs are good. Professors are astounded. So what else does a boy genius with vast brilliance do in his free time? Disprove the big bang, of course.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/a-beautiful-mind-12-year-old-boy-genius-sets-out-to-disprove-big-bang/


"There are two different types of when stars end. When the little stars die, it's just like a small poof. They just turn into a planetary nebula. But the big ones, above 1.4 solar masses, blow up in one giant explosion, a supernova," Jake said. "What it does, is, in larger stars there is a larger mass, and it can fuse higher elements because it's more dense."

OK . . . trying to follow you.

"So you get all the elements, all the different materials, from those bigger stars. The little stars, they just make hydrogen and helium, and when they blow up, all the carbon that remains in them is just in the white dwarf; it never really comes off.

"So, um, in the big-bang theory, what they do is, there is this big explosion and there is all this temperature going off and the temperature decreases really rapidly because it's really big. The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and, um, I don't care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn't there have to be some sort of carbon?"

"Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn't be here. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn't gonna happen."

"Because of that," he continued, "that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We'd have to be 21 billion years old . . . and that would just screw everything up."

So, we had to ask.

If not the big bang, then how did the universe come about?

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011103200369

[HysteryDiagnosis]

20. Indeed. Perhaps this will entertain you.

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/anatomy.html

Poincaré, at the conclusion of the preface to his book, `Hypthéses Cosmogoniques', states "One fact that strikes everyone is the spiral shape of some nebulae; it is encountered much too often for us to believe that it is due to chance. It is easy to understand how incomplete any theory of cosmogony which ignores this fact must be. None of the theories accounts for it satisfactorily, and the explanation I myself once gave, in a kind of toy theory, is no better than the others. Consequently, we come up against a big question mark."

[RandomThoughts]

10. Very interesting.

The surrounding region (center point of mass) is therefore not under intense compression

That can only be stated if compression does not transfer from outer layers not at center to the center. Although the center is not having compression on itself, and is at 0G, the layers above it are pushed into it from both sides.

Or in relativistic thought, the layers outside of it warp the space time by compression, leading to the thought of falling or pushing to the center point.

If you have space compressed, and space not compressed, items will flow from one state to the other, simulating the effects of gravity, when mass compresses space.


So there would only be no compression at center if you disregard the other layers pushed or pulled or falling towards center.

So like so many other posts, that article does not make sense.


Anyone else see it that way? Seems like he is saying there would be no compression at center, by its state, with no regard for other layers either compressing by contact, or by change in space compression.

Doesn't sound correct.


Then again, the internet search results on all search engines are modified or censored at some point before reaching my computer, many false posts show up on this web site as viewed on my computer, and many other information sources are not accurate, nor an actual part of one of the other Internets. So why would anyone assume any post would be meant to be accurate.

Side note I rarely pick clips to post based on Internet search, and exclude noise added by any censorship or pointing of possible things to pick from.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

15. A fair an honest critique of what was offered. You disagreed and explained why

you disagreed without being disagreeable. Recently there was a huge point of contention regarding magnetism in space and star formation because everyone knows that stars form when interstellar gas and dust compresses due to the force of gravity to the point when the star kick starts its nuclear furnaces and lights up.

If you read this paper, even though it doesn't state that magnetism in space creates stars, it does refer to the Z-Pinch effect in plasma that creates an intense point in Birkeland Currents, to me it is a telling piece of research, please note the part mentioning the magnetic fields orchestrating the collapse of the dust and plasma clouds in space.


http://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.5445
Magnetic focusing and mirroring

Theoretical models predict that collapsing cloud cores must overcome the support provided by their magnetic field in order to form stars. In the process, the competition between gravity pulling inward and magnetic pressure pushing outward is expected to produce a warped, hourglass pattern of the magnetic field. Recently, this scenario has received support from observations. Maps of polarized dust emission have revealed that the magnetic field in molecular clouds is rather uniform, except near cores where the field becomes strongly pinched and almost radial (see, e.g., Tang et al. 2009).

On the other hand high-resolution interferometric observations of submillimeter polarized emission in the low-mass core NGC 1333 IRAS4A by Girart et al. (2006) show a magnetic field geometry consistent with the predictions of theoretical models for the formation of solar-type stars, in which ordered large-scale magnetic fields control the evolution and collapse of molecular cloud cores (see a comparison of observations with theoretical collapse models in Goncalves et al. 2008). We therefore adopt the hourglass geometry as the basis of our analysis of CR penetration into a cloud core (see Sect. 3).

The effects of magnetic mirroring and focusing in a hourglass geometry can be simply described following e.g. Desch et al. (2004). A charged particle traveling in a magnetized medium conserves its kinetic energy γmc2 and its magnetic moment μ = γmv2 sin2 α/2B. It follows that CRs propagating from the ICM to the cloud’s interior must increase v⊥ to conserve μ and decrease v to conserve |v|2 . Thus, the pitch angle of the particle must increase from the value αICM to a value α as

sin2 α B
≡ χ,
=
2 BICM sin αICM

where χ > 1. Therefore, a CR starting in the ICM with a pitch angle sin αICM > 1/χ1/2 cannot penetrate a region with magnetic field B > χBICM , and will be bounced out (magnetic mirroring).

[johnaries]

13. Fail! First of all,

the writer states "Matter has not been proved to come from energy.” Yes, it has. Matter and energy are interchangeable as proven by matter-antimatter annihilation.

Second, "the concept of curved or ‘warped’ empty space has no physical reality." Space is not empty. Far from it.

[MineralMan]

14. Facts do not matter when you're selling woo.

People will buy your books anyhow, and come to your lectures. They don't know enough to spot the flaws in your fantasy. This is how it all works:

1. Old science doesn't get it right, and they're just trying to confuse you with all that math mumbo-jumbo.
2. I have a new theory. It's a real good one, and I can explain it to you without all that hard stuff.
3. Listen to me. I'm real smart. I have some smart friends, too. Here's a list of them.
4. My new book is now available. Just $19.95 from my website. You don't have to get it from Amazon. Get it direct from me, instead. Please.

[KittyWampus]

19. "Old Science" has been proven wrong quite a few times. I haven't read the Electric Universe

but I always applaud someone trying to break out of the coffin of established Science. Especially since Science has become synonymous with Reductionism.

[MineralMan]

21. Then you should read a bit of it and compare it with the other

theories. The only thing is that this Electric Universe isn't really a theory. It's a fairy tale. So you'll need to put on your serious science shoes to see where it goes wrong.

[jpak]

16. What horseshit

yup

[hobbit709]

18. Well the "Mythical" part is right.