Atlantis Online
March 28, 2024, 11:41:00 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Underwater caves off Yucatan yield three old skeletons—remains date to 11,000 B.C.
http://www.edgarcayce.org/am/11,000b.c.yucata.html
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

What we think we know

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What we think we know  (Read 3663 times)
0 Members and 71 Guests are viewing this topic.
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #45 on: May 05, 2007, 01:14:40 pm »

I tried this but used a 100,000 c.p. spot.
What I observed was that the smoke became trapped in the beam and then smoothed out into a line and it seemed to be pushed away.
What does that tell me?  Dunno,  maybe like the calicum or sodium attaching itself to photons (("This calcium atom moves outward by alternate jerks of forward propulsion, grasping and letting go the sunbeam about twenty-five thousand times each second. And this is why stone is the chief component of the worlds of space. Calcium is the most expert solar-prison escaper." ))

Since the smoke is mostly carbon, what it shows is that fields, in the form of EM radiation in multiple bands capture and control the action of the carbon.  The more intense the field strength is, the more control that is exerted.  The smoke at boundary regions that manages to be pushed away is actually accelerated as it leaves the confines of the beam.  But, the easiest thing to notice is that the whole thing works in waves & moves in parallel lines in relation to the photon direction.

Now,  let me ask you this Merl,  if that above statement is true,  and I believe it is even though you state that we haven't observed it,  then in the example of the laser they are using a sodium cloud to slow down light to a standstill;  even though it is named in the Ubook that sodium and calcium atoms do the same thing as far as attaching themselves to photons;  it implies that the calcium atom is better at doing it.  It would seem to me that the same experiment could be done more efficiently if they were using a calcium cloud instead of sodium.  What would be the feasibility of carrying out the same experiment with calcium?

Actually - I said that calcium sodium and calcium doesn't ride waves of sunlight and arrive here in the form of the associative element.  My proof is that it isn't observed.  Conversely, it isn't observed because it doesn't happen.  I even took the time to explain the multiple isotopes, their actions and why they could not do what the UB says it does.  What you keep missing is that there are very specific isotopes of sodium being used for the test - the radical isotopes that would be formed in the sun, but would never survive the flight to earth.  To use calcium ones of a similar ilk would result in the same stunted flight.

Do we have the technology to verify that calcium attaches and releases itself 25,000 times a second from a photon?

We do - it doesn't.

Merl,
you've thrown a red herring into the mix;  the EM field.  Skip the EM field and then what do you have?  No waves right?

No red herring.  There are many other "waves" that do not have exclusive connections to EM Field Theory.  There are gravity waves, density waves, sound waves, vibrational waves of string theory and plasmonic waves.  Some waves result for a preponderance of "something" in the midst of "something else" or "nothing else" - where as others are simply a geometric distribution of one thing over another.  In the case of gravity waves, it is easy to understand that the two (EM wave propagation & gravity) are not related; if they were, gravity would not be such a mystery.

P476:1, 42:5.1  5
The excitation of the content of space produces a wavelike reaction to the passage of rapidly moving particles of matter, just as the passage of a ship through water initiates waves of varying amplitude and interval.

This is one of the issues I take with the UB - it routinely uses incorrect analogies to make its (incorrect) case.  It is a sign that the authors did not fundamentally understand the science of nature...  It also indicates that their understanding was that of a human around the 30s & 40s.  Dr. Sadler was bright and relatively well schooled on the science of the day, however, they were wrong back then.

I don't know why you are so easily getting upset. 

I wasn't aware that I was getting upset.  If I remember correctly - I was simply refusing to argue with me when you became argumentative.  Accusing me (of all people) of not supplying proof was a sure sign that you weren't thinking clearly - so I decided to put a stop to any potential escalation in rhetoric.  Accusing me of not supply answers or proof is as absurd as accusing McDonald's, Popeye's or Kentucky Fried Chicken of selling health food.

You are a theoretical physicist and I would think you would be all over this stuff.  There is enough there to keep you busy for a lifetime.  By your own admission physics is so full of errors and assumptions and theories and changes in position every time there is a new discovery that if you applied the same frustration to the Ubook that you do to physics you would have been selling burgers at McDonalds years ago.

There is, however, a difference between searching for answers and following leads in an inaccurate investigation.  I have researched the UB's science thoroughly - it lacks accuracy and therefore credibility.  If the "proof" offered within it is incorrect, I am left to question the remaining material.  We've had this discussion and I agreed to stay out of the dissecting business - but you keep offering it up for sacrifice.

I was just watching the Science channel;  Extreme Universe; Planet Hunters,  and it was amazing that they couldn't find a planet until some guy from Europe or something found the wobble because the planet was rotating about every 3 days instead of the 10 years or so that our guys were looking for.  You talk about inspiring confidence,  well,  let's use the mirror a bit.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.  A mirror?  What's that about?  The fact that our methods improve can hardly be anything other than proof of why we learn!  What doesn't inspire confidence in me is when we use new methods to validate old errors.  That's what my "mission" is all about.

Look,  I don't belong in your class.  I have no foundation for the science and math that you are dishing out.  I surmise that even other physicists have a problem with your stuff. 

Hmmm.....   I cannot ascertain what you mean here.  I can tell you that I am in a class of but a handful, but that has little bearing on my intelligence - it has much more to do with my field of study, experience and expertise.  Most other scientists that I deal with (physicists and astrophysicists alike) find me quirky, obsessive, but overall - extremely committed.  My cimmittment is to finding the truth - not supporting dogma.

The only thing I have is an interest in science;  astronomy;  religion and other such fields but mainly as they pertain to the information in revelation.  The only reason I can even participate in these discussions is because of the Ubook and there are a fair amount of scientific minds with a laundry list of credentials attached to this revelation that can see it for what it is.

I see it for what it is also, however, I think we differ on what "it" is.

I gave you this statement to which you replied .........The aether?  Oi vey -

Quote
The so-called ether is merely a collective name to designate a group of force and energy activities occurring in space. Ultimatons, electrons, and other mass aggregations of energy are uniform particles of matter, and in their transit through space they really proceed in direct lines. Light and all other forms of recognizable energy manifestations consist of a succession of definite energy particles which proceed in direct lines except as modified by gravity and other intervening forces. That these processions of energy particles appear as wave phenomena when subjected to certain observations is due to the resistance of the undifferentiated force blanket of all space, the hypothetical ether, and to the intergravity tension of the associated aggregations of matter. The spacing of the particle-intervals of matter, together with the initial velocity of the energy beams, establishes the undulatory appearance of many forms of energy-matter.

what I was pointing out was this so-called undifferentiated force blanket of space and the following sentences.  The Ubook very clearly states that the hypothetical aether that you are Oi Veying about from the 1800's does not exist.  Perhaps one problem here are your "trigger" words."

No - what I was commenting on was the fact that the UB tries to define what the aether is, and whyit appears to exist.  The fact is - it doesn't exist, it never did and the UB's description for why the aether was even predicted is incorrect.  Again, it answer smacks of logic and understanding of the 1930s - 1950s.  It dates itself, and it does it with rudimentary logic - not the advanced knowledge that the "Creators" would have.  That's where the Oi Vey came from.  My trigger words are - Free Energy and Vortex Technology - not aether.

Quote
=urantia
P476:2, 42:5.1  6
Primordial-force behavior does give rise to phenomena which are in many ways analogous to your postulated ether. Space is not empty; the spheres of all space whirl and plunge on through a vast ocean of outspread force-energy; neither is the space content of an atom empty. Nevertheless there is no ether, and the very absence of this hypothetical ether enables the inhabited planet to escape falling into the sun and the encircling electron to resist falling into the nucleus.

Now,  if you can  please tell me why the absence of this hypothetical aether keeps the planet from falling into the sun or the electron from falling into the nucleus.

What keeps the Earth from falling into the Sun is angular momentum.  What keeps the electron from falling into the nucleon is not as well understood.  Since we suspect that an electron is not actually an object - but a wave of energy, angular momentum is not an obvious suspect.  The force of electromagnetism is.  You see, the Sun is not repellant to the Earth like an electron is to a nucleon.  Angular momentum ('am') and the force of gravity keeps a "tug-o-war" going between the two massive objects, but attration and repulsion at the atomic level has little to do with 'am' (although it does a wee bit), and nothing to do with the warpage of S/T.  In other words - the UB has given yet another bad analogy and followed up with incorrect information.

Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy