Reaper

That has got to be one of the most classic crackpot quotes I have ever heard. Maybe I will start a new "hall of shame" thread on this...

Science Daily, Space.com, and Scientific American

I'm on page 600 right now on that book. It's a good book and very detailed, though some of the things he will present will be over your head because it has quite some dense, difficult mathematics. But otherwise, I recommend it, as it explains what current scientists are looking and dealing with, without watering it down or oversimplifying things, of which you see commonly in most pop-science books.

I don't think he's trying to troll, I just think that he's obviously some guy who isn't successful in real life and seems to suffer from extreme narcissism and paranoia. Mike C is just going to have to learn that if he hopes to make himself more credible, he is going to have to do more then just say "Einstein is wrong", parroting his debunked claims, and comparing himself to Newton. And from the looks of it, he is going to have to learn the hard way. So Mike C, if you hope to stop being the laughing stock of the science community, you are going to have to do the following things: Provide genuine evidence, stop ignoring or trying to brush away other evidence, provide math, provide proper peer reviewed citations, provide predictions, learn to actually listen to other people, and stop repeating yourself as it doesn't make it any more correct. Besides, I like feeding the trolls *pull out a sack of troll feed* P.S. Oh, and one more thing Mike, read this, you desperately need to: http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html More specifically, read the first bullet:

Alright Mike C, since you think that General Relativity and Special Relativity is wrong, I am going to post this link (which I posted back at hypography of which you ignored the last time) right here so that you can read it: http://www2.corepower.com:8080/~relfaq/experiments.html oh, and this one too: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/einstein.htm (This link yet again trashes your "corrections" to this very important equation). And the experiments that support General Relativity: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1132305 and here's a link with pretty pictures: http://members.aol.com/drphysics/GRTest.html The point is, is that there are boatloads of evidence that support SR and GR. So, if you think you can overthrow either theory, you are going to have to look through all of them in detail and explain to us why any of these experiments do not support them. Also, you are going to have to present a theory that can do it much better, and in much more detail. Now really? Do you care to provide a rigorous explanation (i.e. one using MATH) of why you think this could happen? Ignoring people seems like the only thing you've ever succeeded in . Alright, out of condescending/insulting mode now: The so-called "teeny weeny" are FAR from trivial, in fact without them modern society as we know it just simply cannot function, for example GPS requires relativity for it to function properly. Not only that, but I will yet again show just some of the implications of relativity: :confused::confused::confused: Well, lets take a look at some of these observations then: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-DT.html Now, here is one such observation: OMG!!!! Is that a graph? Something that requires MATHEMATICS ! I guess that completely demolishes your claim then, doesn't it. Already debunked on another thread. Or are you yet again just simply trying to cover your ears and screaming "LA LA LA LA LA"? =============================== Now then, instead of saying something like

Oh, fine! I'll be a little more civil next time. It's, well, just a habit I tend to have. Or rather, you always seem to ruin the fun....

No, you are just simply so wrong here. Yeah, you and all the other crackpots. We've heard it all before, and just like all the others before you, you too will be smitten and burned at the stake . IT'S OVER 9000!!!!!!!!!!!111/one/111!

What are you talking about? Read the quote and the paper provided. The arm of one galaxy extends much further out then previously thought as revealed by better photos of the system. Really? Save for the 22nd post on this thread, I have not observed any such thing at any part in your entire history on the net, and certainly not in our previous skirmishes . All of which support the mainstream theories, so that statement is pretty meaningless and reveals quite some, ahem, startling things about you . See, that's the thing, the BBT isn't a comprehensive "how/why did the universe begin in the first place" theory. It is a theory that specifically states that at some point in the past, the universe was much smaller and that some finite time ago it started expanding and continues to expand to this day. In fact, the Big Bang theory was not originally called the big bang theory until the 60's. Technically, the Big Bang has never ended, it is still occurring because space is still expanding. And we have found that the expansion is now accelerating. As for what caused this "primeval atom" to expand into the universe we observe today, that's something we are still trying to find out. Unlike you, we can admit that there are questions we don't know the answers to. And, we are also patient, we know that some of the answers will be solved eventually, one way or another. Actually, it is dark energy. Of course, I'm probably not being a bit fair here, would you care to explain why dark matter is the wrong answer? Of course, you probably mean no sources that contradict or don't agree with you. The first and only source you have provided thus far has been debunked with a simple check at wikipedia. You care to try again?

That's not what they mean by spin. A particle's spin refers to the angular momentum. They are not literally spinning. An electron's spin/angular momentum is intrinsic; it is always going to have spin s=1/2, as that has been observed. Please leave your opinions out of this. When debating or presenting a theory, you must use facts. Besides which, that statement is wrong anyways. :confused::confused: I have a better idea, why don't you start defending your so-called theory with citations and experiments. Rather than cutting and pasting the same arguments. Didn't you read the message I posted at hypography, about how you must debate and provide proper backup of your theories (i.e. math, citations, observations, etc.) You must hurry, it's only a matter of time before I or someone else calls bingo .

Well, only if the cost of going into, out of, and doing anything in space stays more or less the same price as it is now. I'm pretty certain that one day we will have the ability to build factories up there, but sadly they remain at minimum several decades away. Possibly centuries. What will most likely happen is that humans will use space travel to migrate out of Earth all together. As for general mining, it would be far cheaper to just simply ship the raw material back to Earth; anything manufactured on any of the colonies will stay there.

I see that we are all doomed then . ---Ahem: http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem-eng/Biotech-Environ/Environmental/desal/vaporcomp.html http://www.coastal.ca.gov/desalrpt/dchap1.html ======================================= Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm still waiting.... I'm not trying to be deliberately difficult, but solving this problem is going to take a great deal more then just a passing "it will be solved somehow". Cause I'm going to be part of the generation that has to go out and actually help resolve the issue.... Yup, I hear you. Us Americans are the ones who are taking the full brunt of this stupidity. But the question then also becomes, what do you do to get rid of the idiots in charge .

Yes, but back then the total amount of fresh water that was available could easily meet their needs, given that the population was much lower back then. Now, we are looking at running out of fresh water, period. You guys keep saying desalination, but I have yet to see how we can produce, oh, some tens of trillions or even quadrillions of gallons of fresh water that will be necessary and cheaply. Which, by the way, more than half of all fresh water supplies currently available to us are used directly for irrigation, something for you to contemplate...

If we don't do anything about that, then yes, things could get real bad real fast. Not really. And this is where I'm asking you to elaborate. Unless we use nukes, how the hell are we going to actually decrease the population? Or rather, how the hell are we going to actually increase the availability of fresh water cheaply? I have to say, that statement did make me laugh out loud. You can thank the Green Revolution for that. Unless GM foods become quite widespread, and are grown on hydroponic farms (that, or force everyone to live in a gigantic megacity with a population density similar to what you see in Mumbai India. Or arcologies... etc.) , I don't think we can possibly sustain the food requirements necessary for our rather large population.

Do you mind elaborating on this?

Just been reading about the world population, and according to the U.S. Census, this is the estimated current world population: http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html About 6,705,153,833 human beings now inhabit the Earth as of today. The above link also gives figures for how much the population has changed since last year. Of course, it's been well known that nowadays the population growth rate has been decreasing for the past 40 years, as shown on the graphs provided: http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopinfo.html But even with those scenarios, the population is still going to increase to at least 9 billion by 2050. Even worse, there doesn't seem to be an indication that it will actually decrease anytime soon, if you notice that it still keeps going up afterwards: The reason I post this topic here in this subsection is because the world population is very much tied to the environment, it's effects, and the availability of resources. I think now we all can agree that the world is very much overpopulated as of today, but if these projections are correct, it is going to get a lot bigger. What are your thoughts on this? How do you think we can deal with this rather large problem looming ahead?

Have they (Australia) made any progress in making more energy efficient cities?

Actually, I'm going to have to disagree with you here Peak Oil Man. I got a friend, whose a grad student by the way, who is just one of many people working on making hydrogen widely available. Of course, only part of the problem, but still, there are a great deal of people working on this and from what I've seen they are getting closer and closer to realizing the dream of a hydrogen economy. And, I've heard Iceland is well on it's way to building an entire infrastructure based on that (but of course they take it from their geothermal sources...). In short, hydrogen is very viable. And so are the other alternatives (e.g. solar, nuclear, etc). My problem with this plan of ours (to drill in order to buy off "more time") is that as I said before, it's just simply too slow (along with other environmental, societal, military problems) and it won't do us any good anyway. I think that, if the free market is to be truly effective in bringing out the alternatives in time, we would have to do something like putting tariffs on oil imports or something similar (along with dropping subsidizes for oil in general). Or, do what Europe is doing: putting much bigger taxes on it's use. A %50 tax on gasoline would probably do the trick, for example. Personally, I wish that we had much smarter people deciding on our foreign policies and on regarding oil imports, but that's just that, a wish. I think here in America we are going to need a big kick in the groin first before we actually make the appropriate investments.

Not yet .

Ah, ok then. I personally don't consider numerology math, but I concede the point otherwise. But, he is the biggest crackpot to come along since Farsight, having a Baez index even higher then him (my previous experience and skirmishes with him tells me that anyways). Certainly strong enough to play a good round of Crackpot Bingo

Well, which do you think is worse, not doing the math, or butchering it ??

Nope, the Awards have just begun . Although, I would wait before I nominate this guy, as he hasn't been around long enough yet (although his Baez level is higher than Farsight's, so....) And, Mike's crackpottery might even be strong enough to rival Zarkov .

Oh, thanks, stupid mistake, got units mixed up .

No! You will not cancel anything out because materials have a specific heat; meaning that it takes energy to heat something up, and a certain amount of energy has to be taken away before it cools back down. Take water for example: it has a specific heat of 4.184 J/(kg*K). This means that you need that much energy to increase it by one degree. And this is only if the water is liquid. Likewise, it takes time before that heat gets radiated away. More specifically, it follows an exponential decay sort of graph on how long it takes for something to cool down to room temperature. And the rate at which this happens also depends on the material; water is very effective in taking away/absorbing heat, which is why it is used as a coolant in many applications. It's effectiveness is also why you never want to be wet when you are lost in a very cold climate. Also, there will never be a situation in which you have one side of a room it is cold and the other it is hot, because heat energy distributes out in all directions. Was it not for ventilation in my room, for example, the room temp would most certainly increase until it is the same temperature as my body. If you were to put your hand on a burner, it will get burned. It will not matter if you also put your hand on a tank of liquid nitrogen. And second, you cannot raise the temperature of any part of the body too quickly, otherwise you burst blood vessels.

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: Photons are both a particle and a wave. And, you do not get frequency by dividing wavelength into the speed of light; it's the other way around: f=c/(lambda). Really? What physical reason is there for modifying Einstein's formula? :confused: Yes I do understand what you are saying. It is completely wrong, the units are completely wrong, and if you did dimensional analysis you would see that. Why don't you try doing that the next time? h has units of J*s, while E is just J, for example. Of course, Planks constant can be described in other units too, none of which are equivalent to Joules. You just contradicted yourself. And, again, a photon is both a particle and a wave, all particles have a de Broglie wavelength. What? . Will you stop trying to make things up and ducking the questions?