Poemander

It is quite possible to construct a theory based on a false hypothesis and continue to create further ad hoc hypotheses to cover an entourage of anomalies as long as they keep on coming forth. This situation is true for both Big Bang Theory (Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Asymmetric Matter-Antimatter Reactions, Decomposing Dark Matter) and Quantum Theory (first created as a massless speed of light particle with negligible interaction with matter, explaining the range of beta emissions, and becoming a magic entity [non-conservational] like BigBangium] making it a panacaea of ad hoc covers across both extreme disciplines, from sub-PARTICLE physics [let’s face it] to cosmology!!!). Would you grant that Albert Einstein is a reputable scientist that has produced reputable theories? Have we read that he both conceived of the quantum of electromagnetic radiation with E = hv, (v = frequency) and also dabbled in cosmology with unparalleled success? Yet he said that "the further they go with quantum physics the more laughable it gets." Yet he was honest enough to declare that his ad hoc “cosmological constant” was his greatest blunder! Still he dabbled in Steady State "Einstein’s Lost Theory Describes a Universe Without a Big Bang", Was he incapable of imagining a Big Bang as a possibility, or did he recognise it as an impossibility while Astronomer Hubble could not? http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2014/03/07/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang/#.XIihhyIzZhE He was too old to survive until the anti-proton was detected in 1956. We don't just need to make new discoveries to advance science. We need to overturn hypotheses that, firstly contradict established hypotheses, or choose between conflicting hypotheses. Secondly, we need to choose to abandon or modify hypotheses that yield anomalies. Those hypotheses that spawn successful technologies are trustworthy, while many steals their credence unworthily by assuming the title Science as described above, to the deception of Civilization and we all pay the price. Perhaps, until we are back far enough to see the forest, we cannot see enough trees yet to make a sound judgement. Einstein was there in spades and had read the Bible and the Talmud forming an opinion about Jesus shared by few in this time of extreme specialisation, including those from prelates (“Christianity is an insult to the intelligence”). We have, in my view, uncovered much but mixed with some inevitable false inferences which are an inevitable consequence of proper scientific methodology and scientific revolutions. Much prejudice is alleviated if we accept the Philosopher’s Stone, the touch stone of the Philosophical Mind. Consciousness is the first cause, anciently called Spirit, and ‘spirit’ is still used in that sense. A Cosmology so generated is indistinguishable from the manifold of senses that produces our conscious physical lives and the objects of science. Further, a theory that is indistinguishable from an alternative is logically equivalent. In the physical, we can only test the physical, but must not forget the pragmatic – history and its evidence. These blinkers are attributed to Aristotle and overturned in Einstein’s writings. I am proud to share his notoriety to any extent and will go to the masters in all fields every time. Money doesn’t talk – it swears – but it is the only language most will heed, so we must live with its evils. Its power is in who’s hands today? As prophesised to the one who received the Philosopher’s Stone (by tradition), the Jews. This is a very long shot for coincidence – the explanation of liars and fools – and only one of many from the same book. To conclude and begin my next thread – which was to an extent my first and torpedoed by the same judge of sanity – science is made to conform under blind faith in Mainstream hypotheses without proper reason. I am exploring the validity of hypotheses and trying to turn minds to the same. I have given possibilities of such. The only absolute of truth is consistency, logical and pragmatic. “And yet you have not acknowledged that your hypothesis contradicts established theory, and experimental evidence. Since you have indicated that you will not be doing this, we're done.” Please excuse my impudence. I value your input and respect, even envy, your knowledge. Here however “Established theory” is being questioned, in terms of its irreducible and fundamental hypotheses. As outlined above, and according to extensive studies at UNSW (discontinued and under another name), if this is logic on your part, please explain. Consistency certainly demands some review. I welcome alternatives, not “you may only quote the little red book or receive the extreme displeasure of the party!” much less “Heresy! From his own mouth! What further evidence do we need!” This is not science, it is regression to what you profess to abhor. For my next thread, let us now explain this (from Wiki). Presumably Wiki is not pseudoscience. I have over the years noted the expulsion of non-Mainstream doctrine AND evidence (E.g. PatienceYost.pdf) from Wiki. “The giant-impact hypothesis, sometimes called the Big Splash, or the Theia Impact suggests that the Moon formed out of the debris left over from a collision between Earth and an astronomical body the size of Mars, approximately 4.5 billion years ago, in the Hadean eon; about 20 to 100 million years after the Solar System coalesced.[1] The colliding body is sometimes called Theia, from the name of the mythical Greek Titan who was the mother of Selene, the goddess of the Moon.[2] Analysis of lunar rocks, published in a 2016 report, suggests that the impact may have been a direct hit, causing a thorough mixing of both parent bodies.[3] The giant-impact hypothesis is currently the favored scientific hypothesis for the formation of the Moon.[4] Supporting evidence includes: Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.[5] Moon samples indicate that the Moon's surface was once molten. The Moon has a relatively small iron core. The Moon has a lower density than Earth. There is evidence in other star systems of similar collisions, resulting in debris disks. Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the Solar System. The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.[6]” 1. There was not time, under this hypothesis to create the homogeneity of two isotopes of Titanium discovered in moon rock and the lithosphere. 2. Mars, only twice the size of the Moon, sports the largest (extinct) volcano in the solar system. The Moon’s lack of a core and tectonic activity is not consistent with such an origin, but rather with extraction from the mantle. 3. The Moon’s synchronous rotation is attributed to “tidal drag”. Is there mathematics to support this claim. 4. Forty-five Solar System moons out of thousands (all sizes) alone have synchronous rotation. 5. There were twice as many meteor strikes during the Ordovician than today. This is very recent for the 4600 MY Earth. Could this have been the time when a planet between Mars and Jupiter exploded, due to forces akin to and synchronous with the real explanation for our Moon’s existence, and very different far side geology? 6. Why are so many early multicellular evolutions dependent on fresh waters when they are presumed to have begun their tenure in marine environments they cannot tolerate at all? Are petroleum, coal, limestone and WATER all biological productions perhaps? 7. Why would the protons from the solar wind not burn in oxygen, burn holes in the ozone in the Southern Hemisphere, electrons make Green cathode ray colours in the North, protons make Red sprites and Red Auroras (meeting Green from the Earth) in the South, and generate thereby a massive ice sheet in Antarctica while the Northern Ice sheet alone disappears summer and winter from global warming, making Polar Bears migrate into inhabited regions?

BEECEE it is quite possible to construct a theory based on a false hypothesis, and continue to create further ad hoc hypotheses to cover an entourage of anomalies as long as they keep on coming up with them. This situation is true for both Big Bang Theory and Quantum Theory. Would you grant that Albert Einstein is a reputable scientist that has produced reputable stuff. Have yoy read that he both conceived of the quantum of electromagnetic radiation having E = planc's constant times frequency to explain the emission of electrons only by a minimum threshold frequency? Yet he said that "the further they go with quantum physics the more laughable it gets." And lately "Einstein’s Lost Theory Describes a Universe Without a Big Bang" has been uncovered: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2014/03/07/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang/#.XIihhyIzZhE He was too old to survive to see the anti-proton detected in 1956. We don't just need to make new discoveries to advance science. We need to overturn hypotheses that, firstly contradict established hypotheses, or choose between conflicting hypotheses. Secondly, we need to choose to abandon or modify hypotheses that yield anomalies. Those hypotheses that spawn successful technologies are trustworthy, while many steal their credence unworthily by assuming the title Science as described above, to the deception of Civilization and may pay the price. Perhaps, until we are back far enough to see the forest, we cannot see enough trees yet to make a sound judgement. Einstein was there in spades, and had read the Bible and the Talmud forming an opinion about Jesus shared by few in this time of extreme specialisation, including prelates.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank all who have participated in this thread. Those who trust all of the hypotheses underlying Mainstream may or may not have critically assessed their validity independently, and I am now too old for such an undertaking. If any who read are so inclined and have not hired out all their available time beyond other commitments, you may consider variants of my ideas. I simply can not accept Big Bang as more plausible (or rather as less preposterous) than Steady State. To this end I pin a letter I have sent to Nexus Magazine. PS How do I put an icon up for a little more notoriety? Nexus (Pseudoscience).pdf

Q. If you're rejecting existence of neutrons, then you are rejecting nuclear bombs and nuclear powerplants all together, as hoaxes, misinformation and world conspiracy? Neutrons are essential for fission to work in nuclear powerplants.. If you bombard otherwise stable isotope by free neutrons, nuclei can capture free neutrons and change to other stable isotope or to unstable isotope which will decay after a while, or it can cause fission like in reaction of Uranium 235. A. A neutron is a combination of a proton and a relativistic electron. Mainstream holds that the neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino of the electron type. In the first step, a uranium-235 atom absorbs a neutron, and splits into two new atoms (fission fragments), releasing three new neutrons and a large amount of binding energy. This 'binding energy' has a source, the electrons that left as a part of the neutrons have surrendered some of the energy. We now suppose that the free neutrons release the remaining energy as an antineutrino of the electron type. But how certain is any of this. The energy carried away by neutrons would vary according to the source. Are we specifically talking about the neutron that Ra + Be emits. Is it the same as that formed by U235 -> Ba + Kr + 3n? Energy will be emitted halving the total U Bomb blast energy every 10.3 minutes by the breakdown of neutrons of assorted energies. Furthermore I am inclined to believe that a neutrino is the 'antiparticle' of the photon with a range of energies the same, and completely symmetrical in behaviour to an observer within an antigalaxy. That observer will consider photons to be neutrinos, having little effect on that observer's type of matter. If these antiprotons are indeed symmetric, they must also be gravitationally attracted by antimatter, and repelled by matter. It is further likely that, like in materialisation, all or most means of generating photons also produce neutrinos, which go unnoticed. Can this be contested? An hypothesis is not a manifestation of insanity. But it does require individuals like those we must thank for our science. "Most people are incapable of expressing opinions that are not a part of their social environment. Fewer still are capable of forming such opinions." A.E.

Q. How are the opinions of a chess player relevant? A. Excerpts from CHESS MANIAC-FRIDAY, JANUARY 23RD, 2015 Albert Einstein and Chess In 1920, Einstein said there were but 12 men in the world who understood what he was talking about in regard to relativity. Emanuel Lasker was a critic of the theory of relativity at the time. Lasker thought Einstein's theory of relativity was wrong and that the speed of light was limited due to particles in space. Lasker did not think there was a perfect vacuum. In 1927 Einstein and Emanuel Lasker were living in Berlin and they became good friends. Lasker lived virtually around the corner from the Einsteins, at Aschaffenburgerstrasse No, 6a, in the Schoeneberg district of Berlin. In December 1928 Einstein wrote to Dr. Emanuel Lasker, congratulating him on his 60th birthday. Einstein wrote, "Emanuel Lasker is one of the strongest minds I ever met in my life. A Renaissance man, gifted with an untameable urge for liberty; averse to any social bonds.... As a genuine individualist and self-willed soul, he loves deduction; and inductive research leaves him cold.... I love his writings, irrespective of their content of truth, as the fruits of a great original and free mind." In 1931 a pamphlet was written called One Hundred Authors Against Einstein. One of the authors was Emanuel Lasker. Now I must justify myself because I never considered in detail, either in writing or in our conversations, Emanuel Lasker's critical essay on the theory of relativity. It is indeed necessary for me to say something about it here because even in his biography, which is focused on the purely human aspects, the passage which discusses the essay contains something resembling a slight reproach. Lasker's keen analytical mind had immediately clearly recognized that the central point of the whole question is that the velocity of light (in a vacuum) is a constant. It was evident to him that, if this constancy were admitted, the relative of time could not be avoided. So what was there to do? He tried to do what Alexander, whom historians have dubbed "the Great," did when he cut the Gordian knot. Lasker's attempted solution was based on the following idea: "Nobody has any immediate knowledge of how quickly light is transmitted in a complete vacuum, for even in interstellar space there is always a minimal quantity of matter present under all circumstances and what holds there is even more applicable to the most complete vacuum created by man to the best of his ability. Therefore, who has the right to deny that its velocity in a really complete vacuum is infinite?" To answer this argument can be expressed as follows: "It is, to be sure, true that nobody has experimental knowledge of how light is transmitted in a complete vacuum. But it is as good as impossible to formulate a reasonable theory of light according to which the velocity of light is affected by minimal traces of matter which is very significant but at the same time virtually independent of their density." Before such a theory, which moreover, must harmonize with the known phenomena of optics in an almost complete vacuum, can be set up, it seems that every physicist must wait for the solution of the above-mentioned Gordian knot - if he is not satisfied with the present solution. Moral: a strong mind cannot take place of delicate fingers. Q. Explain the three isotopes of hydrogen (all with different masses) with your conjecture. (or multiple isotopes of any element, and beta decay) A. Hydrogen has one proton only, without necessity for relativistic binding nuclear electrons. Deuterium has two protons and one relativistic binding nuclear electron. Tritium has 3 and 2 respectively. The relativistic binding nuclear electrons at the required energies have sufficiently high frequency to create a binding flux between protons, akin to covalent bonds on the chemically binding scale. Any combination of protons and/or electrons may spontaneously depart the nucleus if the forces are out of balance as reflected by half-life. This voids the need for fanciful explanations concerning the 'particles', 'forces' and other strange hypotheses that have been spawned by Rutherford's assumption, a virtual panacea for research, hypothesising, and scientific 'advancement'. The lack of a 'neutron' in ordinary hydrogen may well explain the massive size of elliptical galaxies forming in the voids of the universe from materialised energies. They are new and so huge that dead galaxies (globular clusters and swarms remaining when the singularity ceases to be maintained) gather toward them. The gravitational forces would be weak. Their Mainstream explanation is, like quarks, unconvincing. If you have followed my alternative Steady State Universe Theory, which could have been spawned from light (and dark energy) as per the ancient traditions of a bygone civilisation (historically Critias and Timaeus), there is a black hole at the centre of our galaxy, that converts our matter and energy to dark energy (neutrinos) capable of materialising on encountering sufficiently high energy photons into, say, a positron and an electron. The positron will destroy the nuclear electron which released the photon, and the electron will have a range of energies depending on the incident neutrino (an alternative hypothesis). Otherwise the dark energies from the core will be repelled by the black hole and pass through matter unimpeded, to be focused normal to the galactic plane where incident positive energies will manifest hydrogen materialisation with the attracted opposite energies (eg. M82). This would imply that some radioactive sources will manifest variable half-lives over time. Also, we have explanations for Hoag's Object, high gamma ray sources in some galactic cores like Centaurus A (an antigalaxy), gamma ray bursts and much more besides.

Q. Why do so many newbies with obvious hypotheticals, as opposed to tried and tested mainstream models, have so much trouble discerning the difference? A. This is the difference. All of science is based on irreducible hypotheticals, the original inductive beginning of a theory or model by which we attempt to derive deductions. If these latter remain consistent the theory gains support, else we need to revise or abandon hypotheses. Mainstream hypotheses are like fashion or worse until science becomes technology. How much of Mainstream qualifies. What happened to phlogiston, or absolute time and space? Where was Hubble's evidence for Bigbangium, and why didn't Einstein propose the same when it was he who informed Hubble that the universe was expanding? The hypothesis was contrary to both theories of relativity, and still is, besides spitting out anomalies that caused CHANGES IN MAINSTREAM for decades! How much of science is actually applied in known technology across all fields? So why laud Mainstream when wisdom is justified by her children, and the folly is in your faces. Yet we worship a God that uses the credence of a small fraction to claim universal infallibility while lemmings march on. Q. Proposals without evidence are a dime a dozen. What evidence, observational or experimental, do you have to support your hypothetical claim against the tried and tested mainstream theory/model? A. As detailed, the pot calls the kettle black, with three fingers pointing back at itself! A spring cleaning of the entire hypothetical basis of all branches of science is required, where technology has yet to verify political/economic influence. This general swipe of snow and mist is by its nature unanswerable. I must restrict myself to specific questions with apologies. Q. Then you need an alternative explanation for all the evidence that the nucleus also contains neutrons. A. Why not propose that the nucleus consists of protons and mu mesons? Insufficient mass for electrons in the nucleus was contradicted by the Mainstream adoption of the evidence from Enola Gay to the world - a little too loud to (continue to) ignore. Relativistic electrons have the mass, and therefore carry the mass-energy. Q. 1. Electric charge has positive and negative charges (and equivalently for magnetic fields). Gravity doesn't. A. 1. I claim (with the same evidence used for Hubble’s famous hypothesis that Mainstream implicitly accepts) that an expanding universe says otherwise – that matter and antimatter repel. This voids the need for Dark Matter to supply the missing force. We might use the name for antimatter. Q. 2. Electromagnetic forces both attract and repel. Gravity doesn't. A. 2, See A. 1 Q. 3. Electromagnetism can be easily screened. Gravity can't. A. 4. For those who haven't heard the bomb (1945) yet - all force is one force - electric fields. Disturbances in the force are a result of the acceleration of charged particles. Magnetic force is a result of space contraction creating an imbalance in the fluxes from moving charges relative to the (observer protons) stationary charges. The mathematics reveals that (as suspected by Maxwell) the permeability constant (u) equals the reciprocal of the product of the permittivity constant (e) with the speed of light (c) squared. Electromagnetism is a very loose term and incorrect if I am right. We may need to rename light (in any inertial frame) as electro-magnetic-gravitational energy. Q. 4. Electromagnetism can be explained by a simple force with an inverse square law. Gravity can't. A. 4. This is incorrect: F = G.m1.m2/r^2 looks much like F = 4.Pi.e.q1.q2/r^2. The difference is (present Mainstream) that m, unlike q, is only positive. I CONTEST THIS HYPOTHESIS, and have done so since I learned about antimatter in 1969. Einstein died in 