I know! The head of NASA must have gone to the same school as Shiela and Hank Johnson.The back side of the moon is always dark??What did he think was happening during the solar eclipse?
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Some Einstein sh..tuff, science discussion
- Thread starter Daniel DeLuca
- Start date
There have been thousands of alternate theories to Einstein, however so far none have passed muster.
?
How can something be debunked that we can measure and effects us?
GPS satellites lose ~0.02 seconds per year duo to the earth warping space and time, which is enough to cause inaccuracies, and it needs to be compensated.
The clock kernels on modern space probes compensate for relativistic effects. Oh, it is not enough to cause navigational issues, even though they are the fastest objects built by humans, they are still relatively pedestrian in the grand scale of things, no it is scientific experiments like measuring gravity waves that require high precision in time keeping.
One depressing aspect of this that people point out, is that it could make travelling at speeds of a high percentage of C, or even faster then C problematic from a civilizational point of view. However our theoretical understanding of how an alcubierre drive would hypothetically work, does give. According to the math the acceleration and velocity inside the bubble of an alcubierre drive would be zero. That should avoid any relativistic effects.
A more correct claim would be that you are not aware of any that pass muster. What do you know about Stochastic Electrodynamics? Have you heard of Raymond Fleming? He has a set of great videos that I highly encourage you to watch. Here is one:
I caution you against assuming a cause when there could be other causes to consider.
OK, I am highly skeptical of this alcubierre drive concept. Wikipedia states that it is speculative, and the mechanism would employed would be based on Einstein's concepts of warping of space, which I completely reject. In addition, if we could travel faster than the speed of light, we would face an immeasurable challenge of how to not run into objects that do not give off light. I enjoy watching Star Wars, but I recognize it as complete science fiction and nothing more. Same goes for Star Trek, which I became completely disenchanted with after watching the God movie monstrosity that the Trek enterprise put out. I believe there is a thread out there where I listed a number of Sci-fi things that will always reamin fiction and nothing more. One of them is the concept of a teleporter and another is the time machine.
One day, Christ will return, and we shall meet Him in the air. My focus is to be ready for that day when He comes.
Amen. That is fact and not science fiction. He came once and He is coming again. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!
The problem with that video starts in the title. "Einsteins Lies." Sorry, but no credible scientist uses such language in publications, it is unprofessional. If I used that in school I would get scolded. Also YouTube is not a publishing source, there are no checks. Searching that guy the 1st links are the Youtube videos, and his website where he sells his book, that is not good sign.
The problem with Einstein's work is comparability with quantum mechanics, but so far no one had come up with a unifying theory.
We use stars curvature of space and time every day in astronomy, since curved spacetime works like a camera lens, we can "zoom" in. We can also see objects behind a star since the light gets warped around it. Curved space time is not anything that is really in dispute, just precise definition, and how it curves.
Furthermore, the formulas for general relativity work for redshifting.
Not if you warp reality around the ship, which an alcubierre drive as theorized would do.
Last edited by a moderator:
I like to refer people to videos, because most people that I interact with, are on a time crunch. I literally discovered who Fleming is through a white paper that he wrote on the ZPE and the strong force. The ZPE is well established in the scientifi community. I worked for Applied Rigaku Technologies, and when I mentioned him to my boss, he responded that he knew Fleming, and that Fleming had worked for him, and that he was quite brilliant.
Well, not no one (double negative intended). Just no one that you have been previously made aware of. The main issue with Einstein, is that he denied the existence of an ether, which today we now know of as the sea of virtual particles that is all around us. Paul wrote in Colossians 1:17 "And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Without this sea of virtual particles, everything flies apart. It also perfectly explains gravity. No need for curvature of space to try to explain that. I have seen the ilustrations with a bowling ball on a bedsheet, and that illustration is absolutely absurd! Science has always advanced by proposing new theories that are mocked at first, but gradually accepted over time.
The sea of virtual particles is the best explanation of the mechanism that makes this work.
Reality is reality. Theories are ideas we work on until we either accept them as factual, or discard them in light of the evidence and newer better theories that ultimately replace them. Einstein was a patent clerk and a plagiarist who set the scientific community back 100 years. Only when people are willing to challenge what has been accepted as popular, can we advance our knowledge of the universe.
Last edited by a moderator:
Again, we see the effect of space and time being warped by stars, and use the phenomenon to our advantage.
Stargate. Stargate.
Be careful not to confuse cause and effect. Space, in the strictest sense of the word, is nothing more than a 3 dimensional geometrical vector. Time is a unidirectional 1 dimension vector. Science fiction will have you believe that these can be warped and manipulated. I contend that this is completely midguided.
I was thinking more along the lines of Kong vs. Godzilla.
I think we need another thread. I do not agree with the notion of a Singularity. That again employs Einstein arguments.
Interesting. I'm familiar with Setterfield, and the (evidently late) L. Dolphin, and followed (with some who were IBM co-workers) research in LENR in the years immediately following Pons and Fleischmann, and folks like Eugene Mallove.
But the days of weekly "excess heat" news are long-gone.
Now it seems like what is left (on LENR) is hype-heavy, and relegated to the realm of Wiki-censorship.
Do you have any better recent sources on what is real?
