Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Autor Subiect: Imposibilitatea teoriei big bang/string-M theory  (Citit de 5675 ori)

0 Membri şi 1 Vizitator vizualizează acest subiect.

Offline sandokhan

  • Junior
  • **
  • Mesaje postate: 118
  • Popularitate: +0/-1
Imposibilitatea teoriei big bang/string-M theory
« : Martie 11, 2008, 09:11:20 p.m. »
Am postat articolul pe alt site din cauza volumului foarte mare de informatii...

http://club.neogen.ro/religia/imposibilitatea-teoriei-big-bang-string-m-theory/186448/1
"An important scientific innovation
rarely makes its way by gradually
winning over and converting its
opponents: What does happen is that
the opponents gradually die out."
M. Planck

Offline Electron

  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Mesaje postate: 8403
  • Popularitate: +245/-217
Re: Imposibilitatea teoriei big bang/string-M theory
« Răspuns #1 : Martie 12, 2008, 12:59:57 p.m. »
Imi place cum e folosit argumentul ca observarea sistemelor stabile este o dovada a "creatiei". Prin definitie, un sistem instabil nu e observabil pentru o perioada lunga de timp, deci "lipsa" sistemelor instabile nu demonstreaza nimic, ci confirma conceptele de stabil / instabil. Asta propo de evolutia stelelor, si a sistemelor duble sau multiple.

Propun urmatorul experiment imaginar: doua site t1 si t2 cu gauri de dimensiuni d1 respectiv d2, sunt asezate una sub alta, asa in cat ceea ce cade prin t1 ajunge in t2. Avem de asemenea, d1>d2. Acum, considerand ca avem o multime de granule (nisip sa zicem) de o diversitate mare de dimensiuni, si ca d1 e foarte apropiat de d2, ce se intampla daca cernem nisipul prin cele doua site? Ei bine, om observa ca in sita t2 incep sa se acumuleze din ce in ce mai multe granule de dimensiune foarte apropiata, ceea ce statistic este incredibil, pentru ca incepem cu o diverstiate foarte mare de granule! Dar explicatia e foarte simpla, daca intervalul d1-d2 este foarte mic (ca dimensiuni), tot ce e mai mare ca d1 nu ajunge in t2, si tot ce e mai mic decat d2 cade prin t2. Deci in t2 ramane exact ceea ce e de asteptat, o colectie de granule de dimensiuni foarte apropiate (intre d1 si d2).

Analogia este cu legile fizicii si sitemele observabile in Univers. Toate acele siteme care corespund situatiilor de echilibru (cum sunt sitemel binare de stele) vor exista pentru perioade lungi si le putem observa. Toate celelalte nu sunt stabile si deci nu exista ca "sisteme" observabile. Daca doua stele sunt prea mici sau prea departate pentru a forma un sistem binar, nu vor forma un sistem binar. Daca sunt prea masive sau prea apropiate, vor colapsa una in alta, si nu vor forma un sitem binar. Daca orbitele lor sunt spirale nu vor ramane intr-un sistem binar. Cele care sunt in parametri stabili, vor forma un sistem binar stabil. Ca urmare, tot ce putem observa ca sistem stabil e stabil. Incredibil, nu?

Nu e nici un mister, si nici o nevoie pentru un creator sa ajusteze aceste sisteme, pentru ca selectia naturala e suficienta.

e-
Don't believe everything you think.

Offline sandokhan

  • Junior
  • **
  • Mesaje postate: 118
  • Popularitate: +0/-1
Re: Imposibilitatea teoriei big bang/string-M theory
« Răspuns #2 : Martie 12, 2008, 07:59:33 p.m. »
Sistemul Planetar Vegacentric

Daca teoria Big Bang ar fi fost adevarata atunci intregul sistem solar ar trebui sa efectueze mai multe miscari de rotatie:

1. Prima dintre acestea fiind o deplasare de 20KM/s catre steaua Vega.

2. Cea de a doua fiind rotatia Milky Way Galaxy in jurul propriei axe, 350KM/s.

3. A treia deplasare ar fi rotatia cluster of local group of galaxies (din care ar face parte si Calea Lactee) in jurul centrului Virgo Super Cluster, 627KM/s.

(Pentru o vizualizare mai buna puteti accesa
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/m/4/0000r6ws_m44ti1o5.gif )

Mai multi astronomi si cosmologisti au cercetat prima dintre aceste miscari ale sistemului solar care s-ar deplasa catre steaua Vega.

Adica asupra fiecarei planete simultan cu fortele care pastreaza planetele in orbita in jurul Soarelui (in versiunea heliocentrica) AR TREBUI SA ACTIONEZE INCA O FORTA DE DEVIERE LATERALA.

TINAND SEAMA CA SOARELE IMPREUNA CU PLANETELE SALE S-AR DEPLASA SPRE STEAUA VEGA CU O VITEZA CONSTANTA, EGALA CU APROXIMATIV 20KM/s, PRIMA LEGE A ROSICRUCIANULUI KEPLER (COPIATA DIN SURYA SIDHANTA) ESTE INCOMPATIBILA CU MISCAREA SOARELUI SI A INTREGULUI SISTEM SOLAR SPRE STEAUA VEGA.

Traiectoria planetelor in jurul Soarelui ar trebui sa fie plana NUMAI daca "centrul sistemului solar", cum spunea sarlatanul Koppernigk, AR FI IN REPAUS.

Daca insa, "centrul sistemului solar" este in miscare uniforma spre steaua Vega, atunci aceasta miscare este perpendiculara pe planul elipticei, se compune cu miscarea planetelor din planul orbitelor eliptice - o miscare rezultanta tridimensionala, in care traiectoriile planetelor sunt curbe elicoidale, situate pe suprafetele laterale ale unor cilindri eliptici.

Deci, in mod miraculos, doar pentru alchimistul rosicrucian Newton, ACEASTA FORTA DE DEVIERE ESTE ANULATA, astfel incat noi sa nu o putem observa in mod direct. Cealalta alternativa, adica faptul ca sistemul solar nu se indreapta catre steaua Vega, ar distruge imediat orice teorie Big Bang si orice teorie heliocentrica.

The sun moves in space at a velocity of about twenty kilometers a second (in relation to the nearby stars). This motion must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.


Cateva citate din jupanul Neftone (Newton) de care poate nu stiati:

De la bun inceput, Newton a luat in calcul a pushing gravity hypothesis, iar intre 1665-1682 teoria etherului ocupa primul loc de interes pentru acesta.

Most of the mainstream physics we are taught is based on Newtonian and Einstein's physics, however believe it or not, the machinery of gravitation is completely unknown. Mainstream physics has no answer to our question 'What is gravity?', and more or less answers us the same way as Newton did over 320 years ago. Quoting Sir Isaac Newton:

"I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from the phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses."

Maybe it was enough in those days to know that gravity really exists, but surely not enough in order to develop any serious thoughts about gravity and how to control such phenomena. Unfortunately, no body, has since given any plausible cause of gravity, without predicting some other phenomenon that can be disproved. Less known is the fact that, in private Newton was obsessed with the causes of gravity, positing the existence of a material aether in many of his unpublished works, in order to solve the action at a distance problem. In fact, we have written evidence, that Newton used a pushing gravity hypothesis in the first place in order to arrive at the inverse square law. Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':


....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consiquently its force will be recoiprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'

Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle. For various reasons, he declined to present this hypothesis in the Principia. He instead posited the existence of a universal, isotropic, immobile, "absolute space" that resisted matter's acceleration but was not itself affected by matter. He asserted that all matter had some definite velocity in this space, even if it could not be determined.

In scrisorile private, Newton si-a negat toata teoria gravitationala prezentata pentru public in Principia:

Newtonian gravity theory assumes that gravity propagates instantaneously across empty space, i.e. it is believed to be a form of action at a distance. However, in a private letter Newton himself dismissed this idea:

"That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it."

Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by "some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices," and that gravity was due to a circulating ether that had to be replenished in the center of the Earth by a process like fermentation or coagulation.

Regarding Gravity, the mechanism for generating gravity force has never been identified prior to this new theory first being publicized a number of years ago. The posited "graviton particles" of conventional physics, have never been found. Newton avoided calling gravity force "pull-together" or "attractive" because he could not identify the mechanism. Therefore, the popular statement that gravity force emanates from mass (matter), to somehow reach out and pull things back, is a hypothetical possibility, but not proven. To do so, it would have to be a sort of single-poled attraction, reaching from a center, out in all directions. Such a mechanism has never been demonstrated, nor even theorized in Quantum Mechanics.

Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle. For various reasons, he declined to present this hypothesis in the Principia. He instead posited the existence of a universal, isotropic, immobile, "absolute space" that resisted matter's acceleration but was not itself affected by matter. He asserted that all matter had some definite velocity in this space, even if it could not be determined.
"An important scientific innovation
rarely makes its way by gradually
winning over and converting its
opponents: What does happen is that
the opponents gradually die out."
M. Planck

Offline Electron

  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Mesaje postate: 8403
  • Popularitate: +245/-217
Re: Imposibilitatea teoriei big bang/string-M theory
« Răspuns #3 : Martie 12, 2008, 09:09:12 p.m. »
Sistemul Planetar Vegacentric

Daca teoria Big Bang ar fi fost adevarata atunci intregul sistem solar ar trebui sa efectueze mai multe miscari de rotatie:

1. Prima dintre acestea fiind o deplasare de 20KM/s catre steaua Vega.

2. Cea de a doua fiind rotatia Milky Way Galaxy in jurul propriei axe, 350KM/s.

3. A treia deplasare ar fi rotatia cluster of local group of galaxies (din care ar face parte si Calea Lactee) in jurul centrului Virgo Super Cluster, 627KM/s.
Prima miscare din cele trei, este de rotatie sau de deplasare?

Apoi, cum s-au determinat cele trei viteze ? (nu mi se incarca link-ul propus de tine, asa ca sper sa poti explica tu mai mult.)

Citat
Mai multi astronomi si cosmologisti au cercetat prima dintre aceste miscari ale sistemului solar care s-ar deplasa catre steaua Vega.

Adica asupra fiecarei planete simultan cu fortele care pastreaza planetele in orbita in jurul Soarelui (in versiunea heliocentrica) AR TREBUI SA ACTIONEZE INCA O FORTA DE DEVIERE LATERALA.

TINAND SEAMA CA SOARELE IMPREUNA CU PLANETELE SALE S-AR DEPLASA SPRE STEAUA VEGA CU O VITEZA CONSTANTA, EGALA CU APROXIMATIV 20KM/s, PRIMA LEGE A ROSICRUCIANULUI KEPLER (COPIATA DIN SURYA SIDHANTA) ESTE INCOMPATIBILA CU MISCAREA SOARELUI SI A INTREGULUI SISTEM SOLAR SPRE STEAUA VEGA.

Traiectoria planetelor in jurul Soarelui ar trebui sa fie plana NUMAI daca "centrul sistemului solar", cum spunea sarlatanul Koppernigk, AR FI IN REPAUS.

Daca insa, "centrul sistemului solar" este in miscare uniforma spre steaua Vega, atunci aceasta miscare este perpendiculara pe planul elipticei, se compune cu miscarea planetelor din planul orbitelor eliptice - o miscare rezultanta tridimensionala, in care traiectoriile planetelor sunt curbe elicoidale, situate pe suprafetele laterale ale unor cilindri eliptici.

