Scissors Simplified

a. the intentional perversion of truth; b. an act of deceiving or misrepresenting

Moderator: scott

User avatar
daxwc
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6697
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:35 am

re: Scissors Simplified

Post by daxwc »

Can you give us some background on Stan Byers please Jim.
What goes around, comes around.
Richard
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 556
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:34 pm
Location: Bakers Mills NY

re: Scissors Simplified

Post by Richard »

energy is created.

if Force is not restricted or absorbed? guess what!

No energy

I am not the author Eric...I'm a simple minded insignificant of no importance little piece of Proof reader.

by the way, I never except any thing without researching it first...

Either get Physics to call Energy and Force the Same, or deal with the fact that energy can only exist as a restrictive value to force.

richard
where man meets science and god meets man never the twain shall meet...till god and man and science sit at gods great judgement seat..a tribute to Bessler....kipling I think
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

With all due respect, the Big Bang theory sounds like a bunch of utter nonsense. And gravity being caused by space-time warping also sounds like a bunch of utter nonsense.

So we must agree to disagree.


Image
erick
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:43 pm
Location: New York

Post by erick »

Please show me any instance of energy being created.

E
erick
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:43 pm
Location: New York

Post by erick »

Hi Jim,

We can agree to disagree. I will say however that there is quite a bit of evidence to support the idea of the Big Bang. Similarly, there is quite a bit of evidence to support the theory of general relativity. Special relativity has been observed. It's only a matter of time before general relativity is proven as well. If it is correct than Einstein's explanation of gravity would be correct.

Just my 2c (as well as the majority of the scientific community)...

E
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

Post by eccentrically1 »

Mass and energy can't be destroyed or created. But matter can. Mass and matter are confused with each other. They aren't the same thing. Matter is a loose term. Mass and weight are confused with each other as well.
When particles of matter are accelerated towards each other, the products of their destruction retain their mass and energy just as they should. But sometimes new particles are created.

I haven't read Byer's writings yet, but I'll bet he doesn't have any way to test his shielding theories.
I'm sticking with the accepted theories on gravity for now.
Here's another theory that sounds plausible:

http://higgs-boson.org/
Richard
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 556
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:34 pm
Location: Bakers Mills NY

re: Scissors Simplified

Post by Richard »

eric query's
Please show me any instance of energy being created.

E
let us reason....mass/ energy equivalency

Gravity is said to coalesce matter to mass..thus mass creation ( from matter) is energy. we know this because of equivalency.

richard
where man meets science and god meets man never the twain shall meet...till god and man and science sit at gods great judgement seat..a tribute to Bessler....kipling I think
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

Post by eccentrically1 »

Gravity doesn't coalesce matter into mass. It coalesces matter. Mass isn't a property that can be created. It's just a measurement. A universal measurement - 1 kilo on earth is 1 kilo on the moon; the measurement of matter in the object.
Weight is the measurement of gravitational force on an object. Weight is different on the moon and the earth. If you weigh 120 pounds on earth then you'd weigh about 20 pounds on the moon due to its' lower gravity. And density, if anyone cares, is mass divided by the volume of space the object displaces.
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

Re: re: Scissors Simplified

Post by eccentrically1 »

daxwc wrote:Can you give us some background on Stan Byers please Jim.
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/ReviewLetters.htm

Here is the page on his website that details his efforts to promote his theory; he contacted the NSF and the Air Force. They politely referred him to each other.
Harold Puthoff, who John Collins has said supports a Bessler wheel principle, obtained a copy of his paper that is at the top of the page; Byers claims he plagiarized him.
User avatar
daxwc
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6697
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:35 am

re: Scissors Simplified

Post by daxwc »

What is his qualifications, is he a physicist.
What goes around, comes around.
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

Post by eccentrically1 »

No. If he was, he would more than likely offer that information on his website. But if he did have a physics degree, would that make his theory seem even less plausible? Or would it give it an air of authority, of believability?
This is the second result from a google search, from 2007:

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Physics-1358 ... essure.htm
Richard
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 556
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:34 pm
Location: Bakers Mills NY

re: Scissors Simplified

Post by Richard »

eccetrically1 writes
Gravity doesn't coalesce matter into mass. It coalesces matter. Mass isn't a property that can be created. It's just a measurement.
I understand your reasoning, however the conclusion is wrong. also W=mg is not relative to the subject, so why mention it, like it does?

I am willing to assume, that you reason from "Special Relativity" and not General Relativity..?

let me be blunt, please; rest mass or invariant mass is the measure of individual "particles" of a mass...when particles / matter coalesce, voila! Mass is created and quite frankly this has nothing to do with the "three states of mass"

Isn't it just wonderful how everything happens in threes...Three laws of this and three laws of that and three states of blah blah blah. Do you ever feel eccentrially1, that there is a tendency for science to "jump on the band wagon"?

Some things don't take genius...it only takes honesty to let the emperor know hes still parading around naked.
where man meets science and god meets man never the twain shall meet...till god and man and science sit at gods great judgement seat..a tribute to Bessler....kipling I think
erick
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:43 pm
Location: New York

Post by erick »

Umm no. I never do get the feeling that "science" has a tendency to "jump on the band wagon". The main premise of the scientific method is to test and test again and again to prove or disprove theories. This is the fundamental difference between the scientific method and dogmatic belief.

Theories and ideas that are accepted by the scientific community are accepted because they have been tested time and again with the same results that support them. People who say things like "science jumps on the bandwagon" simply choose to disbelieve based on their own ignorance or unwillingness to accept the results of scientific analysis.

Please tell me what you find so hard to believe about the concept of general relativity and what that means for the origin of the source of gravity.

Oh and BTW there are 4 states of matter :-P

E
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

Re: re: Scissors Simplified

Post by eccentrically1 »

Richard wrote:
let me be blunt, please; rest mass or invariant mass is the measure of individual "particles" of a mass...when particles / matter coalesce, voila! Mass is created and quite frankly this has nothing to do with the "three states of mass"
I hate to be picky, but that's the way science is. Mass isn't created. Matter coalesces into planets and stars, not mass.
Richard
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 556
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:34 pm
Location: Bakers Mills NY

re: Scissors Simplified

Post by Richard »

eric ask
Please tell me what you find so hard to believe about the concept of general relativity and what that means for the origin of the source of gravity.
The scientific method is equally EXclusive eric. If this and this and that equals this, then we may state the empirical as thus...bullshit!

have you personally looked for the fineprint in many of these empirical laws; I assure you there are restrictions to frame of reference and conditions that must be imposed for the rule to work.

E=Mc2=F=ma and many scientist can not tell you the difference between Energy and Force..?

Science is as much fragmented and divided and arrogant and obtuse and as blind as any other religion...yes science is a religion seeking the all goddamn mighty empirical.

Rest assured when someone imposes a law on me, you can bet I'll see if it is justifiable....For all that Science gives us, it equally and arrogantly denies us. That, sir; is the law of empericals.

there is nothing in nature that points to gravity..that is what is wrong eric.

richard
edit to add

eric
Oh and BTW there are 4 states of matter :-P
I think you misread mass? its ok, I find these mistakes in science all the time :-)
where man meets science and god meets man never the twain shall meet...till god and man and science sit at gods great judgement seat..a tribute to Bessler....kipling I think
Post Reply