Well, I have watched a few Setterfield videos, and he talks about how he believes the ZPE is responsible for the spped of light and the Bohr radius. He also appeared with the late Chuck Missler, who told him that Dr. Ross tried to convince him that Setterfield was off. When I challeged Dr. Ross on the disparaging remarks he made concerning C-Decay, he brought up the fact that Setterfield does not even have a Bachelor's degree. I guess we have to now dismiss anybody who doesn't have some sort of validation from accredited Universities. How did those people ever accomplish so much?
I'm curious, moreso, about whether or not you've seen any "non-vapor-ware" LENR (palladium fuel cell, other tech) that approaches actual "reduction to practice".
THAT is the breakthrough that would literally revolutionize the planet. Especially for decentralized, off-grid, options. (And would make any New Magic Battery pale in significance, not to mention other 'green' energy BS.)
THAT is the breakthrough that would literally revolutionize the planet. Especially for decentralized, off-grid, options. (And would make any New Magic Battery pale in significance, not to mention other 'green' energy BS.)
They are not being warped by the stars per se. Rather than try to explain it myself, I will share another Fleming lecture:
By the way, he has published his work. You can see for yourself some of his papers:
Science Journals - Papers written by Ray Fleming
GS Journal is your leading platform for high quality science journals, scientific papers and peer-reviewed full-text journals /> <meta name=
www.gsjournal.net
I recommend this one here:
Last edited:
Not something that I have looked into. I have always been curious though what has taken the scientific community so long to come to a breakthrough when it comes to fusion hydrogen power generation.
So I said that I disagree with the notion of a singularity. A singularity is supposedly caused by gravity. What causes gravity? How would that cause work, if all matter were contained the way this supposed singularity purports? I'll let you think about that.
Funny how this topic always gets brought up in these Presidential and VP debates, and JD Vance mentined nuclear plants, but the fusion research seems to go unmentioned. If this technology is feasible, as it appears to be, that will dry up the demand for solar panels and wind mills real quick!
The theory is based on Walter Brown's assumption that the Noahic flood took place exactly as described in Genesis. It then arranges evidence to support the assumption of the Noahic flood.
This is where I fault Creationism because it always starts with the outcome of a scientific process (That the Earth and Universe were created by God x number of years ago) and then seeks out evidence to support that conclusion. Rather unscientifically the Creationist movement also excludes or ignores evidence that does not support their pre-determined outcome.
Much the same as the people who wanted to impeach Donald Trump on day one of his Presidency. They already had an outcome in mind and then they sought out evidence to twist and turn to construct a pre-determined narrative.
Myself I prefer looking at evidence and discoveries as they arise and then evaluating them on their own and in their own context.
None of the above is a matter of dogma for me. I accept the presence of God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit in my life and have seen their presence across my lifetime.
My convictions do not hinge on the precise year when the earth was or was not created. If it was March 21, 15,098,163,722 B.C. or ten thousand years ago does not shake my conviction.
Roughly five centuries ago Galileo was castigated for his observations that showed the sun as the center of our solar system instead of showing the earth as the center of the universe. For some people the inaccurate belief that the sun orbited the earth was somehow critical to their belief in God.
And guess what? They were wrong and the greater Christian church endured and prospered anyway.
DNA science was considered anti-Christian at one time because it could be used to show genetic links between different forms of life.
Ironically to me is DNA states the case for a Mitochondrial Eve who would literally be the common mother of all modern humanity. Likewise there followed the case for a Y Chromosomal Adam who is literally the common father of all modern humanity.
A kind of science that Creationists objected to is now asserting a Biblical truth that all humanity is descendant from one man and one woman.
The Creationist problem is that working the math on the genetics sets the era of these two people at around 200,000 to 300,000 years ago instead of ~6,000 years ago as some Young Earth proponents insist.
And guess what? That 200,000 to 300,000 figure will change in future years as DNA science improves. It may be less or it may be more. But I can almost guarantee that the estimate will change.
And it will have zero bearing on my convictions about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
All that to say is that I prefer to follow evidence where it goes regardless if I like the evidence or not. And I make my conclusions after I study the evidence and not one moment before.
Which is PART (but only part) of the reason that the Big Lie is preferred to actual research that has a potential payoff.
Did you notice how the BS "climate change" question was phrased?
And later, "President Trump has called 'climate change' a hoax. Do you agree?" (And, when did you stop beating your wife?)
He blew it, and failed to call "BS." "Climate change" is real - is predates human history, and it is NOT a function of CO2 or "carbon" BS. The BULL is deliberately unstated - the verbotten term "anthropogenic," is left out! And THAT is the hoax!
Well how does it affect your belief that God inspired the text of Genesis, and your belief in a God who cannot lie? So what evidence has Dr Walt Brown ignored? Have you read any of his analysis where he compares the different theories to the pieces of evidence, and how eaxh theory tries to explain it? Do you fully embrace Tectonic plates?
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Evidence Requiring an Explanation
Is there another theory you wish to entertain?
EDIT: It is an assumption to presume that Walter Brown assumed that the Noahic Flood occurred exactly as described in Genesis. He used to be in your camp, but was convinced by the evidence that he encountered.
Last edited: