Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death



 Science > Physics > Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Science > Physics
User: "CCRyder"
Date: 08 Jun 2004 11:36:44 PM
Object: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death
At: http://home.cwru.edu/~sjr16/advanced/stars_binvar.html we find the
following nonsense:
"The other way for a binary system to form is if a free star happens
to fall into another star's gravitational pull, and become locked in
orbit because it does not have enough energy to escape. (This is the
same way some planets get their moons: An asteroid is captured by a
planet's gravitational pull.)"
This stuff is going out to the public as if it had everything to do
with the facts. In reality it is pseudoscientific gibberish which has
become the accepted dogma of modern physics and astrophysics academia.
Now it is being presented to the public as if it were genuine
knowledge when it is really nothing of the kind.
Planets are created by the oscillation of their electromagnetotoroid
(EMT). For a link to a model of an EMT go to:
http://www.singtech.com/NewEMT.html
An EMT is a large scale flux loop structure. A primary flux loop
structure can be united with many other such structures because they
are, in effect, bosons. Thus, they easily and readily overlap in the
same momentum space. A large scale flux loop structure can be
composed of a very high density of discrete flux loops or a lower
density. Flux loops are real phenomenal objects. If you don't think
so then I suggest you look at any good photos of the sun's photosphere
which can show magnetic loop structures in profile. We mathematically
model them as vector fields such as Del X H or Del X E (depending
upon the type). And an electromagnetic boson (photon) is an electron
and its charge conjugate in superposition. Think about it; a photon
disassociates into an electron and an anti-electron (positron) during
what is called a pair creation event. Of course, there is nothing
actually being ‘created' but pseudo scientists, being what they are,
have decided to call such an event ‘pair creation' when, in fact, it
is really only a conservative pair transformation event. When an
electron and a positron recombine and produce gamma ray photons the
same pseudoscientific establishment deemed it proper to call such an
event ‘pair annihilation' when, in fact, nothing is being annihilated
at all but, again is only undergoing a conservative transformation
event. But for you who are able to listen, you should realize that a
charged particle and its charge conjugate in superposition produces a
gravitational field. There you have it, the secret to the unification
of electromagnetism and gravity. So simple. But you'll never
actually get there unless you first understand the nature of a charged
particle.
Well, now as you look at the oscillating EMT at the link provided
you'll see that it goes from being an E loop structure (Del X E) which
is expansive where you see that the E flux loop has a small minor
radius and a large major radius to being a magnetic loop structure
(Del X H) which is a self compacting mode which results in a small
major radius and a larger minor radius.
During the compact mode which has the features of an electric dipole
(Del X H mode) mass in the form of quantum scale flux loops are
created in the core along the inner equator. These quantum scale flux
loop systems are nothing less than neutrons. The gravitational
terminus of the flux loop is its toroidal axis. The neutrons begin to
accumulate to that axis and because a gravitational field produces a
charge separation effect electrons from decaying neutrons are
absolutely excluded from the gravitational terminus axis. This allows
the accumulation of only protons and neutrons along that loops. This
ring material I have called Isaacium. Isaac in Hebrew means the
laughter of disbelief. I reckon that most of the pseudo scientists of
this day who believe that they are astrophysicists and cosmologists
will ‘laugh in disbelief' the first time they hear the mention of the
idea that Isaacium rings occur in the cores of stars (and planets).
If the oscillation of the magnitude of the toroidal axis of the major
EMT of a star occurs faster than the Isaacium ring can readjust its
dimensions then the Isaacium ring will be temporarily left out of the
moving gravitational terminus axis and will begin to acquire a cascade
of electrons which previously, because of the charge separation
effect, were excluded from the region where the Isaacium was. This
acquisition of a flood of electrons will produce a flash of x-rays,
gamma rays (plus visible spectrum photons) and will cause the Isaacium
to begin to differentiate into a variety of atomic species. As the
