Alan Cresswell Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Are there any Forum punters that will make intelligent comment to http://www.thewebspert.com/cresswell/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Some points I raise with a quick reading: 1) "The universe is infinte" No, it's not. 2) e=mc2 is only valid for objects at rest. I don't see the full equation for moving objects anywhere in there. 3) "Only light can travel at the speed of light." According to relativity, which this page relies heavily upon, gravity also travels at the speed of light. 4) Time is the direction in which entropy increases. Our concept of time relates this to a quantity where a certain object goes through so many cycles. 5) Atoms are not perpetual motion ("perpetual motion by electron-positron sense particles.") Atoms decay. (Note: this rate is extremely small for stable atoms, also, photons also decay, however this occurs on the 10^9 order of magnitude) 6) A neutrino does not travel faster than light. Furthermore, it has mass. 7) Light does not rotate, it travels in a straight line. 8) "If space vacuum is infinite aether, all length rms amplitude, all time periodic." Well since we already know it's not infinite, or a complete vacuum, this section is pointless. 9) "perpetual motion of free energy that is enjoyed by all other living species and mass elements." Are you high? There's only a finite amount of energy in the universe, and whatever its rate of disappearance, it's certainly not zero. 10) "The first law of thermodynamics stated that Heat = Energy. " This isn't how my books define it. Energy is the ability to do work, and heat is a *relative* measure of energy. 11) "The second law of thermodynamics = A thermometer." No. second law of thermodynamics = entropy, which incidently has been broken on small scales in small times. 12) "An inexperienced patent office clerk. ..." His theories have been demonstrated as correct numerous times. His legacy obviously demonstrates the power of his discoveries. Furthermore, his theories are used in the GPS system and account for time dilation by speed and gravity. 13) "These people felt threatened and responded with emotional, moral and intellectual degeneracy." With good cause, you clearly don't fully understand what you're talking about. 14) None of your so-called perpetual motion machines account for heat loss from the system. 15) NASA just discovered dark energy, dark matter won't be far behind. This is firmly planted in experimental evidence, and your page dismisses the idea without any discussion of that evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 furthermore, the 'inexperienced patent clerk' bit is a misonception. Einstein was actually pretty well qualified. being a patent clerk was just a job to bring in the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Cresswell Posted February 12, 2003 Author Share Posted February 12, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Some points I raise with a quick reading: 1) "The universe is infinte" No, it's not. 2) e=mc2 is only valid for objects at rest. I don't see the full equation for moving objects anywhere in there. 3) "Only light can travel at the speed of light." According to relativity, which this page relies heavily upon, gravity also travels at the speed of light. 4) Time is the direction in which entropy increases. Our concept of time relates this to a quantity where a certain object goes through so many cycles. 5) Atoms are not perpetual motion ("perpetual motion by electron-positron sense particles.") Atoms decay. (Note: this rate is extremely small for stable atoms, also, photons also decay, however this occurs on the 10^9 order of magnitude) 6) A neutrino does not travel faster than light. Furthermore, it has mass. 7) Light does not rotate, it travels in a straight line. 8) "If space vacuum is infinite aether, all length rms amplitude, all time periodic." Well since we already know it's not infinite, or a complete vacuum, this section is pointless. 9) "perpetual motion of free energy that is enjoyed by all other living species and mass elements." Are you high? There's only a finite amount of energy in the universe, and whatever its rate of disappearance, it's certainly not zero. 10) "The first law of thermodynamics stated that Heat = Energy. " This isn't how my books define it. Energy is the ability to do work, and heat is a *relative* measure of energy. 11) "The second law of thermodynamics = A thermometer." No. second law of thermodynamics = entropy, which incidently has been broken on small scales in small times. 12) "An inexperienced patent office clerk. ..." His theories have been demonstrated as correct numerous times. His legacy obviously demonstrates the power of his discoveries. Furthermore, his theories are used in the GPS system and account for time dilation by speed and gravity. 13) "These people felt threatened and responded with emotional, moral and intellectual degeneracy." With good cause, you clearly don't fully understand what you're talking about. 14) None of your so-called perpetual motion machines account for heat loss from the system. 15) NASA just discovered dark energy, dark matter won't be far behind. This is firmly planted in experimental evidence, and your page dismisses the idea without any discussion of that evidence. But you have said nothing at all. I am very disappointed in you. You appear to me as an indoctrinated clockwork parrot and repeat only the the messages with which you have been indoctrinated. Example and please think before you reply. The velocity of light is an RMS value. Root 2 times your indoctrination. You tell me otherwise therefore it cannot be a wave motion. You quote only my statements and make no effort to scientifically disprove them. You cannot. As for the next comment which likens my mind to the contents of a latrine. The commentator is a latrine and I will not dignify his reason for being there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 hrm, I fear this thread is going to deteriorate into unintelligable name-calling. discuss intelligently, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 You're a freaking idiot. You're too blinded by your ignorance to possibly consider the fact that basic scientific processes disprove your asinine theory. All my points are scientifically valid and can be looked up in any modern text book and the research from Nature, APS journals, etc. No scientific merit my ass. There's no science in the shit you're ignorantly spewing. Maybe if you tried actually learning the material before taking what little you know and slapping it together in a piss-poor excuse for a GUT, you'd realize the depth of your ignorance. This is why you get kicked off university campuses, not because professors are scared of your BLATANT IDIOCY aka self-professed divine correctness. Your pseudoshit page flagrantly ignores all the little details that I pointed out. You can't address them. You are just another crackpot pseudoscientist with the arrogance and audacity to take your tiny bit of knowledge and through non-scientific processes come up with conspiracy-theorist bullshit you use as a medium to attract attention to your overblown ego that's hell bent on perpetuating pseudointellectualism in direct opposition to the scientific method, the axiom any theory, that you ignore. Shut your mouth you uneducated heathen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 gee, i must be psychic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 You quote only my statements and make no effort to scientifically disprove them. You cannot. Have your writings scientifically disproven currently held theories [havn't read the whole thing yet]? The burden of proof lays with the objector, as the mainstream case is sufficiently documented and accessable. If I were so inclined to point to respected peer-reviewed articles on some controversial subjects at-hand, would this be sufficient evidence? Has not the scientific method brought us thus far? By what reasoning are we to argue, if the accepted method does not produce acceptable conclusions? Or am I to build a backyard physics lab.