Forumul Scientia

Diverse => Critici ale paradigmei curente in stiinta => Subiect creat de: sandokhan din Martie 11, 2008, 09:26:45 p.m.

Titlu: Paradoxul Soarelui tanar
Scris de: sandokhan din Martie 11, 2008, 09:26:45 p.m.
Unul dintre cele cinci paradoxuri legate de Soare (faint young sun paradox, sun neutrino paradox, coronal heating paradox, cold sun paradox si solid sun surface paradox) este paradoxul soarelui timpuriu.

In continuare, cele mai bune informatii si prezentare despre acest subiect:

The young faint Sun paradox and the age of the solar system by D. Faulkner

The nuclear fuel theory, as an energy source for the Sun/Stars, was invented by a rosicrucian, Hans Bethe, with no evidence or scientific proof whatsoever.

In theory, as its nuclear fuel ‘burns’ up, the sun’s core should shrink, and this would make the reactions occur more readily. Therefore, the sun should shine more brightly as it ages.

But this means that if billions of years were true, the sun would have been much fainter in the past. However, there is no evidence that the sun was fainter at any time in the earth’s history.

Evolutionists and long-agers believe that life appeared on the earth about 3.8 billion years ago. But if that timescale were true, the sun would be 25% brighter today than it was back then. This implies that the earth would have been frozen at an average temperature of –3ºC. However, most paleontologists believe that, if anything, the earth was warmer in the past. The only way around this is to make arbitrary and unrealistic assumptions of a far greater greenhouse effect at that time than exists today, with about 1,000 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today.

The physical principles that cause the early faint Sun paradox are well established, so astrophysicists are confident that the effect is real. Consequently, evolutionists have a choice of two explanations as to how Earth has maintained nearly constant temperature in spite of a steadily increasing influx of energy. In the first alternative, one can believe that through undirected change, the atmosphere has evolved to counteract heating. At best this means that the atmosphere has evolved through a series of states of unstable equilibrium or even non-equilibrium. Individual living organisms do something akin to this, driven by complex instructions encoded into DNA. Death is a process in which the complex chemical reactions of life ceases and cells rapidly approach chemical equilibrium. Short of some guiding intelligence or design, a similar process for the atmosphere seems incredibly improbable. Any sort of symbioses or true feedback with the Sun is entirely out of the question. On the other hand, one can believe that some sort of life force has directed the atmosphere's evolution through this ordeal. Most find the teleological or spiritual implications of this unpalatable, though there is a trend in this direction in physics.

A much higher concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has been suggested to maintain a proper temperature. This is an inferrence supported by no geological evidence whatsoever. Studies of iron carbonates by Rye et al. conclusively show that Earth had at most 20 percent the required amount of CO2. We have evidence that Mars also had temperatures suitable for liquid in its distant past. It is unlikely that CO2 would custom-heat both planets.

Conditions on the very early earth that permit the appearance and early evolution of life seem to be achievable without invoking too many improbabilities. As the sun then became hotter, however, we have a problem; if the greenhouse atmosphere is maintained for too long, as the sun brightens, a runaway greenhouse effect may result from positive feedback, creating a Venus-like situation and rendering the earth uninhabitable. A compensating negative feedback is required.

Some geochemical feedback may be possible, but it appears unlikely to be sufficient. Living organisms, too, started converting carbon dioxide into oxygen and organic matter, substantially decreasing the greenhouse effect as soon as photosynthesis got going. There is, however, no obvious reason for this process to keep exactly in step with the sun's increasing luminosity. It may be that we have simply been lucky, but as an explanation that is not entirely satisfactory. If the tuning did need to be very precise, Faulkner would have a point in calling it 'miraculous'.

As a result of a fainter Sun, the temperature on ancient Earth should have been some 25 °C lower than today. Such a low temperature should have kept large parts of Earth frozen until about one to two billion years ago. The case for Mars is even more extreme due to its greater distance from the Sun. Yet there is compelling geologic evidence suggesting that liquid water was abundant on both planets three to four billion years ago.

Earth's oldest rocks, which are found in northern Canada and in the southwestern part of Greenland, date back nearly four billion years to the early Archean eon. Within these ancient rock samples are rounded 'pebbles' that appear to be sedimentary—laid down in a liquid-water environment. Rocks as old as 3.2 billion years exhibit mud cracks, ripple marks, and microfossil algae. All of these pieces of evidence indicate that early Earth must have had an abundant supply of liquid water in the form of lakes or oceans.

This apparent contradiction—between the icehouse that one would expect based upon stellar evolution models and the geologic evidence for copious amounts of liquid water—has become known as the 'faint young sun paradox.'

A supersite which shows the errors in radiodating with uranium/iron carbonates made by S. Mojzsis in investigating the faint young sun paradox:

Evolutionists first tried to solve this “faint young Sun” problem by assuming that Earth’s atmosphere once had up to a thousand times more heat-trapping carbon dioxide than today. No evidence supports this and much opposes it. Actually, large amounts of carbon dioxide on a cool Earth would have produced “carbon dioxide ice clouds high in the atmosphere, reflecting the Sun’s radiation into outer space and locking Earth into a permanent ice age.”
A second approach assumes that Earth’s atmosphere had a thousand times more ammonia and methane, other heat-trapping gases. Unfortunately, sunlight quickly destroys both gases. Besides, ammonia would readily dissolve in water, making oceans toxic.
A third approach assumes that Earth had no continents, had much more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, and rotated once every 14 hours, so most clouds were concentrated at the equator. With liquid water covering the entire Earth, more of the Sun’s radiation would be absorbed, raising Earth’s temperature slightly. All three assumptions are questionable.

The theory of evolution was cooked up by none other than Erasmus Darwin (1796), the grandfather of C. Darwin, both rosicrucian members of the London Royal Society.

As I have mentioned already, the best book which completely destroys Darwin's theory is The Cosmic Serpent by Jeremy Narby (it includes very interesting flat earth maps drawn by the shamans of the Amazon).

Furthermore, suppose there really were some basic organic compounds formed from the 'primordial soup.' If there was any free oxygen in the atmosphere, it would oxidize those compounds -- in other words, it would destroy them. To resolve this dilemma, evolutionists have long hypothesized that there was no free oxygen in the Earth's ancient atmosphere.

However, geologists have now examined the Earth's oldest rocks and have concluded that the early Earth was probably rich in oxygen. Still, let's say the evolutionists are right -- there was no free oxygen in the early Earth. Without oxygen, there would be no ozone layer, and without the ozone layer, we would receive a lethal dose of the sun's radiation in just 0.3 seconds. How could the fragile beginnings of life have survived in such an environment?
Titlu: Re: Faint young sun paradox
Scris de: HarapAlb din Martie 11, 2008, 09:40:31 p.m.
 ai venit sa spurci si forumul asta ???

 nu sta nimeni sa citeasca nuvelele pe care le postezi cu copy-paste.

 daca ai ceva de spun, atunci spune-o cu, cuvintele tale si nu mai copia pe altii.

 in cazul in care continui in stilul asta o sa cer administratorilor sa-ti blocheze contul.
Titlu: Re: Faint young sun paradox
Scris de: sandokhan din Martie 11, 2008, 09:49:02 p.m.
Harap Alb, ne-ai spart pe toti cu chestiile astea...e urat cum procedezi mai ales dat fiind faptul ca nu stiai mai nimic din aceste lucruri...intai citeste ce am scris si dupa aceea vino cu pareri sau postari...tot ce am scris este adevarat...vino sa dialogam daca esti de alta te comportai altfel...
Titlu: Re: Faint young sun paradox
Scris de: admin din Martie 12, 2008, 01:18:22 a.m.
Sandokhan, te rog sa citesti atent cu regulile de scriere pe acest forum despre criticarea conceptelor fundamentale ale stiintei si sa te conformezi.
Titlu: Re: Faint young sun paradox
Scris de: Electron din Martie 12, 2008, 10:52:17 a.m.
...intai citeste ce am scris si dupa aceea vino cu pareri sau postari...tot ce am scris este adevarat...
Eu am o intrebare: din ce ai postat in acest topic, ce ai scris tu, si ce ai copiat de la altcineva? Din cate stiu eu, operatiunea copy/paste nu confera celui care copiaza drepturile asupra scrierilor in cauza. Adica, ceea ce copiezi nu ai scris tu.