Isaacium fissions into various atomic species it undergoes a huge
volumetric increase which is essentially the same thing as a fission
explosion. If the EMT has a regular oscillation cycle then you'll see
a regularity to the brightening and dampening of the star. This is
the essential aspects of a Cepheid variable. The problem, however, is
that two Cepheid variables may be the same size and therefore
oscillate at the same frequency (have the same period) but one may
have a much less dense flux loop system than the other. Such a
variable star would then produce less matter in its compact mode state
and hence would have less Isaacium to decay and would produce a dimmer
bright period. That star could actually be much closer than a
brighter one. So, there goes the notion that Cepheid variables are
accurate yardsticks. They are nothing of the kind.
Stars and planets are very similar in the fact that both of them
typically will have an active EMT. When a planet's EMT fades it will
stop producing mass and the planet will stop growing. You can see if
you look at the seafloor spreading zones that the Earth has grown in
volume 6.3 fold over its size at the period referred to as the
Jurassic.
See: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/6520/
Planets grow. The moons of planets are created in the same way that
planets are and it isn't by accretion but rather because a planet's
EMT generates mass in the core and by that means a planet increases
its volume. Right now we can see that Io, a moon of Jupiter,
produces tremendously hot lavas; much hotter than any terrestrial
lavas. The mainstream pseudo scientists say that it is tidal
distortion of the planet which causes friction in the interior of the
planet. In fact, that is utter hogwash. Once the magma becomes hot
enough to liquidize then the viscosity drops and the resistance to
shearing is no longer present and hence you can only get magma so hot
by tidal flexing and the lavas coming out of Io are much too hot to be
produced in this manner. In fact, Io has been producing mass in its
core and Io has been growing because of this and has been producing
super hot plumes emerging from its core.
You people are really in the stone age of science to believe all the
rampant pseudoscientific nonsense that the denizens of academia have
been shoving down your throats. When the Earth's EMT undergoes its
next mode change from the E loop mode which it presently is in to the
H-loop mode then it, too, will begin to produce mass at a tremendous
rate. Hundreds of billions of tons per second in the form of
neutrons. This will quickly translate to a rapid rise in lithospheric
tension and then to the failure of the roots of orogens (mountain belt
systems) worldwide. Whole mountain chains will begin rapidly
descending at the rate of hundreds of meters per hour. With the
Earth's EMT in the electric dipole mode there will be intense
radiation storm damage each time there is a solar flare directed at
the Earth. Huge earthquakes and tsunamis will kill hundreds of
millions of people and solar scorching will kill millions more. But
the pseudo scientists of this age are more intent on protecting the
status of the phony knowledge that they have dreamed up than they are
of learning the truth and getting the truth out to the public. This
is as it should be though because it was written that when the seventh
angel should begin to sound that the mystery of God should be
finished. We are now about 250 years into the Seventh Great Day. It
is near midnight. This new physics is part of that mystery and it
reveals the destruction which is about to come upon the Earth.
Wouldn't it be nice if the pseudo scientists in academia had as much
love for their fellow man as they have for their paychecks? But they
don't. Nor do they have a love of the truth. Therefore because they
should have been in a position to warn the public of the coming
dangers they are like sleeping dogs which cannot bark. They love to
slumber and to make up just so stories to lull the public into
believing that they are getting something of value for their money.
But the public also has some blame because they love to hear the
pseudoscience and they pay to educate their sons and daughters in the
same and hence they too will pay the price for their continued support
of pathological science. They will pay the price in the blood and
lives of their sons and daughters. How will you explain your
shortsightedness to your children as they go down to their graves in
terror?
When the wrath of God starts then it will be too late to repent.
Perhaps you should think about repenting now, before it is too late?
-- Peace to the followers of Jesus Christ --
Charles Cagle
antispam measure -> drop the 't' for email.
.

User: "Tom Hole"

Title: Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death 09 Jun 2004 06:03:27 AM
"CCRyder" <cs_cagle@direcway.com> wrote in message
Glad we got that all cleared up.
.

User: "Franz Heymann"

Title: Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death 09 Jun 2004 08:03:22 AM
"CCRyder" <cs_cagle@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:5a4ee64.0406082036.18a42bd@posting.google.com...

At: http://home.cwru.edu/~sjr16/advanced/stars_binvar.html we find

the

following nonsense:

"The other way for a binary system to form is if a free star happens
to fall into another star's gravitational pull, and become locked in
orbit because it does not have enough energy to escape. (This is the
same way some planets get their moons: An asteroid is captured by a
planet's gravitational pull.)"

This stuff is going out to the public as if it had everything to do
with the facts. In reality it is pseudoscientific gibberish which

has

become the accepted dogma of modern physics and astrophysics

academia.

Now it is being presented to the public as if it were genuine
knowledge when it is really nothing of the kind.

Planets are created by the oscillation of their electromagnetotoroid
(EMT). For a link to a model of an EMT go to:
http://www.singtech.com/NewEMT.html

An EMT is a large scale flux loop structure. A primary flux loop
structure can be united with many other such structures because they
are, in effect, bosons.

You appear to have increased your vocabulary. Pity that you don't
realise that you are discussing classical fields here, and the concept
of a boson belongs to QM
[snip]
Tell me if the stuff I snipped differs substantially from your
previous bleatings. If it does, I might read it, for a small fee.
Franz
.

User: "Craig Levine"

Title: Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death 09 Jun 2004 11:16:48 AM
(CCRyder) wrote in message news:<5a4ee64.0406082036.18a42bd@posting.google.com>...
<twaddle snipped>
Long time no hear from Chuckie.
I think I posted this a couple of years ago in reply to one of
your...odd...rants (I didn't creat this. It can be found using a
Google search):
THE CRACKPOT INDEX
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to
physics:
A -5 point starting credit.
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful
correction.
5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results
of a widely accepted real experiment.
5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with
defective keyboards).
5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally
misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this
were evidence of sanity.
10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how
long you have been working on it.
10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally
and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your
ideas will be stolen.
10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds
any flaws in your theory.
10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly
defining it.
10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math,
but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to
express it in terms of equations".
10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only
a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory
predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or
fails to provide a "mechanism".
10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or
claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided
(without good evidence).
10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a
"paradigm shift".
20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index,
e.g. saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I
misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.
20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim
that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good
evidence).
20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they
were fact.
20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined)
ridicule accorded to your past theories.
20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the
orthodoxy".
30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in
a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a
closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between
the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was
groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an
extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time
in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you
out of your theory.
40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis,
stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged
in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved
fame, or suchlike.
40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a
modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated,
present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more
points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who
mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no
concrete testable predictions.
Congratulations on your consisent high scores.
Cordially,
- Craig
.
User: "Sky-High"

Title: Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death 10 Jun 2004 10:43:22 AM
(Craig Levine) wrote in message news:<a59ef9e7.0406090816.2483f15a@posting.google.com>...

cs_cagle@direcway.com (CCRyder) wrote in message news:<5a4ee64.0406082036.18a42bd@posting.google.com>...

<twaddle snipped>

5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

- Craig

No no no no no no no no no and NO!
Its Einstein, not Einstien, and Feynman, not Feynmann.
As for Hawkins, are we talking about Stephen Hawkins, Theoretical
Cosmologist and self-declared atheist, or Stephen HAWKING, Physicist
and Cosmologist?
-sh
.
User: "Franz Heymann"

Title: Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death 10 Jun 2004 02:23:01 PM
"Sky-High" <myql@cheerful.com> wrote in message
news:4b7e67c.0406100743.5056215a@posting.google.com...

Clevine@hfx.eastlink.ca (Craig Levine) wrote in message

news:<a59ef9e7.0406090816.2483f15a@posting.google.com>...

cs_cagle@direcway.com (CCRyder) wrote in message

news:<5a4ee64.0406082036.18a42bd@posting.google.com>...


<twaddle snipped>

5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

- Craig


No no no no no no no no no and NO!

Its Einstein, not Einstien, and Feynman, not Feynmann.

Oh dear.
[snip]
Franz
.

User: "Craig Levine"

Title: Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death 11 Jun 2004 07:54:33 AM
(Sky-High) wrote in message news:<4b7e67c.0406100743.5056215a@posting.google.com>...

Clevine@hfx.eastlink.ca (Craig Levine) wrote in message news:<a59ef9e7.0406090816.2483f15a@posting.google.com>...

cs_cagle@direcway.com (CCRyder) wrote in message news:<5a4ee64.0406082036.18a42bd@posting.google.com>...

<twaddle snipped>

5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

- Craig


No no no no no no no no no and NO!

Its Einstein, not Einstien, and Feynman, not Feynmann.

As for Hawkins, are we talking about Stephen Hawkins, Theoretical
Cosmologist and self-declared atheist, or Stephen HAWKING, Physicist
and Cosmologist?

-sh

:-) Scroll down the list that I posted and you'll see:
"20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index,
e.g. saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I
misspelled "Einstein" in item 8."
Cheers,
- Craig
.

