Home arrow Science Philosophy
 
 
 
The Challenge and the Playing Field PDF Print E-mail
Social Science
Written by Keith Wilson   
Sep 20, 2006 at 10:05 PM
I have run businesses, run sales forces, been in the military, played sports, partook in legal issues, given a number of lectures and listened to many more, and have of course heard many politicians. So I will incorporate analogies in considering a 30 second answer to an audience member's question during a lecture on GE/EE: "If the Earth Expanded, where did all the extra mass come from"?

1. This is not tested. The few here giving lectures are the front line troops. The rest of us are REMF's - rear eschalon . . . staffers. A very good salesmen will not take what he is told from a staffer. He will hear it and pull from it only what fits for his personality, and his audience, and his objective. Any good lecturer who gives the same speech will modify the talk over time, keeping and enhancing what works, and tossing out that which doesn't. The point being is to take only what you want and then test it for effect.

2. The objective is to win. There is always a final score. The objective is not to give a lecture. The objective is to convince the largest number of minds that EE/GE is correct or at least should be seriously studied. Losing at the lecture is not good.

Last Updated ( Sep 21, 2006 at 07:48 AM )
Read more...
On Cause and Effect PDF Print E-mail
Social Science
Written by Paul Noel   
Jul 26, 2006 at 12:00 AM
In the natural world, most things occur in loops. That is cause becomes effect and effect becomes cause. It is a logical loop. It doesn't reduce well in the linear logic of most people. This confuses a lot of people. It seems quite logical because of this to understand that whatever process controls earth expansion would be altered by its progress. It is both cause and effect. For those who think A + B = C or other linear logic this is confusing. It doesn't reduce well. It doesn't fit computer programs well either. In the case of EE I expect in time that the reaction rates and end products will be altered by the very planet in which they occur. It is neither linear nor exponential. It is discrete quanta or packages. The reaction would happen one way for a while, and then another for a while and so on because the planet or star it happens on changes the reaction in both the matrix it happens in as well as changing the energy supply for it.
Last Updated ( Nov 04, 2007 at 05:06 AM )
Read more...
A Chat With a Petroleum Geologist PDF Print E-mail
Social Science
Written by Jim S.   
Jul 27, 2006 at 07:46 PM

I had a chance to chat about EE recently with a senior scientist with one of the world’s major oil companies. He is a Cal Tech physicist now working in the field of petroleum geology. He informed me that all the majors have numerous models of the Earth at “all” times past – although this was later clarified to mean only the period of interest for petroleum exploration---a “few hundred million years”. He immediately mentioned Pangaea, and I responded by pointing out that the continents fit together best on a smaller globe, eliminating by stages the newer ocean floor of both the Atlantic and Pacific.

Last Updated ( Aug 12, 2006 at 09:30 PM )
Read more...
What is Wrong with Science? PDF Print E-mail
Social Science
Written by Keith Wilson   
Jul 29, 2006 at 02:30 PM
What is clearly wrong with science is that the peer review system, and its ability to stifle new thought is too constraining and that constraint shows up in any number of scientific areas. It does not handle well some important issues. What is also wrong with the Scientific system is that it is at times much too slow. It is at times incapable of change in less than a generation - as has been shown. If you don't need anything fast, it works. So do you throw the baby out with the bath water? No, you keep what's good and find alternate systems to handle the outlying scientific endeavors.
Read more...
Epistemological Blunder PDF Print E-mail
Infinite Horizons
Written by Dr. Stavros T. TASSOS   
Aug 28, 2006 at 06:51 AM
The refutation of material infinity as the ultimate physical actuality is a permanent error and an epistemological blunder. I emphasize material, because infinity without mass-inerta is indeed a concept, not a physical actuality, as the mathematicians who "do not give a fig about the physical universe" (to use words brandished about here) and physicists accepting their lack of care of physical actuality claim. Limitless, i.e., no beginning, no end, space, being material i.e., the repository of all mass, thus and the answer to the question "where the Earth's mass comes from", has a limited speed of deformation, because only space without mass-inertia can deform at an infinite speed. In that context Zero is a concept, and not a physical actuality, because Zero has no mass, is empty space, and space without mass, empty space, does not exist, because otherwise we will not have waves endelessly at a constant and limited speed no matter what their wavelength is.
Last Updated ( Oct 16, 2006 at 02:21 AM )
Read more...
Space Infinitum PDF Print E-mail
Infinite Horizons
Written by Dr. Stavros T. TASSOS & David J. FORD   
Jul 24, 2006 at 12:00 AM

Abstract-Z∞ Space re-examines cosmology, astronomy, quantum mechanics and particle physics upon the fundamental principle that finite does not exist in any physical sense. Space is considered the necessary infinite source of all mass, which becomes measurable, via anisotropic distribution of space by ‘particles’, which are standing waves, ‘waving’ space itself. Matter and light are sine waveforms of local anisotropy in the elastic, large-scale isotropic continuum. The elastic continuum is lossless, provides all cosmic material ‘mass’, accounts for both ‘missing-mass’ and ‘dark-energy’, has infinite elasticity to any energy input up to v=c.

Last Updated ( Oct 16, 2006 at 02:21 AM )
Read more...
Minute Limitations PDF Print E-mail
Infinite Horizons
Written by Jim Erug   
Jul 28, 2006 at 09:48 AM
I believe, fundamentally, things have to be SIMPLE. It troubles me that the magical property of positive & neg. must be assigned without a mechanism. What makes pos. & neg. attract? Why not use male, female? What is it? I think the answer to that question will provide us with a more workable model. This question I would like answered: How can there be a limit to small, or large? It's been indicated there was no end to big, why should there be a small limit? I just can't get behind the magic of pos/neg attraction when that force can be explained simply with an ever decreasing particle size - just as all observed interactions.
Read more...
Energy as Abstract PDF Print E-mail
Infinite Horizons
Written by Robert Beck   
Jul 29, 2006 at 04:30 PM
Energy started as a concept, was defined as the ability to do work, and has been missunderstood since Einstein. What is it? What properties does it have? Can it be isolated and tested in any way? Can you keep some in a jar? Is there any way to identify the presence of"pure energy"? Everybody, from healers to physicists use the word "energy", without any clear idea of precisely what they have in mind. It is a convenient way of saying "we havent really got a clue what it is we are talking about, but it sounds as though we might" without admitting just how ridiculous this would sound if actually stated.
Read more...
Thinking in the Fourth Dimension PDF Print E-mail
Infinite Horizons
Written by Robert Therriault Jr.   
Oct 16, 2006 at 12:00 AM
Although science theories are wonderful... they always get added to eventually, by other scientists that come along without completely destroying the theory. Newton replaced by Einstein when dealing with faster motions... and such. The theory of relativity is still capable of being updated... what if "speculation" that the missing matter is more prevalent and constantly moving and changing between energy and matter... "once in a while making a stable amount of matter" and energy being added to the universe in the way of Novas, suns and such furnaces... taking matter and changing it into energy.
Last Updated ( Oct 16, 2006 at 05:47 AM )
Read more...
A Matter of Matter or Not PDF Print E-mail
Infinite Horizons
Written by Michael Netzer   
Jul 29, 2006 at 07:22 PM
The prevailing argument raised against Growing Earth theory and a growing universe invariably returns to the issue of the constancy of matter and the notion that matter cannot come into being, or be created - simply out of nothing. The scientific community placed an emphasis on this issue when rejecting S. Warren Carey's theory for Earth Expansion, nearly half a century ago, stating that there is no viable mechanism evident to science which allows for the creation of matter within the core of the Earth, causing it to expand. The common scientific perception of the substance of matter, when considering the atomic and sub-atomic construct from which it is comprised, puts into question, however, the viability of the term itself and whether such a thing as matter, as we've come to define and understand it, truly exists at all in our universe.
Last Updated ( Jul 29, 2006 at 07:27 PM )
Read more...
 
 



Copyright 2006, Growing Earth Consortium, All rights reserved.
Powered by Mambo