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Me too! Well said Blike. I can't believe everything I know is wrong without a little proof to back it up. I keep an open mind but a drunk once told me light can't travel in a vacuum. He still left believing it even after I pointed to a light bulb. Oh well. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Cresswell Posted February 12, 2003 Author Share Posted February 12, 2003 The drunk was quite right and you have not read or understood the text. The vacuum in a light bulb is the aether carrier wave. It canniot be pumped out. A $25 Diagram 4c model proves the existance of a free lunch. A zillion professors may squawk and wail in the piss begotten manner of fafalone but it will not stop the truth and it will not stop the model going on BBC TV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Cresswell Posted February 12, 2003 Author Share Posted February 12, 2003 Originally posted by blike Have your writings scientifically disproven currently held theories [havn't read the whole thing yet]? The burden of proof lays with the objector, as the mainstream case is sufficiently documented and accessable. If I were so inclined to point to respected peer-reviewed articles on some controversial subjects at-hand, would this be sufficient evidence? Has not the scientific method brought us thus far? By what reasoning are we to argue, if the accepted method does not produce acceptable conclusions? Or am I to build a backyard physics lab.. Unfortunately it is reviews by the 'peerage' that perpetuates scientific trash. Is it not obvious to you that they have a vested interest in it. It is their meal ticket and truth is the end of it. They have great futures far, far behind them. You are fortunate. I give it to you for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Originally posted by Alan Cresswell The drunk was quite right and you have not read or understood the text. The vacuum in a light bulb is the aether carrier wave. It canniot be pumped out. Actually there is no vacuum in light bulbs. They are filled with inert gases, usually a nitrogen/argon mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone echo "You're a freaking idiot"; if ($rage > 0) { rant++; } else { function press_Submit(); } He did post it in the right place then. I wouldn't bother having this argument again, it failed to sink in with two people like him and I don't see anything new about his modus operandi. Why waste the energy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garry7.83 Hz Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Wow, do I feel the love in this thread. I ain't even goin there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 The english language lacks the words to express how profoundly ignorant this jackass is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 The vacuum in a light bulb is the aether carrier wave. What about michelson and morley's work with ether? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Ether-filled lightbulbs would be quite funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Originally posted by Alan Cresswell The drunk was quite right and you have not read or understood the text. The vacuum in a light bulb is the aether carrier wave. It canniot be pumped out. A $25 Diagram 4c model proves the existance of a free lunch. A zillion professors may squawk and wail in the piss begotten manner of fafalone but it will not stop the truth and it will not stop the model going on BBC TV See the thing you have to realize, the theory must fit the evidence. Your theory is contrary to the evidence, so you proclaim the evidence to be wrong. This is not how science works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 will not stop the model going on BBC TV What time is it aired? Is it scheduled yet or is it your hopes that it will be.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Originally posted by blike What time is it aired? Is it scheduled yet or is it your hopes that it will be.. I imagine they squeezed it in here somewhere: http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/whatson/prog_parse.cgi?FILENAME=20030213/20030213_1930_4224_55218_30 [edit - the link no longer works, but this pointed to the TV schedules for the BBC. In particular, an episode of "What the Victorians Did for Us" dealing with some zany contraptions] Although with all that comparably credible Victorian science and engineering ingenuity in there it probably won't get much airtime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 :haha: :haha: edit: i need to put a new laughing face, that one looks evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Cresswell Posted February 12, 2003 Author Share Posted February 12, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ Actually there is no vacuum in light bulbs. They are filled with inert gases, usually a nitrogen/argon mix. The first bulbs were vacuum (aether) filled. N/Ar mix came to prevent filament vaporisation. The aether always represented vacuum zero but it was eventually thrown out to accomodate Einstein. Schrodinger and Bohr never liked time relativity. Planck was ambivalent about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 I think you should read the ether thread. As a point of scientific historical interest, the first bulbs did not contain vacuums, as it was not possible to create a full vacuum in a glass bulb at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Originally posted by Alan Cresswell The aether always represented vacuum zero but it was eventually thrown out to accomodate Einstein. Schrodinger and Bohr never liked time relativity. Planck was ambivalent about it. It was thrown out by the use of a michelson Morely interferometer, which demonstrated that there was no aether. It wasn't thrown out to accomodate Einstein, it was just never included in his theories in the first place since there is actually no evidence of an absolute space existing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward It was thrown out by the use of a michelson Morely interferometer, which demonstrated that there was no aether. It wasn't thrown out to accomodate Einstein, it was just never included in his theories in the first place since there is actually no evidence of an absolute space existing. But you're forgetting, that's evidence that goes against the theory, therefore the results were faked by people trying to supress the theory. Have you forgotten the rules of pseudoscience... :toilet: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now