1955. Antimatter (beyond positrons) was discovered in 1956, when the existence of the second material particle - the antiproton - became manifest to the scientific community. Without this Einstein was unaware that the universe consisted of both types of matter. Mainstream has voided this with 'evidence' of asymmetric matter-antimatter reactions to prop up Big Bang once again. The evidence seems very flimsy to me, considering the evidence of the exact opposite in so many ways. But antimatter balancing matter universally (materialisation from gamma rays indicates conservation of charge and mass by zero sum) was necessary to complete his Unified Field Theory. My proposal actually explains Einstein’s hypothesised gravitational and inertial mass equivalence principle, as well as the implied rest mass-energy equivalence as absolute potential energy in the gravitational fields of the universe. Q. 5. Etc. (This idiotic idea comes up with such tedious frequency, that I should really keep a list of these somewhere instead of typing it out every time...) A. 5. This is not Platonic dialogue. Must be Aristotelian. I have no doubt that you have and cherish pat rhetoric for argument without reason. There is no umpire in a chess game, if you wish to test your logic objectively. Q. "The importance of contesting this conjecture is that General Relativity deals with the effects of relative acceleration in the production of imbalanced fluxes due to relative space contraction." What!? A. Clearly the replies from Nelson's schoolyard bullies are "biff, biff, biff". Politicians in the making? Relying on rhetoric, not well verse in topics, any idea what you're talking about? (plagiarising Cyndi Lauper's "You Don't Know". She probably understands Magnetism better than some.) Let's keep it logical and scientific, and a little less hypocritical, political and emotional, and keep the board level so the pieces don’t disappear. Science seeks Truth, necessary for Justice, if you cherish your Freedom and trust in your God by whatever definition. In the wrong hands it is our mutual extinction.

The conjecture is that protons and electrons alone exist in the nucleus. The electrons have relativistic energy and corresponding mass, thereby accounting for the mass of every atom, and also the narrow range of relatively stable isotopes each element may have. The evidence for the conjecture is that the only stable particles that can be ejected from an atomic nucleus are electrons and protons, and their antiparticles which may be materialised from the high energy photons and neutrinos released by corresponding decompositions or collision energies. The neutron has half-life 10.3 minutes. All other ejected or created particles last shorter times, and ultimately disintegrate into the same stable particles already mentioned. The importance of contesting this conjecture is that General Relativity deals with the effects of relative acceleration in the production of imbalanced fluxes due to relative space contraction. It is clear that AC current, not DC current, emits EM, and EM is affected by gravity. Circular motion is also acceleration likewise, as with relativistic nuclear electrons, much more so than those of the electron shells. Taking the matter to its conclusion, the gravitational dipole implies white holes (like Centaurus A) and black holes, each absorbing matter and energy and repelling anti-energy, which has nil effect on the matter which is being converted. It is not preposterous to imaging that photons and neutrinos are antiparticles capable of materialising in intergalactic space to replenish the universe. Of course I must sweep away many less plausible conjectures to propose such a situation, but which conjectures are more plausible, and how else does science stall or advance. Albert Einstein and Emanuel Lasker spent eight years discussing relativity in Bern, to part with opposite views, to join opposite powers, the USA and the USSR respectively. In the end Trinity validated E=mc^2, etc. Emanuel Lasker denied the existence of a vacuum to dodge the constancy of the speed of light (regardless of the relative velocity of the source as A.E. phrased it.)

I propose that Rutherfords hypothesis of neutrons in the nucleus is incorrect, and that this hypothesis stands in the way of an understanding of gravity akin to that of magnetism. Magnetism has been shown to be a Special Relativistic effect of opposite charges in different inertial frames. Gravity may be understood as a General Relativistic effect of opposite charges in different non-inertial frames in similar manner. If correct, we have a basis for an expanding universe due to a gravitational dipole resulting from the opposite charges on the antiparticles of the electron and the proton. Fred Hoyle's Steady State Universe would then be possibility.