User: "Richard Herring"

Title: Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death 10 Jun 2004 11:16:52 AM
In message <4b7e67c.0406100743.5056215a@posting.google.com>, Sky-High
<myql@cheerful.com> writes

Clevine@hfx.eastlink.ca (Craig Levine) wrote in message
news:<a59ef9e7.0406090816.2483f15a@posting.google.com>...

cs_cagle@direcway.com (CCRyder) wrote in message
news:<5a4ee64.0406082036.18a42bd@posting.google.com>...

<twaddle snipped>

5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

- Craig


No no no no no no no no no and NO!

Its Einstein, not Einstien, and Feynman, not Feynmann.

<fx:whhhhhhhhhhhhhhoooooooooooooooosssssssssssshhhhhhhhh>


As for Hawkins, are we talking about Stephen Hawkins, Theoretical
Cosmologist and self-declared atheist,

whom?

or Stephen HAWKING, Physicist
and Cosmologist?

-sh

--
Richard Herring
.

User: "Creighton Hogg"

Title: Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death 10 Jun 2004 10:53:42 AM
On 10 Jun 2004, Sky-High wrote:

Clevine@hfx.eastlink.ca (Craig Levine) wrote in message news:<a59ef9e7.0406090816.2483f15a@posting.google.com>...

cs_cagle@direcway.com (CCRyder) wrote in message news:<5a4ee64.0406082036.18a42bd@posting.google.com>...

<twaddle snipped>

5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

- Craig


No no no no no no no no no and NO!

Its Einstein, not Einstien, and Feynman, not Feynmann.

As for Hawkins, are we talking about Stephen Hawkins, Theoretical
Cosmologist and self-declared atheist, or Stephen HAWKING, Physicist
and Cosmologist?

Huh? The misspellings were on purpose. He was quoting the Crackpot
Index, and the Index was making fun of the most common mistakes on their
names made by people on usenet.
.


User: "gswork"

Title: Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death 10 Jun 2004 02:45:39 AM
(Craig Levine) wrote in message news:<a59ef9e7.0406090816.2483f15a@posting.google.com>...

cs_cagle@direcway.com (CCRyder) wrote in message news:<5a4ee64.0406082036.18a42bd@posting.google.com>...

<twaddle snipped>

Long time no hear from Chuckie.

I think I posted this a couple of years ago in reply to one of
your...odd...rants (I didn't creat this. It can be found using a
Google search):

[snipped]
I like that list. I've read a few 'crackpot' theorists and do indeed
see these points in many of their posts.
several things surprise me about the people who generate these
theories though:
a) not given due process in peer review, maybe because peers are part
of the 'conspiracy', but then you'd think the truth of their theory
would shine through by experimentation in a scientific community that
resists new ideas naturally, but really does cave in when the
experiments give consistent data. I have reada couple of them claim
that their theory is about to hit the big time, and peer review, this
is good - if it happens
b) These theories are not often idle or intellect-free musings, they
are often quite intricately constructed drawing on quite a broad cross
section of skills and have clearly received quite some effort over
time, even if they fall over due to an inconsitency on page 1. This
makes them somewhat sad, a wasted effort perhaps, a lost intellect.
Such is the commitment devoted to the theory that (ironically like the
scientists they hold in low regard) the purveyor is unwilling to 'let
go' of it.
Overall i think a bit of crackpot theory is good, it stirs the pot
(well, at least a good one can) and actually helps re-affirm the
veracity of the theory they set out to depose by confirming that even
a reasonably well thought out attempt to offer an alterantive doesn't
cut it.
Very occasionally there is 'crackpot' theory which does in time turn
out to be true, the qualitative difference is that such theories are
self-consistent and lend themselves to some kind of experimental proof
(or support anyway)
.
User: "Midjis"

Title: Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death 10 Jun 2004 04:31:12 AM
(gswork) wrote:

b) These theories are not often idle or intellect-free musings, they
are often quite intricately constructed drawing on quite a broad cross
section of skills and have clearly received quite some effort over
time, even if they fall over due to an inconsitency on page 1. This
makes them somewhat sad, a wasted effort perhaps, a lost intellect.
Such is the commitment devoted to the theory that (ironically like the
scientists they hold in low regard) the purveyor is unwilling to 'let
go' of it.

That is certainly a good point. Such posters, whilst frequently
demonstrating a total lack of grip on reality, can rarely be accused of
outright stupidity.
The majority of my Usenet time has been spent on one of the Christian
newsgroups (it is a long story - I am not Christian myself but find there
are often interesting discussions going on there).
A particularly good example of the above phenomenon is - or was - the
gentleman who would regularly appear and post lengthy and quite complex
lectures about various topics, each aiming to prove that the Book of
Genesis in the Christian Bible in fact fits in perfectly with scientific
discoveries about how the universe came to be. He has been quite quiet
of late, but maintains a website that explains earnestly how 'God
described the planetary density profile', amongst other things.
But yes, the effort involved in the formulation of his own claims was
considerable. The sheer determination that must have been applied to
seizing and warping the science that he needed and rejecting that which
he could not use. And one is forced to wonder if, underneath the
religious fanaticism, there is not a deep interest in science somewhere
in there that has sadly gone to waste.
--
Midjis
~~
ama semper quisquis noces
.

User: "Creighton Hogg"

Title: Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death 10 Jun 2004 11:17:15 AM
On 10 Jun 2004, gswork wrote:
<snip>

b) These theories are not often idle or intellect-free musings, they
are often quite intricately constructed drawing on quite a broad cross
section of skills and have clearly received quite some effort over
time, even if they fall over due to an inconsitency on page 1. This
makes them somewhat sad, a wasted effort perhaps, a lost intellect.
Such is the commitment devoted to the theory that (ironically like the
scientists they hold in low regard) the purveyor is unwilling to 'let
go' of it.

Overall i think a bit of crackpot theory is good, it stirs the pot
(well, at least a good one can) and actually helps re-affirm the
veracity of the theory they set out to depose by confirming that even
a reasonably well thought out attempt to offer an alterantive doesn't
cut it.

Well my two cents is that the difference between a "crackpot" theory and a
real theory is the person creating it. If this person is capable of
admitting error, learning from his mistakes, and understands the
importance of learning in detail the experimental results we currently
have and the rationale for currently used theory, then all is well.
Afterall, actual physicists come up with pretty crazy ideas all the time,
and when their crazy ideas work then all the better. When they don't
work, they move on with their lives.
What makes a person a "crackpot" is when they don't admit their mistakes,
don't look at the evidence, don't move on. Most of the time they seem to
develop a "prophetic" complex, where they begin to see themselves as the
lone voices of truth and reason in a world of conspiracy and corruption.
.



User: "Midjis"

Title: Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death 09 Jun 2004 04:31:21 AM
(CCRyder) wrote:

This stuff is going out to the public as if it had everything to do
with the facts. In reality it is pseudoscientific gibberish which has
become the accepted dogma of modern physics and astrophysics academia.
Now it is being presented to the public as if it were genuine
knowledge when it is really nothing of the kind.

I have no qualifications in astrophysics. My knowledge of physics
extends as far as a GCSE (British secondary school) qualification and
many years of casual interest. So I am completely unqualified to ask
this question, but I am going to ask it anyway:
If something is the 'accepted dogma of modern physics and astrophysics
academia', then is it not reasonable for the public also to accept such
'dogma' until we are told otherwise? Why should we reject a model that
seems to conform with what we are told of gravity and other factors? As
I said, I am not qualified to challenge your remarks about
'electromagnetotoroids', but I have always believed that science is about
disproving things. So I would be interested to see you show that binary
systems are *not* formed by the capture of one star by another.
Remember, you scorn the idea that this could be, so you must show that
this has never happened for your scorn of 'current dogma' to be
justified.
But then, having read the remainder of your post, particularly your
comments on your 'Isaacium', it is clear that you are fully expecting to
be mocked, and indeed that you welcome such so that you can rail against
'pseudo-scientists'.
By the way, to the best of my knowledge "Isaac" simply means "he laughs".
--
Midjis
~~
ama semper quisquis noces
.
User: "Franz Heymann"

Title: Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death 09 Jun 2004 08:03:20 AM
"Midjis" < @ . > wrote in message
news:Xns95036B261357DLibriumLibertasEst@217.32.252.50...

cs_cagle@direcway.com (CCRyder) wrote:

This stuff is going out to the public as if it had everything to

do

with the facts. In reality it is pseudoscientific gibberish which

has

become the accepted dogma of modern physics and astrophysics

academia.

Now it is being presented to the public as if it were genuine
knowledge when it is really nothing of the kind.


I have no qualifications in astrophysics. My knowledge of physics
extends as far as a GCSE (British secondary school) qualification

and

many years of casual interest. So I am completely unqualified to

ask

this question, but I am going to ask it anyway:

If something is the 'accepted dogma of modern physics and

astrophysics

academia', then is it not reasonable for the public also to accept

such

'dogma' until we are told otherwise? Why should we reject a model

that

seems to conform with what we are told of gravity and other factors?

As

I said, I am not qualified to challenge your remarks about
'electromagnetotoroids', but I have always believed that science is

about

disproving things. So I would be interested to see you show that

binary

systems are *not* formed by the capture of one star by another.
Remember, you scorn the idea that this could be, so you must show

that

this has never happened for your scorn of 'current dogma' to be
justified.

But then, having read the remainder of your post, particularly your
comments on your 'Isaacium', it is clear that you are fully

expecting to

be mocked, and indeed that you welcome such so that you can rail

against

'pseudo-scientists'.

By the way, to the best of my knowledge "Isaac" simply means "he

laughs".
Rest assured that with your GCSE in physics, you know more physics
than our little Charles Cagle, even if he has been transmogrified
into CCRyder.
He is full of ***** and insists on making a song about it. He has
spouted his verbal horse manure about 'electromagnetotoroids' for
years and years. In spite of very many attempts by readers to get him
to flesh out his nonsense with a bit of quantitative backup, he has
failed totally to do anything of the kind.
He will, of course bluster yet again, but he will not answer this note
of mine with some actual calculations.
If you want to get him really angry, you will ask him how many more
people he has recently conned into giving him money to build his
table-top nuclear power source.
Franz
.


User: "Sam Wormley"

Title: Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death 09 Jun 2004 07:21:02 AM
CCRyder wrote:


[crap snipped]
Crank Information
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CCTerminus.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Singularity+Technologies%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
http://www.rense.com/earthchanges/frenchfry.htm
http://www.teleport.com/~singtech/wrath.html
.

User: "John Steinberg"

Title: Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death 09 Jun 2004 07:51:13 AM
CCRyder wrote:

When the wrath of God starts then it will be too late to repent.
Perhaps you should think about repenting now, before it is too late?

Canadapharmacy.com is running a special on Thorazine this week.
Suggest you stock up!
--
-John ``Born Right the First Time'' Steinberg, High Epopt,
Living Slack Master, Church of the SubGenius.
.

User: "Uncle Al"

Title: Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death 09 Jun 2004 09:34:43 AM
CCRyder wrote:
[snip]

Planets are created by the oscillation of their electromagnetotoroid
(EMT).

[snip]

Charles Cagle

Idiot.
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
<http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
<http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(The parity Eotvos experiment is queued)
.

User: "P Theakston"

Title: Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death 09 Jun 2004 06:11:03 PM
Dear Charles and other posters,
For the sake of it, I will repeat your earlier message in full (for my
retention and comments etc)
"CCRyder" <cs_cagle@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:5a4ee64.0406082036.18a42bd@posting.google.com...

At: http://home.cwru.edu/~sjr16/advanced/stars_binvar.html we find the
following nonsense:

"The other way for a binary system to form is if a free star happens
to fall into another star's gravitational pull, and become locked in
orbit because it does not have enough energy to escape. (This is the
same way some planets get their moons: An asteroid is captured by a
planet's gravitational pull.)"

This stuff is going out to the public as if it had everything to do
with the facts. In reality it is pseudoscientific gibberish which has
become the accepted dogma of modern physics and astrophysics academia.
Now it is being presented to the public as if it were genuine
knowledge when it is really nothing of the kind.

Planets are created by the oscillation of their electromagnetotoroid
(EMT). For a link to a model of an EMT go to:
http://www.singtech.com/NewEMT.html

