Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So explain how that website relates to any of Alfvens work?
For example Einstein's led to the prediction of black holes, even though he did not like the idea himself. A work does not pass or fail only on the work of the writer of it but also by other who come after and see what the work predicts.
Can you tell us the name of the scientist ? and how the theory leading to the postulated existence of black holes was derived from Einstein's Relativity?A little history records of the development of the "black holes" theory -using the original papers equations -would be appreciated.
Can you tell us the name of the scientist ? and how the theory leading to the postulated existence of black holes was derived from Einstein's Relativity?A little history records of the development of the "black holes" theory -using the original papers equations -would be appreciated.
Also Michael you have never been clear exactly what you believe and why. It is not a valid excuse to say "I don't believe that part of a theory". It is not like the Bible, in science you don't get to pick and choose which parts of a theory you like.
We could start with this thread that explains some of EU's short comings:
Neutrino Dreaming: The Electric Universe Theory Debunked
Einstein's theory does not predict nor support black holes.
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2006/PP-05-10.PDF
Nor did he support them in the slightest.
http://www.cscamm.umd.edu/tiglio/GR2012/Syllabus_files/EinsteinSchwarzschild.pdf
Pure fabricated Fairie Dust.
Why not? You do. You choose to believe that 99% of the universe is irrelevant.
We already covered that and debunked that site, starting with your still missing neutrinos.
Comments on the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Report
And then we showed your convection problem is 100 orders too small to support your theory.
Anomalously weak solar convection
Yet you decided to pick and choose and ignore both problems and pretend they do not exist.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7804894-2/#post65033060
And your attempt to appeal to authority to dismiss evidence is useless and a fallacy.
Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You do this because you have no evidence, just Fairie Dust theories.
Nope, once again when it comes to science you always fail.
Your first site was written by nuts. It was not written by someone who understood physics. Your next link had nothing to do with the argument at hand. And your final Wiki link shows that you do not understand the argument from authority logical error.
Let's start with your final and worst error first. There are times it is valid to use an authority. You go to an astrophysicist when you want to discuss the universe on a gross scale. That is perfectly legitimate. You do not go to an astrophysicist for automotive advice.
So if I used the argument Dr so and so is a PhD in Cosmology and he says the carburetor is acting up that would be an "Argument from authority". If I go to a astrophysicist for advice on why galaxies spin to fast that would not be an argument from authority.
Do you understand your error?
Your site was written by someone not even once published, just the typical hater.
Address the evidence.
Tell me, how do you know the number of neutrinos leaving the sun if you have never taken a measurement there? Are you ASSUMING you know the number and type? Are you neutrino dreaming?
QUESTION: Consider a freight train that goes from New York to Chicago. We live in Chicago and are only able to observe the train as it arrives in Chicago. It arrives with 4 freight cars, 2 tank cars, and 1 flat car. How is it possible, no matter how sophisticated our method of observation, for us to make any conclusions about whether freight cars, tank cars, or flat cars have been added to or subtracted from the train at, say, Cleveland? Moreover, how is it possible to say that freight cars have mysteriously turned into tank cars or flat cars along the route somewhere? (And do it with 99% confidence?)
But you, you can assure me that by taking a measurement on one end of the transmission line from sun to earth, you can tell me what types left the sun.
My site was written by an astronomer. What evidence do you have that she was never published. And "hater" is a code word that EU people use for "someone that can prove I am wrong". So thank you for admitting that you are wrong. If there was any evidence of some actual hate it would not be so obvious. Perhaps you guys should choose another code word.
Every claim made is an assumption, since the MiniBooNE experiment ruled out with 98% certainty any changing of muon into electron neutrinos. Which actually hurt your case if they did change flavors, as it is the electron neutrinos in short supply, and those are required by your theory, not the other ones. I don't think you understand your own theory of a nuclear core. The short supply of electron neutrinos doesn't affect EU theory at all, just yours.No assumptions are being made. Reread the article, you did not understand it.
Assuming cars change form, how can you tell when and where they changed, if you do NOT know what quantity they started out as? Show me one measurement of neutrinos as they exited the sun???????????????This is a typical failed analogy on your part. It has been shown that neutrinos can change form. You need to have an analogy where "cars" changes form. Where a new source of "cars" would be obvious. Oh wait, if you did that there would be no point in your failed analogy.
We have already gone over this. Alfven's work could be used to make predictions by people who can do the math.
It does not matter if Alfven himself did not predict it. For example Einstein's led to the prediction of black holes, even though he did not like the idea himself.
A work does not pass or fail only on the work of the writer of it but also by other who come after and see what the work predicts.
This article gives a history of Black Holes. Though Schwarzchild first calculated what the radius would be he did not believe the existed:
You are correct, but therein lies the rub. Schwarzchild's "solution" wasn't the same as Hilbert's.
You seem to be strongly emotionally attached to the notion of infinite density. Why? The concept completely defies everything we know about particle physics, and specifically violates the Pauli-exclusion principle.
Like Einstein, I personally entertain the concept of *very dense*, but not infinitely dense objects. I personally prefer a neutron core solution to that problem, but there are other equally viable options on the table, including ideas related to QM. None of them *require* a zero radius solution.
[1401.6562] Planck stars
Why are you so emotionally attached to a zero radius solution in the first place, and please tell me it's not because of some random guy from some random website that stayed at a holiday inn express last night?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?