81
New Theories / Re: the forgotten aether,2023
« on: 23/06/2023 19:30:14 »
Huh, I guess when you get off on the wrong foot, with particle physics and dismissing the aether in 1905, this is what happens readers.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Its funny that we agree we 100% see it our own way and not the other. But I seriously wasn't born yesterday and know when something is unknown in science, there's no way in hell I'm bending for you just the same as you for me! hahawhy don't you guys come up with something to work on?!? all you do is bitch.
Critiquing your ideas is completely in line with the purpose of this forum. If you don't like being critiqued, then you're not in the right place. You should know, based on past experience, that we are going to correct you when you say something that goes against the grain of the current state of scientific evidence. With that in mind, why did you want us to un-ban you so that you could come back and face the same kind of push-back that you got before? Did you think that we would discard current scientific theory in favor of a model for which you cannot offer evidence? Why?
The mass defect (the difference in mass between the nuclei that fused together versus the nucleus that was produced) is expressed in the form of increased particle velocities (the resulting nuclei and subatomic particles produced by the reaction are moving quickly).Is that supposed to be empirical knowledge? It like a lot of the 'empirical' knowledge out there, backed by the insults, its a sort of offense, I wonder if someday I'll have to do something legal about that? Not to anyone here but people like that with pfft actual....you know.....power and stuff. heheh
Have you noticed how badly that's working?Run in circles then what the hell do i care?
I think it's nonsenseHuh today we've reached a point where I could just run my writing through an AI paper writer and you'd think it was Phd. I 'll keep to my simple backwoods dialogue technique thank you. I'm better at producing lots of rough sketches then engineering them, that would take considerable time, just sketches is all I'm going to give you.
It's not well enough written to say whether or not it is scientifically plausible.
Air con might tell us a lot about conventional heat, but not about this new "magical" sort which you have postulated.If the heat that is blown off the outdoor coil was conventional heat, explain how and why it re-absorbs the energy in the indoor coil???
All hot objects radiate electromagnetic radiation (at least all of them made of normal matter).So the center of the earth is radiating heat?
What's funny about it?Yes I believe I have a few arguements that go along with yours. For example, heat, can't cause warming, it causes cooling, like hot water freezes faster then cold, so heat burning INSIDE of something like a box is how we can look at it.
Do you have any evidence that heat emissions by humans are the cause of climate change?
No pope? anyhoo how is particles physics supposed to explain anything? The medium of nothing? where are you going with this stuff?But north and south are determined by the nucleus.Nope.