Tu ce de spus despre acest subiect ? Scrie aici si eu voi citi cu mare interes. :)

Titlu: Re: Faint young sun paradox
Scris de: sandokhan din Martie 12, 2008, 10:52:48 a.m.
In primul rand doresc sa multumesc administratiei pentru acest spatiu acordat mesajelor mele...

Am citit cu atentie ceea ce ai scris la primul mesaj de aici, de acord cu exceptia bibliografiei in limba engleza; asa cum stiti, limba engleza a devenit si este absolut necesara pentru a aprofunda la un nivel ridicat orice subiect ce tine de fizica particulelor/fizica cuantica.

Intotdeauna introduc material amplu bibliografic in limba engleza la mesajele mele, pentru a arata clar care sunt argumentele de care vom avea nevoie pentru a afla mai multe informatii re: subiectul discutat.

Cred ca pana acum am postat doar citate relevante si de exceptie...

Teoria relativitatii (special si general) este absolut falsa; vom investiga in continuare documentatia necesara pentru a intelege acest lucru. Transistorul a fost inventat de N. Tesla, si are foarte putin de a face cu mecanica cuantica, inventata ad-hoc pentru a ascunde adevarul despre teoria aetherului.

Radiatia din ether observata de Chadwick ESTE de fapt 1939 L. Meitner, O. Hahn si F. Strassmann au facut o mare greseala; fenomenul de low energy metal transmutation, observat chiar din sec. XVIII de multi chimisti si fizicieni, este ceea ce explica asa numita nuclear fission (am sa revin pe acest subiect, si voi explica cum functioneaza de fapt un reactor nuclear, care nu este nici mai mult nici mai putin decat un acumulator gigantic de ether gen Reich/Tesla, voi explica experimentul lui Reich in care acesta a descoperit secretul secretelor din spatele energiei nucleare, pentru care a si fost arestat de guvernul american).

Cateva cuvinte pentru Harap Alb...esti un om de talent (eu recunosc valoarea acolo unde exista), dar nu cunosti si nici nu poti afla, de la nivelul la care te afli in prezent, raspunsurile la intrebarile fundamentale din fizica; trebuie sa ajungi la nivel de geniu (N. Tesla, V. Schauberger, C. Krafft, D. Larson), si sa ai capacitatea de a discerne intre informatii/teorii false si cele adevarate. Nu ma asteptam la asa o iesire necontrolata, mai ales dat fiind faptul ca nu esti in stare sa scrii macar cateva randuri din mesajele mele; pentru informatiile tale stimabile, eu stiu bine de tot si la modul cel mai sigur ce postez si ce scriu, daca includ copy & paste in mesaje, acesta este de nivel bibliografic, si intotdeauna cele mai formidabile si cele mai deosebite informatii, pe care altfel, nu le vei afla niciodata...

Deci, cer intelegere pe tema bibliografie in limba engleza...

Mai intai, sa intelegem cum a fost introdus in fizica conceptul de timp...

G. Riemann a introdus (1854 - disertatia originala pe: ) conceptul de n-dimensional geometry pentru a facilita reprezentarea geometrica a functiilor de o variabila complexa (in special logarithm branch cut). 'Such researches have become a necessity for many parts of mathematics, e.g., for the treatment of many-valued analytical functions.'

In nici un caz nu s-a gandit sa introduca timpul ca pe o noua variabila.

In contrast Riemann’s original non-Euclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an “amorphous continuum.” Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.

Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...

'If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then relativity is wrong' (Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 106).

If the velocity of light is only a tiny bit dependent on the velocity of the light source, then my whole theory of Relativity and Gravitation is false.' {Quotation of A. Einstein from a letter to Erwin Finley-Freundlich: August 1913}

Ce este timpul de fapt:

Tesla underlined that time was a mere man-made reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved space-time' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'space-time' binomium concept.

Motion through space produces the 'illusion of time'.

He considered time as a mere man-made 'measure' of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the 'curving' of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the 'equal and opposite' reaction of space on the body would 'straighten space back out'.

Nu exista timp in ether/aether, de aceea conceptul de spatiu-timp, sau space-time curvature este atat de eronat.

Mai departe.

Cartea formidabila care ofera toate detaliile necesare pentru a intelege falsitatea absoluta a formulei E=mc2, precum si erorile din teoria propusa de Einstein.

Erorile/greselile lui A. Einstein: lucrarea extraordinara care expune erorile din gandirea lui Einstein

(other valuable information, black holes, quasars, variable speed of light) (un site senzational) 00.html (supersite)


Universul Stationar/Erorile lui E. Hubble/Red Shift Errors

Voi reveni in curand si cu greseala inimaginabila facuta de E. Hubble, care a interpretat redshift din punctul de vedere al efectului Doppler...

Nikola Tesla despre conceptul eronat de space-time-curvature:

... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.'
'My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment.' — Nikola Tesla

At the age of 81, Tesla challenged Einstein's theory of relativity, announcing that he was working on a dynamic theory of gravity that would do away with the calculation of space curvature. supersupersite (new electromagnetics)

ether quotes

During the succeeding two years of intense concentration I was fortunate enough to make two far-reaching discoveries. The first was a dynamic theory of gravity, which I have worked out in all details and hope to give to the world very soon. It explains the causes of this force and the motions of heavenly bodies under its influence so satisfactorily that it will put an end to idle speculations and false conceptions, as that of curved space. According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves, Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible.

Speaking to his friends, Tesla often refuted some of Einstein’s statements, especially those which were related with curvature of space. He considered that it breaks the law of action and opposite reaction: “If curvature of space is formed due to strong gravitational fields, then it should become straight due to opposite reaction.”

Was Einstein wrong about Special Relativity?
Einstein's Misconceptions of Space and Time

Many notable scientists such as the French mathematician, Henri Poincare rejected Einstein’s Theory of Relativity due to it’s lack of sound mathematical procedures, absence of clearness of vision or rigorous arguments.


Alte greseli din special theory of relativity: (supersite)

H. Dingle critique of special relativity:

Cum sunt eliminate din sistemul universitar orice critici la adresa teoriei relativitatii...vezi sectiunea dedicata teoriei relativitatii...

Titlu: Re: Faint young sun paradox
Scris de: sandokhan din Martie 12, 2008, 10:59:51 a.m.
Electron, te rog sa citesti tot ce am scris aici; includ material original (vezi C14 + aether) si material bibliografic, la care altfel, nu ai avea acces...voi posta si mesajele mele, daca e nevoie, din matematica, legate de large number factorization, o noua formula bazata doar pe operatii elementare a logaritmului, o noua formula pentru infinite series/sums bazata doar pe numere Fibonacci, si multe altele...apreciez grija ta legata de materialul postat...

Sa mergem mai departe cu Einstein.

Cum a falsificat/modificat Einstein ecuatiile (false) ale lui P. Gerber, pentru a anunta in public ca a reusit sa explice advance of Mercury Perihelion...

The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look (the perihelion is the point in the orbit closest to a sun). Graduate theses may one day be written about this peculiar episode in the history of science. In his book, Subtle Is the Lord, Abraham Pais reports that when Einstein saw that his calculations agreed with Mercury’s orbit, “he had the feeling that something actually snapped in him ... This experience was, I believe, by far the strongest emotional experience in Einstein’s scientific life, perhaps in all his life. Nature had spoken to him.”
Fact: The equation that accounted for Mercury’s orbit had been published 17 years earlier, before Relativity was invented. The author, Paul Gerber, used the assumption that gravity is not instantaneous, but propagates with the speed of light. After Einstein published his General Relativity derivation, arriving at the same equation, Gerber’s article was reprinted in *Annalen der Physik* (the journal that had published Einstein’s Relativity papers). The editors felt that Einstein should have acknowledged Gerber’s priority. Although Einstein said he had been in the dark, it was pointed out that Gerber’s formula had been published in Mach’s Science of Mechanics, a book that Einstein was known to have studied. So how did they both arrive at the same formula?
Tom Van Flandern was convinced that Gerber’s assumption (gravity propagates with the speed of light) was wrong. So he studied the question. He points out that the formula in question is well known in celestial mechanics. Consequently, it could be used as a “target” for calculations that were intended to arrive at it. He saw that Gerber’s method “made no sense, in terms of the principles of celestial mechanics.” Einstein had also said (in a 1920 newspaper article) that Gerber’s derivation was “wrong through and through.”
So how did Einstein get the same formula? Van Flandern went through his calculations, and found to his amazement that they had “three separate contributions to the perihelion; two of which add, and one of which cancels part of the other two; and you wind up with just the right multiplier.” So he asked a colleague at the University of Maryland, who as a young man had overlapped with Einstein at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, how in his opinion Einstein
had arrived at the correct multiplier. This man said it was his impression that, “knowing the answer,” Einstein had “jiggered the arguments until they came out with the right value.”

Plagiatul lui Einstein re: Brownian Motion:

This brings us to the explanation of Brownian motion, the subject of another of Einstein's 1905 papers. Brownian motion describes the irregular motion of a body arising from the thermal energy of the molecules of the material in which the body is immersed. The movement had first been observed by the Scottish botanist Robert Brown in 1827. The explanation of this phenomenon has to do with the Kinetic Theory of Matter, and it was the American Josiah Gibbs and the Austrian Ludwig Boltzmann who first explained this occurrence, not Albert Einstein. In fact, the mathematical equation describing the motion contains the famous Boltzmann constant, k. Between these two men, they had explained by the 1890s everything in Einstein's 1905 paper regarding Brownian motion.

1827 - 78 years before Einstein gets credit for it, Robert Brown in Scotland explains Brownian Movement, yet Einstein never even cited him.

Cum au fost falsificate experimentele cruciale din 1919/1922 re: Einstein Shift: (informatii senzationale, include si L. Essen, Critical Analysis of Special Relativity)

Deci, electron, teoriile lui Einstein sunt complet si absolut false, de la un capat la celalalt; adevarata fizica, phi physics, cea bazata pe ether a fost ascunsa cu grija de establishmentul oficial.

Te rog sa citesti Extraterestrul Roman, N. Tesla de la ed. Obiectiv Craiova, pentru a afla mai multe detalii (in romana) despre inventiile lui Tesla si despre fizica aetherului...voi reveni pe acest subiect...

Titlu: Re: Faint young sun paradox/Einstein Fallacies
Scris de: Electron din Martie 12, 2008, 01:25:21 p.m.
sandokhan, vad ca sunt multe de citit. Voi comenta pe masura ce reusesc sa parcurg aceste surse. :)

In primul rand nu am considerat toate aceste topic-uri ca fiind o singura discutie, pentru ca asta multiplica si mai mult sursele de informatie (ceea ce nu e un fapt negativ, ci doar ingreuneaza discutia). Ca atare, eu ma voi referi in fiecare topic doar la punctele specifice topicului.

Ca o observatie generala, faptul ca aduci multe surse este admirabil, dar iti recomand sa specifici de fiecare data cand scrii ceva in aceste topicuri ce este scris de tine si ce este citat din altcineva, pentru ca asa cum vad mai sus, plagiatul il vezi si tu ca un lucru negativ.

Spor la scris si la dezbateri. ;)