The WLC/SC "Something From Nothing" Cosmology Thread

[_Gadianton]

ya gotta have *outstanding* evidence for the claims you appear to be making.

Slowing down a little here, yeah, for his mushy ball making its own space as it squishes through glass, he needs some ridiculously good "evidence". However, I'm not to the point of asking for that, as I don't think he's even got out of the gate.

I would be overjoyed if he provide evidence he's actually attempted to read the book he referred to Dr. W. I don't believe for a second that he has.

Since he hasn't read his own book recommendation, I don't expect he'll pony up, so we need to lower expectations even more. Can he provide evidence that the "theory" he's referencing is actually a theory by someone, somewhere?

I don't think he's making it up himself, he has a source, but at the same time, as he explained it, it's so bad that he must be leaving some important context out or misrepresenting it. My experience with crackpot literature is that a solid crackpot knows enough to be dangerous, and Franktalk's explanation isn't even good enough to be considered a crank theory.

So I'm hoping he can rise to the occasion and at least cite a source that shows someone else out there in the world actually believes what he's written. I think that's a pretty reasonable request, but I give even this 50-50 odds he'll produce.

[Guest]

Franktalk,

Thank you for coming up with an answer to your question about how light 'slows down when it enters glass and speeds up again when it leaves (returns to a vacuum)'.

Your explanation was pretty much as expected, and I appreciate Doc's recognition of it for the classic example of woo-woo that it was, and saving it for posterity.

On this thread, you have claimed that peer reviewed mainstream science is "crap" and professional scientists are a bunch of jerks trying to show that they are smarter than anyone else.

Perhaps you missed the several references I made, on this and the other cosmology thread, to the fact that explanations provided were "Physics 101", or should be well understood by anyone with even the most basic knowledge of physics. No elitism or special status was claimed or even inferred - just the opposite. This is basic, mostly high school physics, stuff.

In my view, and clearly in that of others on this thread, the basic concepts behind the explanations being provided from mainstream science to your question should be common knowledge. This should be especially true for someone, like you, who claims to have taken physics in college.

You even indicated that you had a good understanding of what you refer to as the 'orthodox' view when it comes to electricity and magnetism. Nonetheless, not only do you clearly not understand, you indicate no curiosity or willingness to understand.

Maksutov and Gadianton have pretty thoroughly and credibly nailed down your situation and status on these issues. If what you say about your background is true, I am at a loss to understand why you would behave as you do on this board.

I will note again, however, that your behavior (extreme as it may be) seems analogous that of many of the faithful when they encounter scientific evidence that is contrary to their unfounded beliefs.

[_Franktalk]

Franktalk
I am sorry I can't give you a quick soundbite about orthodox field theory. It is designed to make a class of people. It is not designed to explain nature.

That is just nonsense. Sean Carroll's newest analysis "The Big Picture" (one among many hundreds of books that come out annually) exactly is doing what you say "orthodoxy" (a misnomer in science as you should know) doesn't do.

It is perception. You perceive the men of science differently than the men of religion. I on the other hand see them the same. Each group places gigantic worth on the paradigm they stand on. I have no problem with men doing this. But when I point out what is truly going on I don't get questions on why I feel this way I instead get told that I am uneducated. Which is far from the truth. But it is easier for these men to see me as uneducated than to accept that a thinking human could actually see the world this way.

I am using the word orthodox well within it's definition.

A closed mind reacts exactly the way that both the religious and orthodox scientist act. It was Socrates who said that we should not trust our senses and he was right. In the religious they trust the warm feelings they get when they seek God. For men of science they get that warm feeling that what they have learned is in fact reality. But both groups are lied to by their own minds. When you bring a false idol to your mind it will confirm your false idol is correct. This is the ultimate support of free will. This makes this world rather interesting to live on.

Of course once caught up in the lie hearing the truth just sounds completely nuts. So there is no danger from me changing the world. Any real change must be started within. If people dropped their false idols and cast everything away before seeking within then they will be led to truth just as Christ said. Christ is no god but he did give out a message that is true. But he knew that very few would take up the straight and narrow path.

[_Franktalk]

I would be overjoyed if he provide evidence he's actually attempted to read the book he referred to Dr. W. I don't believe for a second that he has.

I am curious why you have this opinion. Do you think it is impossible to read a book on physics and hold the views I have? If so Please explain. Thanks.

I am currently reading the works of Oliver Heaviside. The book Electromagnetic Theory is a slow read. But I just loved the first chapter in which he blasted other "scientist".

If you continue to believe I don't actually read these books that does not bother me. Once I departed from the orthodox path I was surprised by the attitude of others. But no more. That initial shock is over.

[_EAllusion]

I listened to the debate and part of the problem that seems to be infecting the conversation here is that Craig was supposed to stick to the Kalaam Cosmological argument and Cosmic design (fine-tuning) argument given the prior agreement. Instead, he also snuck in an argument from contingency too. Dude's primary MO in debate settings is a gish gallop, so it's a miracle he kept it to that. You have to separate those arguments out as they are distinct.

[_Gadianton]

I am curious why you have this opinion. Do you think it is impossible to read a book on physics and hold the views I have? If so Please explain. Thanks.

1) The book is way too mathematical, and so as they say: picture or it didn't happen. Please snap a page of notes you've taken as you've worked through the equations in the book and post a link, and I will admit that I am wrong -- if I am. I will also give you credit for seriously trying to learn something challenging if you've really "read" the book.

2) Not enough bang for the buck. The book is way too mathematical and theoretical to be of use to any of your garage-based projects, or your interests in free energy and other exotic ideas. Everything you need in that book to misconstrue and run with in the name of pseudoscience is found in the verbal description of the overall project in the first chapter.

Actually, I realized later this evening you did mention a candidate for your real source up-thread and I watched one of his youtube videos. Wondering if he drops a reference to your book now and again and that's where you got it. The book plays sort of a black box role, like cryptic notes from Tesla or Henry Moray.

[_DrW]

Once I departed from the orthodox path I was surprised by the attitude of others. But no more. That initial shock is over.

Franktalk,

Gadianton's made a good point upthread regarding your departure from the orthodox path and claimed understanding of magnetism relative to that required to build and operate the LHC. Here is a quick example as to why your unorthodox (nonsense) claims are of no practical value whatsoever. (If I recall correctly, I have alluded to the following events before on this board so this will be brief.)

During the 1990s the US Govt. came into possession of a Russian manufactured, man portable, explosive electromagnetic pulse weapon. The job of our team (from a national lab, a DOE weapons facility, and a university in Texas) was to determine the actual capabilities of such weapons, and to then develop appropriate countermeasures, if needed.

Instead of detonating the Eastern Block device for a one-time measurement, it was carefully disassembled and reverse engineered. Concurrent with this effort, I began working with Maxwell's equations, as well as specifications for performance of chemical explosives, to better understand what this thing could do.

The objective was to build a computer model that could be scaled to see how far this design could be pushed and still be man-portable, and then to develop and test possible countermeasures.

When we compared the results from the computer model to data we eventually obtained from detonating a number of the reverse engineered devices, we found very close agreement. Maxwell's equations worked well, even within the extreme constraints of fast explosions and the resulting steep edged EM pulses.

From that point forward we were able to stop blowing up stuff, tweak the models with some ground truth data, and then rely on the computer models to work on possible device design variants and develop effective countermeasures. Countermeasures were important because it was clear from the data that a number of critical western power grid installations could be vulnerable to attack by such a weapon.

This work was classified at the time, but since then two members of the group in Texas have been able to file non-classified patents on one of the devices they built for testing.

Now, what do you think the chances are that you, or anyone else who has "departed the orthodox path" would have been able to quickly and accurately develop a model that could - as ours did - provide the information necessary to identify the weapon's capabilities, power grid vulnerabilities, and develop effective countermeasures?

The chances are zero - because that special knowledge you think you have and may even believe, is nonsense. You know it and so does everyone else on this thread. Your ignorance and arrogance, and that of the crackpot authors of your favorite scalar wave, zero point energy websites, is astounding.

And while we are on the subject, your fast vanishing credibility is not augmented in the least by your referral to the light of Jesus Christ as evidence that your claims are valid.

The world is fortunate that such folks are content to scam unsuspecting consumers with bogus free energy devices, and troll on internet boards - while not taking responsibility for actually accomplishing anything worthwhile.

[_Franktalk]

Actually, I realized later this evening you did mention a candidate for your real source up-thread and I watched one of his youtube videos. Wondering if he drops a reference to your book now and again and that's where you got it. The book plays sort of a black box role, like cryptic notes from Tesla or Henry Moray.

I actually got the name from Ken Wheeler. So I bought two of his books and read them both. I also picked up a book on vector calculus to brush up things I learned 40 years ago. Now that I no longer study the scriptures I have way more time to learn some fun stuff.

Your reference to note taking is pretty lame. I never took notes when I studied calculus years ago and still don't feel the need. Although I am 65 and at some point my mind will start to lose function. But so far so good.

Since the work of Jefimenko is mostly modified classical physics I do not feel his work is the whole picture. But he is trying to extend our models to be more universal in application. Although he pushed causation into standard equations he stopped short of pushing causation into the ether or counterspace. Probably half of the real meat of the book is found in the exercises to use the equations he works out. This is pretty typical when studying subjects at this level.

[_Franktalk]

Now, what do you think the chances are that you, or anyone else who has "departed the orthodox path" would have been able to quickly and accurately develop a model that could - as ours did - provide the information necessary to identify the weapon's capabilities, power grid vulnerabilities, and develop effective countermeasures?

Thank you for making my point. You used Maxwell's equations which describe what Faraday was measuring. You applied Heaviside's grid equations and probably had some stuff from Steinmetz as well. You did not extend electromagnetic theory one bit.

I do not wish to take away your hard work and success. What was done very few people could do. You appear to be a smart man and if these are things you have done in the past then it seems that you can turn knowledge into a functioning device. Good for you.

[_Gadianton]

Your reference to note taking is pretty lame. I never took notes when I studied calculus years ago and still don't feel the need.

I thought that you might answer this way.

I also picked up a book on vector calculus to brush up things.

Well that's something. Feel free to snap a picture of some problem sets you've worked out as a substitute...(interesting that you accept the authority of academia's textbook)

Now that I no longer study the scriptures I have way more time

You're overreaching a bit fabricating your narrative ...

Although he pushed causation into standard equations he stopped short of pushing causation into the ether

This restates what I've already described up-thread after skimming chapter 1 for thirty seconds. And as i already said, it doesn't imply this "source" can be used for magic. I still maintain the book is useless for your project. Please describe something from the book that would indicate teleportation is possible. Or rather, describe *anything* the book says that is interesting at all, for any reason whatsoever, that doesn't merely restate the ten-word summary I gave up-thread about causality. I rest my case.

Probably half of the real meat of the book is found in the exercises (that franktalk performs entirely in his head, like in Tesla's autobiographical narrative; Franktalk, the next Tesla genius does the same) to use the equations he works out. This is pretty typical when studying subjects at this level.

A level that is non-existent in the world of overunity and teleportation. But yes, I see now that you did reveal your real source, Wheeler. Thank you for that.

Thank you for making my point. You used Maxwell's equations which describe what Faraday was measuring. You applied Heaviside's grid equations and probably had some stuff from Steinmetz as well. You did not extend electromagnetic theory one bit.

This is inconsistent with your position above where you reject photons absorbed and emitted by electron shells. If your position is aligned with Wheeler's, then you reject modern science in totality, including all of chemistry and electromagnetic theory. Wheeler states there are 4 forces in the universe, none of which I've heard of. You need to figure out if your position is a) we understand the basics, but not the really advanced stuff or b) we misunderstand everything. In *this* response to Dr. W., you say "a" but up-thread you imply "b" and Wheeler outright claims "b".

Wheeler claims modern science can't explain a pinwheel in a globe and he's the first person in the world to do so.

Dr. W's point is that a person can't work at the level he did and not understand anything about electricity. Wheeler outright anticipates this line of criticism and states outright that modern science builds supercolliders in abject ignorance of how electricity works, which is silly.

He puts on a great stage show, I'll give him credit for that. And I'm sure he really is highly intelligent. It's funny, he gets really angry and scoffs at peer-review as a bunch of self-promoting back-patting, and nothing more, as if one person patting himself on the back (himself) is a better way to go. He cites his own authority as a genius and a college chess champ. Did that impress you, Franktalk, that he was a chess champ in college? Do you think aside from the back patting, there are other geniuses who work in science and who played chess in college? Or is Wheeler the first college chess champ?

So what are you up to in your lab, anyway? Smiling wryly at academia as you put a pinwheel in a globe; pretending that you are transforming Jefimenko's equations in your head as it moves?

And finally, since Dr. W. has failed to extend the bounds of electromagnetic theory in his work for national defense, can you point any of Wheeler's youtube experiments that extend electromagnetic theory? So far all I've seen are planetarium novelty gifts that he gives alternative explanations for.