0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
What debunked ideas?Or you just like being a critic
Quote from: Harry Costas on 12/07/2009 10:12:38What debunked ideas?Or you just like being a criticI think we both know who the critic is here Harry.
LET'S LEAVE OUT POLITICS
I have been published, censored, misrepresented, and black-listed by some of the world's finest scientific journals and proceedings publishers.
Thanks to the kindness of Fate, I survived and avoided efforts to silence me .........
Looking back over the past 50 years, I can honestly say that my research career has been advanced by the actions of scientists, editors, and NAS members who chose to ignore unexpected experimental observations.
(a.) The Sun is a ball of Hydrogen (H),(b.) H-fusion powers the Sun and the cosmos, (c.) Neutron stars are "dead" nuclear embers of stars, (d.) Neutron-neutron interactions are attractive, and (e.) Every energetic cosmic explosion is a new mystery!The above are all empirically false. Those who claim otherwise are simply ignoring experimental data that they cannot accept.
Abstract: An overview is given in section 1, of uncertain building blocks of present-day cosmologies. Thereafter, these edited lecture notes deal with the following four special problems: (1) They advertise Wiltshire's result -- making `dark energy' obsolete -- that accelerated cosmic expansion may be an artefact, due to an incorrect evaluation of the cosmic timescale in a Universe whose bulk matter is inhomogeneously distributed. (2) They cast doubt on Hawking's prediction of black-hole evaporation. (3) They point at various inconsistencies of the black-hole paradigm, in favour of nuclear-burning central engines of AGN. (4) They re-interpret (a best case of) `anomalous redshifts' as non-cosmological, kinematic redshifts in strong jet sources.
Quote from: om on 12/07/2009 19:13:39(a.) The Sun is a ball of Hydrogen (H),(b.) H-fusion powers the Sun and the cosmos, (c.) Neutron stars are "dead" nuclear embers of stars, (d.) Neutron-neutron interactions are attractive, and (e.) Every energetic cosmic explosion is a new mystery!The above are all empirically false. Those who claim otherwise are simply ignoring experimental data that they cannot accept. Item (b). What empricial evidence show this to be false?
The following paper is quite interesting, rather than expressing my opinion and avoiding the Chinese Whisper read it.
If you only want to debate - as an anonymous coward hiding behind a pseudonym - then it would be a waste of my time, yours, and the resources of the Naked Science Forum.
I rather thought the idea was for you to explain your ideas to me, not for you to probe my knowledge. Or were those rhetorical questions? You appeared to supply the answers. Or are you using the Socratic method of teaching? Whatever, I’ll play ball.
(And thank you so much for apologizing for implying I was “an anonymous coward hiding behind a pseudonym.”)
What is the most abundant element in the Earth?Off the top of my head I would say oxygen, with iron a very close second. (The top of my head has gone bald in recent years, so it is always as well to check.)The most abundant elements in the Earth are O and Fe (both close to 32%).White, W.M. Geochemistry page 17………..and oxygen is the most abundant element on Earth.Krebbs, R.E. The History and Use of Our Earth’s Chemical Elements page 41From the Figure 4. Fe (32%) Oxygen (30%)The Academic Press The Encyclopedia of the Solar System page 32
Although these are only textbooks, rather than original research they are considerably more current that than your 1917 reference. (I do not intend to demean Harkins. His insights into such matters as the relative abundances of odd and even atomic numbered elements supported his position as a nuclear evolutionist. He was a geochemist before the term was coined.)
Of course, it is a somewhat meaningless question. There is still considerable debate as to light component in the core. Different views yield variations in bulk Earth composition of 2 or 3 percentage points for iron, readily shifting it between the most abundant, to the second most abundant in the planet. Equally, controversy rages over mantle composition and volatile depletion therein, on a whole mantle basis. Oxygen might easily vary by a similar percentage.
Shall we just agree that there is a lot of iron? I doubt your argument is materially effected if it is only placed as number two.
What is the most abundant element in ordinary meteorites?I have absolutely no idea? I have never heard of an ordinary meteorite. I have heard of siderites and their many subdivisions, IAB, IIc, IID, IIE, etc; and siderolites, including pallasites and lodranites; not to mention aerolites, both chondrites such as the enstatite chondrites, the olivine-hypersthene chondrites, and everyone’s favourite the carbonaceous chondrites, and achondrites like the diogenite and eucrite varieties. I’ve forgotten to mention most of them, but nowhere in there can I find an ‘ordinary meteorite’. Please enlighten me.
I find no fault with B2FH. WHo would argue with genius?What is your point?
Abstract: The idea of the global gravitational effect as the source of cosmological redshift was considered by de Sitter (1916, 1917), Eddington (1923), Tolman (1929) and Bondi (1947), also Hubble (1929) called the discovered distance-redshift relation as "De Sitter effect". For homogeneous matter distribution cosmological gravitational redshift is proportional to square of distance: z_grav ~ r^2. However for a fractal matter distribution having the fractal dimension D=2 the global gravitational redshift is the linear function of distance: z_grav ~ r, which gives possibility for interpretation of the Hubble law without the space expansion. Here the field gravity fractal cosmological model (FGF) is presented, which based on two initial principles. The first assumption is that the field gravity theory describes the gravitational interaction within the conceptual unity of all fundamental physical interactions. The second hypothesis is that the spatial distribution of matter is a fractal at all scales up to the Hubble radius. The fractal dimension of matter distribution is assumed to be D = 2, which implies that the global gravitational redshift is the explanation of the observed linear Hubble law. In the frame of the FGF all three phenomena - the cosmic background radiation, the fractal large scale structure, and the Hubble law, -could be consequences of a unique evolution process of the initially homogeneous cold gas. Within field gravity fractal framework a new qualitative picture of the structure and evolution of the Universe has emerged, with some quantitative results that may be tested by current and forthcoming observations.
ahhhh... Iron and Oxygen, Earth's two most abundant elements -- Rust -- Hemaglobin!Hemaglobin... the color of the glow of health and of the blush of embarrassment, the color of both the wondrous renewability of the womb and the shameful sin of war. Hemaglobin, of all the proteins, the most symbolic of life!!(And why do I feel underfoot around 2 struggling titans? -- or at least 1½ titans?)
THE MOB CONTROLS ACCESS TO JOURNALS AND TO RESEARCH FUNDSResearch proposals and research papers are evaluated by anonymous reviewers.If your findings or your ideas are not mainstream, your paper will not be published and you will not receive research funds.This system has become progressively more corrupt over my career and science has become progressively more like a fairy tale. Perhaps I am just an optimist, but I have recently noticed encouraging signs of less arrogance in the violation of scientific principles by NAS and federal agencies and of less arrogance in the violation of basic human rights by leaders of the United States government. Hopefully ethical web sites like the "Naked Science Forum" may be able to help save science from total self-destruction.
G'day OliverYour response is fantastic, thank you for the info.
Quote from: om on 12/07/2009 04:56:08THE MOB CONTROLS ACCESS TO JOURNALS AND TO RESEARCH FUNDSResearch proposals and research papers are evaluated by anonymous reviewers.If your findings or your ideas are not mainstream, your paper will not be published and you will not receive research funds.This system has become progressively more corrupt over my career and science has become progressively more like a fairy tale. -----This info will make me harder for me to continue my research. Even more, I am an Indonesian that usually being banned before say something.
THE MOB CONTROLS ACCESS TO JOURNALS AND TO RESEARCH FUNDSResearch proposals and research papers are evaluated by anonymous reviewers.If your findings or your ideas are not mainstream, your paper will not be published and you will not receive research funds.This system has become progressively more corrupt over my career and science has become progressively more like a fairy tale.