Deci, in mod miraculos, doar pentru alchimistul rosicrucian Newton, ACEASTA FORTA DE DEVIERE ESTE ANULATA, astfel incat noi sa nu o putem observa in mod direct. Cealalta alternativa, adica faptul ca sistemul solar nu se indreapta catre steaua Vega, ar distruge imediat orice teorie Big Bang si orice teorie heliocentrica.
Din principiul inertiei rezulta ca orice miscare cu viteza uniforma a unui sistem inertial este imposibil de determinat (atata timp cat nu putem pune in evidenta un eter), deci daca tot sistemul solar s-ar deplasa intr-o anumita directie cu viteza constanta, toate celelalte miscari ar fi exact la fel, ca si cum respectiva viteza ar fi zero (repaus). Sau nu?

Citat
The sun moves in space at a velocity of about twenty kilometers a second (in relation to the nearby stars). This motion must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.
Pe baza carei teorii e valabil acest lucru?


Citat
Cateva citate din jupanul Neftone (Newton) [...]
Eu despre Newton am citit ca a declarat public faptul ca nu are explicatie pentru "actiunea la distanta" care e implicata de formulele sale ale mecanicii. Despre corespondenta sa particulara si ideile despre eter am citit mai putin, voi afla probabil aici mai multe.

Dar, Teoria Relativitatii Generale a lui Einstein (pe care eu o consider corecta), explica gravitatia prin deformarea spatiului (a continuumului spatiu-timp) de catre prezenta materiei. Vezi analogia cu patura de cauciuc pe care sunt asezate corpuri grele. Mie mi se pare o explicatie foarte eleganta a gravitatiei, care e astfel intrinseca in Univers, toate campurile gravitationale s-au creat odata cu materia, deci nu e nevoie de nici o "actiune la distanta". In plus, confirmarea curburii spatiului adusa de observarea eclipsei de soare din 1919 corespunde teoriei foarte precis. Cum se explica acest fenomen cu teoria eterului dens?

Citat
Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle. For various reasons, he declined to present this hypothesis in the Principia. He instead posited the existence of a universal, isotropic, immobile, "absolute space" that resisted matter's acceleration but was not itself affected by matter. He asserted that all matter had some definite velocity in this space, even if it could not be determined.

[...]

Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle. For various reasons, he declined to present this hypothesis in the Principia. He instead posited the existence of a universal, isotropic, immobile, "absolute space" that resisted matter's acceleration but was not itself affected by matter. He asserted that all matter had some definite velocity in this space, even if it could not be determined.
Nu e nevoie sa te repeti, si asa devin cam lungi posturile tale.

e-
Don't believe everything you think.

Offline sandokhan

  • Junior
  • **
  • Mesaje postate: 118
  • Popularitate: +0/-1
Re: Imposibilitatea teoriei big bang/string-M theory
« Răspuns #4 : Martie 13, 2008, 07:09:38 p.m. »
E cazul sa repet deoarece acel citat al lui Newton anuleaza tot ce a scris si oferit publicului in Principia.

Exista multe alte lucrari care ofera teoria aetherului in care, de fapt, credea Newton...

Iti poti raspunde la multe din intrebarile tale, doing some serious research...

The sun moves in space at a velocity of about twenty kilometers a second (in relation to the nearby stars). This motion must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.
VEZI: Lucrarea Cosmos without Gravitation de I. Velikovsky, mai multe detalii de acolo pentru tine:

The following facts are incompatible with the theory of gravitation:


Perturbations of planets due to their reciprocal action are pronounced in repulsion as well as attraction. A perturbation displacing a planet or a satellite by a few seconds of arc must direct it from its orbit. It is assumed that the orbits of all planets and satellites did not change because of perturbations. A regulating force emanating from the primary appears to act. In the gravitational system there is no place left for such regulating forces.



The perturbating activity appears unstable in the major planets, Jupiter and Saturn: Between the minimum of the year 1898-99 and the maximum of the 1916-17 there was found an 18 percent difference. As these planets did not increase in mass in the meantime, this change is not understandable from the point of view of the theory of gravitation, which includes the principle of the immutable gravitational constant.



The pressure of light emanating from the sun should slowly change the orbits of the satellites, pushing them more than the primaries, and acting constantly, this pressure should have the effect of acceleration: the pressure of light per unit of mass is greater in relation to the satellites than in relation to their primaries. But this change fails to materialize; a regulating force seems to overcome this unequal light pressure on primaries and secondaries.



The sun moves in space at a velocity of about twenty kilometers a second (in relation to the nearby stars). This motion, according to Lodge, must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.



The motion of the perihelia of Mercury and Mars and of the nodes of Venus differ from what is computed with the help of the Newtonian law of gravitation. Einstein showed how his theory can account for the anomaly of Mercury; however, the smaller irregularities in the movements of Venus and Mars cannot be accounted for by Einstein’s formulas.



Patura de cauciuc care tine obiecte grele...tine-o tot asa...

Vad ca nu ai studiat ce am postat eu aici...citeste cum au fost falsificate la modul cel mai grosolan experimentele cruciale din 1919/1922 care au confirmat ca nu exista nici un fel de Einstein Shift...teoria space-time-curvature este complet falsa, citeste tot ce am scris acolo...daca tu vrei sa crezi in asa ceva, in ciuda argumetelor si dovezilor prezentate, it is your business...

Cum au fost falsificate experimentele cruciale din 1919/1922 re: Einstein Shift:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (informatii senzationale, include si L. Essen, Critical Analysis of Special Relativity)

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html
« Ultima Modificare: Martie 13, 2008, 08:24:12 p.m. de sandokhan »
"An important scientific innovation
rarely makes its way by gradually
winning over and converting its
opponents: What does happen is that
the opponents gradually die out."
M. Planck

Offline Electron

  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Mesaje postate: 8403
  • Popularitate: +245/-217
Re: Imposibilitatea teoriei big bang/string-M theory
« Răspuns #5 : Martie 14, 2008, 12:12:05 p.m. »
E cazul sa repet deoarece acel citat al lui Newton anuleaza tot ce a scris si oferit publicului in Principia.

Exista multe alte lucrari care ofera teoria aetherului in care, de fapt, credea Newton...
Aceasta afirmatie, cum ca Newton, de fapt creadea in eter, ma duce cu gandul la afirmatia altora ca Einstein, de fapt credea in Dumnezeu.
Despre Newton nu am citit atat de mult, deci nu ma pot pronunta asupra "credintelor sale intime". Voi citi ce prezinti tu aici, sa vad ce confirmari si dovezi aduci.

Citat
Iti poti raspunde la multe din intrebarile tale, doing some serious research...
Evident, dar daca tot esti aici su atatea cunonstinte care ne pot ajuta pe toti, nu e logic sa te intrebam pe tine, crescand astfel eficienta comunicarii? (Tu cunosti sursele mult mai bine, deci ne poti orienta :))

Citat
The sun moves in space at a velocity of about twenty kilometers a second (in relation to the nearby stars). This motion must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values. [...]
Cum s-a masurat aceasta viteza ?

Citat
Patura de cauciuc care tine obiecte grele...tine-o tot asa...
Adica?

Citat
Vad ca nu ai studiat ce am postat eu aici...citeste cum au fost falsificate la modul cel mai grosolan experimentele cruciale din 1919/1922 care au confirmat ca nu exista nici un fel de Einstein Shift...teoria space-time-curvature este complet falsa, citeste tot ce am scris acolo...daca tu vrei sa crezi in asa ceva, in ciuda argumetelor si dovezilor prezentate, it is your business...
Sunt la inceput, ai putina rabdare. :)


Citat
Cum au fost falsificate experimentele cruciale din 1919/1922 re: Einstein Shift:
http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (informatii senzationale, include si L. Essen, Critical Analysis of Special Relativity)
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html
Revin la asta dupa ce reusesc sa pargurg aceste articole.

e-
Don't believe everything you think.