An EMT is a large scale flux loop structure. A primary flux loop
structure can be united with many other such structures because they
are, in effect, bosons. Thus, they easily and readily overlap in the
same momentum space. A large scale flux loop structure can be
composed of a very high density of discrete flux loops or a lower
density. Flux loops are real phenomenal objects. If you don't think
so then I suggest you look at any good photos of the sun's photosphere
which can show magnetic loop structures in profile. We mathematically
model them as vector fields such as Del X H or Del X E (depending
upon the type). And an electromagnetic boson (photon) is an electron
and its charge conjugate in superposition. Think about it; a photon
disassociates into an electron and an anti-electron (positron) during
what is called a pair creation event. Of course, there is nothing
actually being 'created' but pseudo scientists, being what they are,
have decided to call such an event 'pair creation' when, in fact, it
is really only a conservative pair transformation event. When an
electron and a positron recombine and produce gamma ray photons the
same pseudoscientific establishment deemed it proper to call such an
event 'pair annihilation' when, in fact, nothing is being annihilated
at all but, again is only undergoing a conservative transformation
event. But for you who are able to listen, you should realize that a
charged particle and its charge conjugate in superposition produces a
gravitational field. There you have it, the secret to the unification
of electromagnetism and gravity. So simple. But you'll never
actually get there unless you first understand the nature of a charged
particle.

Well, now as you look at the oscillating EMT at the link provided
you'll see that it goes from being an E loop structure (Del X E) which
is expansive where you see that the E flux loop has a small minor
radius and a large major radius to being a magnetic loop structure
(Del X H) which is a self compacting mode which results in a small
major radius and a larger minor radius.

During the compact mode which has the features of an electric dipole
(Del X H mode) mass in the form of quantum scale flux loops are
created in the core along the inner equator. These quantum scale flux
loop systems are nothing less than neutrons. The gravitational
terminus of the flux loop is its toroidal axis. The neutrons begin to
accumulate to that axis and because a gravitational field produces a
charge separation effect electrons from decaying neutrons are
absolutely excluded from the gravitational terminus axis. This allows
the accumulation of only protons and neutrons along that loops. This
ring material I have called Isaacium. Isaac in Hebrew means the
laughter of disbelief. I reckon that most of the pseudo scientists of
this day who believe that they are astrophysicists and cosmologists
will 'laugh in disbelief' the first time they hear the mention of the
idea that Isaacium rings occur in the cores of stars (and planets).

If the oscillation of the magnitude of the toroidal axis of the major
EMT of a star occurs faster than the Isaacium ring can readjust its
dimensions then the Isaacium ring will be temporarily left out of the
moving gravitational terminus axis and will begin to acquire a cascade
of electrons which previously, because of the charge separation
effect, were excluded from the region where the Isaacium was. This
acquisition of a flood of electrons will produce a flash of x-rays,
gamma rays (plus visible spectrum photons) and will cause the Isaacium
to begin to differentiate into a variety of atomic species. As the
Isaacium fissions into various atomic species it undergoes a huge
volumetric increase which is essentially the same thing as a fission
explosion. If the EMT has a regular oscillation cycle then you'll see
a regularity to the brightening and dampening of the star. This is
the essential aspects of a Cepheid variable. The problem, however, is
that two Cepheid variables may be the same size and therefore
oscillate at the same frequency (have the same period) but one may
have a much less dense flux loop system than the other. Such a
variable star would then produce less matter in its compact mode state
and hence would have less Isaacium to decay and would produce a dimmer
bright period. That star could actually be much closer than a
brighter one. So, there goes the notion that Cepheid variables are
accurate yardsticks. They are nothing of the kind.

Stars and planets are very similar in the fact that both of them
typically will have an active EMT. When a planet's EMT fades it will
stop producing mass and the planet will stop growing. You can see if
you look at the seafloor spreading zones that the Earth has grown in
volume 6.3 fold over its size at the period referred to as the
Jurassic.

See: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/6520/

Planets grow. The moons of planets are created in the same way that
planets are and it isn't by accretion but rather because a planet's
EMT generates mass in the core and by that means a planet increases
its volume. Right now we can see that Io, a moon of Jupiter,
produces tremendously hot lavas; much hotter than any terrestrial
lavas. The mainstream pseudo scientists say that it is tidal
distortion of the planet which causes friction in the interior of the
planet. In fact, that is utter hogwash. Once the magma becomes hot
enough to liquidize then the viscosity drops and the resistance to
shearing is no longer present and hence you can only get magma so hot
by tidal flexing and the lavas coming out of Io are much too hot to be
produced in this manner. In fact, Io has been producing mass in its
core and Io has been growing because of this and has been producing
super hot plumes emerging from its core.

You people are really in the stone age of science to believe all the
rampant pseudoscientific nonsense that the denizens of academia have
been shoving down your throats. When the Earth's EMT undergoes its
next mode change from the E loop mode which it presently is in to the
H-loop mode then it, too, will begin to produce mass at a tremendous
rate. Hundreds of billions of tons per second in the form of
neutrons. This will quickly translate to a rapid rise in lithospheric
tension and then to the failure of the roots of orogens (mountain belt
systems) worldwide. Whole mountain chains will begin rapidly
descending at the rate of hundreds of meters per hour. With the
Earth's EMT in the electric dipole mode there will be intense
radiation storm damage each time there is a solar flare directed at
the Earth. Huge earthquakes and tsunamis will kill hundreds of
millions of people and solar scorching will kill millions more. But
the pseudo scientists of this age are more intent on protecting the
status of the phony knowledge that they have dreamed up than they are
of learning the truth and getting the truth out to the public. This
is as it should be though because it was written that when the seventh
angel should begin to sound that the mystery of God should be
finished. We are now about 250 years into the Seventh Great Day. It
is near midnight. This new physics is part of that mystery and it
reveals the destruction which is about to come upon the Earth.
Wouldn't it be nice if the pseudo scientists in academia had as much
love for their fellow man as they have for their paychecks? But they
don't. Nor do they have a love of the truth. Therefore because they
should have been in a position to warn the public of the coming
dangers they are like sleeping dogs which cannot bark. They love to
slumber and to make up just so stories to lull the public into
believing that they are getting something of value for their money.
But the public also has some blame because they love to hear the
pseudoscience and they pay to educate their sons and daughters in the
same and hence they too will pay the price for their continued support
of pathological science. They will pay the price in the blood and
lives of their sons and daughters. How will you explain your
shortsightedness to your children as they go down to their graves in
terror?

When the wrath of God starts then it will be too late to repent.
Perhaps you should think about repenting now, before it is too late?

-- Peace to the followers of Jesus Christ --

Charles Cagle

antispam measure -> drop the 't' for email.

Charles Cagle,
It is not for me to question your somewhat "alternative theories" etc.,
because I do not know the precise details, but I can at least assure you
that such theories as you have proposed are most interesting and ought to be
considered in a professional sense (in my view).
You wrote:
"This stuff is going out to the public as if it had everything to do with
the facts"
and,
"In reality it is pseudoscientific gibberish which has become the accepted
dogma of modern physics and astrophysics academia. Now it is being presented
to the public as if it were genuine knowledge when it is really nothing of
the kind."
Spot-on!!!
Absolutely!!!
Cheers
John
.

User: "Richard Herring"

Title: Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death 09 Jun 2004 04:51:45 AM
In message <5a4ee64.0406082036.18a42bd@posting.google.com>, CCRyder
<cs_cagle@direcway.com> writes

This stuff is going out to the public as if it had everything to do
with the facts. In reality it is pseudoscientific gibberish
Now it is being presented to the public as if it were genuine
knowledge when it is really nothing of the kind.

--
Richard Herring
.

User: "Richard Herring"

Title: Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death 09 Jun 2004 04:55:06 AM
In message <5a4ee64.0406082036.18a42bd@posting.google.com>, CCRyder
<cs_cagle@direcway.com> writes
[apocalypse snipped]

much
love for their fellow man as they have for their paychecks? But they
don't. Nor do they have a love of the truth. Therefore because they
should have been in a position to warn the public of the coming
dangers they are like sleeping dogs which cannot bark.

Just supposing, for the sake of argument, that your nonsense were
actually the case:
What would you expect them to *do* with this warning?
--
Richard Herring
.
User: "Etok"

Title: Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death 09 Jun 2004 01:25:51 PM
Richard Herring wrote:

In message <5a4ee64.0406082036.18a42bd@posting.google.com>, CCRyder
<cs_cagle@direcway.com> writes

[apocalypse snipped]

much
love for their fellow man as they have for their paychecks? But they
don't. Nor do they have a love of the truth. Therefore because they
should have been in a position to warn the public of the coming
dangers they are like sleeping dogs which cannot bark.



Just supposing, for the sake of argument, that your nonsense were
actually the case:

What would you expect them to *do* with this warning?

There ya go. Spot-on! All this blather and spew and it will still take
3 minutes to cook a soft-boiled egg.
regards,
Etok
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

.


User: "Franz Heymann"

Title: Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death 09 Jun 2004 12:00:50 AM
[snip]
You again, with the same old horse manure.
[snip]
Franz
.


  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
 

NEWER

pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER