Ouch!!!

image

h/t Twitchy

This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Ouch!!!

  1. tckev says:

    NSA is right on it. 😉

  2. Latitude says:

    speaking of twitchy!
    …dang ice cream had me that way all night!

  3. omanuel says:

    Fortunately deceit has it’s own seed of exposure included.

    When I return from vacation next week, I hope to finish and submit a manuscript showing that:

    Well-intentioned. but foolish, international agreements to save mankind from the threat of nuclear annihilation – by obscuring the energy (E) stored as mass (m) in cores of atoms, planets, stars and galaxies – instead destroyed credibility in post-1945 world governments, the integrity of science and mankind’s inalienable right to self-govern.

    Recent government spying on citizens is as desperate as the actions of a drowning person. They will only hasten the end of this tragic drama.

    Grants and awards inflated the egos of post-WWII scientists, as invisible new clothes fooled the emperor in a classic fairy tale.  Ego deflation by acceptance of reality will restore sanity to society and destroy man’s dangerous illusion of control over Nature.

    I regret being so slow to decipher this post-1945 web of well-intentioned deceit.

    With deep regrets,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

    PS – These post-1945 discoveries will likely be confirmed:

    1. Two forms of one fundamental particle – the neutron and its expanded form, the hydrogen atom – comprise the whole universe. It is understandable by all.  This reality has been obscured by imaginary divisions of fundamental particles (quarks, gluons, God particles, etc.), elements (Ne-A, Ne-B, Ne-C, etc.) and processes (superheavy element fission and trapping of interstellar grains in meteorites). 

    2. Self-sustaining nuclear reactors operated on the early Earth.

    3. Nuclear reactors still operate in cores of some planets.

    4. Our elements were made in the Sun before it exploded to birth the solar system.

    5. The Sun’s core is a pulsar, energized by neutron repulsion. 

    6. “Cold” fusion is a viable energy source.

    These seven consensus models of reality will likely be falsified:

    1. The Standard Solar Model of Hydrogen-filled stars.

    2. Yukawa’s model of all attractive nuclear forces.

    3. Models of pulsars as dead embers of ordinary stars.

    4. Theoretical models of black holes.

    5. Sub-particles of neutrons & protons: quarks, gluons, etc.

    6. Oscillating solar neutrinos, and

    7. AGW/AGC models of global warming & cooling induced by humans.

    Oliver K. Manuel
    28 June 2013

    • tckev says:

      Have a good vacation Oliver. 🙂

      • omanuel says:

        Thanks. When I have completed my mentor’s 1960 assignment, perhaps I shall retire by the ocean.

        It’s ceaseless waves remind me of the ceaseless competition between short-range forces of repulsion in neutrons and long-range forces of attraction in hydrogen atoms that comprise one cosmic heartbeat.

        If I don’t meet you in person this time around, perhaps we will meet again in about 20 Gyr!
        – om

    • Jim Masterson says:

      >>
      omanuel says:
      June 28, 2013 at 9:16 am
      <<

      1a. I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I probably don’t agree.
      2a. And not so early Earth. Too much nuclear decay for it to happen today naturally.
      3a. Purely hypothetical.
      4a. Probably not.
      5a. Probably not.
      6a. Probably not.

      1b. Anything can be falsified.
      2b. Ditto.
      3b. You probably mean white dwarfs. Pulsars are theoretical embers of type 2 supernovae. Anything can be falsified.
      4b. Anything can be falsified.
      5b. Ditto.
      6b. Ditto again.
      7b. Something I agree with 100%.

      Jim

      • DirkH says:

        As for the Black holes, I go with Einstein there – he didn’t deem them possible. Black holes are pure conjecture. see
        http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/index.html

        • Jim Masterson says:

          It’s interesting that you can derive a formula for escape velocity from a spherical body’s surface (purely Newton). Then if you decrease the radius of a spherical mass (without changing the included mass), the escape velocity increases. Eventually, the escape velocity exceeds the speed-of-light. So even Newton’s theory predicts black holes.

          Jim

        • cdquarles says:

          The effects, particularly gravitational, of a black hole should be testable empirically. I have seen some pretty convincing demonstrations. Gravitational lensing, I think.

        • Jim Masterson says:

          I thought Dirk would respond and tell me where to put my escape velocity equation.

          Jim

        • DirkH says:

          Read the link. Einstein denied the possibility of a singularity at the centre of a black hole.

          And another thought, is it physically possible to compress matter that much? Does Neutronium exist? Is gravity able to overcome Neutron repulsion? It is not possible to create isotopes beyond a certain ratio of neutrons to protons; they get ever more instable. How much stronger is the repulsion compared to gravity? at least 31 orders of magnitude IIRC.

          I don’t think what we see at the core of galaxies are massive black holes, and I don’t think it is dark matter that explains the rotational stability of galaxies – rather I am impressed with the plasma simulations of galaxies; plasma phenomena scale up – make voltages 10 times larger, spacial dimension 10 times larger and you get the same shape again only 10 times slower.

          Zwick invented dark matter out of whole cloth to explain that galaxies don’t fly apart. Purely gravitational cosmology. No EM forces in that kind of galaxy.

          Very strong ELECTROmagnetic field in the galaxy observed by Voayger probes! Scientists stunned, puzzled!
          (well of course they don’t say ELECTRO in the presser…)
          “We’ve seen one after another signature of a very strong magnetic field in the galactic environment,” says Nathan Schwadron, a space scientist at the University of New Hampshire in Durham who is one of the authors on the paper. “That magnetic field influences the structure of the heliosphere and the boundaries themselves. That leads to a whole new paradigm.”
          Along with increased evidence for a strong external magnetic field, IBEX has also provided a new measurement for the speed of the heliosphere itself with respect to the local cloud.
          “We recently analyzed two years worth of IBEX data, and they showed that the speed of the heliosphere – with respect to the local cloud of material – is only 52,000 miles per hour, instead of the previously believed 59,000,” says David McComas at the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas, who is first author on this paper and also the principal investigator for IBEX. “That might not seem like a huge difference, but it translates to a quarter less pressure exerted on the boundaries of the heliosphere. This means there’s a very different interaction, a much weaker interaction, than previously thought.”
          http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ibex/news/nobowshock.html
          Back to the drawing board… (Electric Universe – no dark matter.)

          Don Scott Donald Scott Lecture

          0:47 simulations of galaxies, w/o dark matter, plasma physik & Newton’s laws and it forms perfect galaxies

      • omanuel says:

        Hi Jim,

        Read op 153-154 of Fred Hoyle’s autobiography and you may grasp why all these other post-1946 constructs were needed to support the illusion of hydrogen-filled stars.

        There are none. All stars make and
        discard hydrogen, even neutron stars. The SSM of H-filled stars was invented by Fred Hoyle.

        Oliver K. Manuel

        • Jim Masterson says:

          >>
          omanuel says:
          June 29, 2013 at 12:05 pm

          Read op 153-154 of Fred Hoyle’s autobiography and you may grasp why all these other post-1946 constructs were needed to support the illusion of hydrogen-filled stars.
          <<

          And it’s such a good illusion, too.

          >>
          There are none. All stars make and
          discard hydrogen, even neutron stars. The SSM of H-filled stars was invented by Fred Hoyle.
          <<

          At least Hoyle named the Big Bang. It’s kinda catchy.

          So BBN is a farce? I sorta liked George Gamow’s Ylem theory.

          Jim

  4. Jim Masterson says:

    >>
    DirkH says:
    July 5, 2013 at 3:43 pm
    <<

    Okay, here goes . . .

    >>
    Read the link. Einstein denied the possibility of a singularity at the centre of a black hole.
    <<

    I started to read the link, but I tripped over the fact that Newton’s and Einstein’s theories don’t predict black holes. In fact, they do.

    The equation for escape velocity is: v = sqrt(2*G*M/R); where G is Newton’s gravitation constant, M is the mass of a sphere, and R is its radius. If you decrease R, v increases. If you set v = c (speed-of-light) and solve for R, you’ll get the Schwarzschild radius for mass M.

    GR also predicts black holes. One solution of GR leads to black holes–Schwarzschild was the first to provide the solution.

    Einstein was brilliant, but he was wrong about Quantum Mechanics. For example, at the Fifth Solvay Conference in 1927, Einstein and Bohr argued about QM the entire conference. Einstein said, “God does not play dice.” And Bohr said, “Einstein, stop telling God what to do.” In the morning, Einstein would present a devastating attack on some facet of QM. The rest of the day Bohr worked on the problem until evening when he would present the error in Einstein’s reasoning. This would continue for the rest of the conference. This resulted in the famous EPR paper (for the authors: Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen). Basically, the paper stated that entangled particles must either communicate infinitely fast (violating Relativity), or there are hidden variables not accounted for in QM. It took Bohr weeks to find the error in logic. Basically, entangled particles violate Bell’s inequality and do, indeed, communicate instantly–even over long distances.

    It doesn’t impress me that Einstein objected to black holes. He could easily be wrong about them too.

    >>
    And another thought, is it physically possible to compress matter that much?
    <<

    Why not? If you have enough gravity, it will compress anything.

    >>
    Does Neutronium exist?
    <<

    Apparently so.

    >>
    Is gravity able to overcome Neutron repulsion?
    <<

    It seems to overcome electron degeneracy pressure. Why not neutron degeneracy pressure? You need about 3 solar masses.

    >>
    It is not possible to create isotopes beyond a certain ratio of neutrons to protons; they get ever more instable. How much stronger is the repulsion compared to gravity? at least 31 orders of magnitude IIRC.
    <<

    More like 40 orders of magnitude. Gravity is the weakest of forces, but with a sufficient amount of mass, the force can be very large–much stronger than the strong force.

    >>
    I don’t think what we see at the core of galaxies are massive black holes, and I don’t think it is dark matter that explains the rotational stability of galaxies — rather I am impressed with the plasma simulations of galaxies; plasma phenomena scale up — make voltages 10 times larger, spacial dimension 10 times larger and you get the same shape again only 10 times slower.
    <<

    You’re dealing with an incredibly large mass–billions of solar masses. Its size is roughly smaller than our solar system, because its radiated power fluctuations would indicate such a size. If not a black hole, then what would fit?

    >>
    Zwick invented dark matter out of whole cloth to explain that galaxies don’t fly apart. Purely gravitational cosmology. No EM forces in that kind of galaxy.
    <<

    I thought dark matter was invented to explain the rotational characteristics of many galaxies. One needed more mass (or a different theory) to explain the discrepancy.

    >>
    Very strong ELECTROmagnetic . . .
    . . .
    . . . (Electric Universe — no dark matter.)

    Don Scott Donald Scott Lecture
    . . .
    <<

    Disproving the existence of dark matter, doesn’t disprove the existence of black holes. I’m a MOND advocate myself.

    Jim

    • philjourdan says:

      First I find “black holes” and “dark matter” to be the “black boxes” of astral physics. In other words, it is the unknown that they will continue to search for answers. Do they exist? time and knowledge will tell.

      But on the subject of Einstein, he was a certified Genius. However, he was no Renaissance man. He was brilliant in some areas, and completely ignorant in others. But such is genius.

      If CliSi has taught us anything it is that we should never accept anyone’s opinion unquestioningly. The good scientists are the ones that make us search for the right answers, and give us the clues. The bad ones start religions.

  5. omanuel says:

    No one can see the “Father of Sunlight” directly, but solar images with energy filters partially reveal the sub-structure beneath the photosphere:

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/multimedia/Solar-Events.html

    Gamma rays and cosmic rays are absorbed and re-emitted thousands of times before finally becoming the visible light that is usually emitted from the top of the Sun’s photosphere.

    Please see the second open message submitted on July 4 2013 to the Space Science & Technology Committee of the US House of Representatives. It is posted at the top of my web page.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s