electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
Er, WRONG <loud buzzer> The nearest star is...the Sun. Every schoolgirl knows that.
10,000 clams to the first skeptic to debunk...
- Thread starter electrafixtion
- Start date
Er, WRONG <loud buzzer> The nearest star is...the Sun. Every schoolgirl knows that.
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
Truthfully, I don't remember any valid explanations so I am giving ANYONE the chance to refute these photos as being explained by either some common place technology or other explainable phenomenon mistaken for technology.
I did read it and will take this opportunity to THANK you sincerely for it. In fact I have read it about 4 times. Everyone knows here that I don't claim to have ANY expertise in the field of physics. When it comes to math, I am about as inclined as a cinder block.
Synthesizer Patel also helped me out GREATLY in this thread.
You see, I have a very rebellious streak. I DO NOT believe that cutting edge physics or scientific understanding and discovery can come from within the safe walls of some university or college library somewhere as Phlog suggested.
Tell me where to read about the Hutchinson Effect, Zero Point Energy and Anti Gravity/Gravity Manipulation in university.
All these things exist beyond question and yet because of the narrow minded empiricist's cliques that rule these institutions, these more the credible sciences are denied. Why!?
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
Or possibly miss quoted. rpenner, I have lost serious faith in MR. Sereda today, but I am not prepared to call him a liar. Possibly a dreamer, but not a liar. To me, the jury is still out however.
Pathetic. You know what I meant. Is that all you have?
Einstein had a frikking degree in Physics. He published papers in peer reviewed journals. So he did not pursue his research via the usual route of a PhD. You do not have to, anyone can submit a thesis privately.
Maybe if you'd spent some time at a University, you'd know this?
Do you believe in the resurrected body of Jesus Christ? Do you believe it is made of light?
Sereda does. Do you agree with him?
rofl, From that site;
"David
Literally they are massive things. If they became visible down on Earth, they'd block out the entire sky. But if they are only detectable in the infrared or ultraviolet ranges, than no one on Earth would even know they were there."
Hmm, odd, cos I'd have thought this would have seen the Ultra Violet signature;
http://heasarc.nasa.gov/docs/euve/euve.html
and this would see the IR;
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/wise-20061013.html
Like I said in an earlier post to Eletrafixtion, there are many, many telescopes and satellites performing all sky surveys, and mapping the Earth, at all wavelengths, right now, so the fact that Sereda claims they are not visible in optical wavelengths means nothing.
High energy events, such as accretion systems are far more interesting that events that show themselves in optical wavelengths, and EUVE, ROSAT, Exosat, XMM, and the Japanese ASCA missions (all of which I had some involvement with when I worked in Academia) are looking in non-optical wavelengths. I guess Sereda just doesn't know this, having zero academic credentials or experience.
And of course, if these UFOs 'blocked out the entire sky' we might notice the stars wink out as they passed. You know, astronomers tend to notice these things! And as occultation is one way we aim to detect distant planets. It's a well understood method. Except to Sereda.
Mostly in the science fiction sections of their libraries.
Zero point energy is actual science but it's nothing like the kind of thing you see on Stargate Atlantis with their ZPMs and 'free energy'. Anti-gravity is entirely science fiction other than some extremely technical sections of string theory which you would not understand unless you've done a lot of maths and physics. I have only come across it because my supervisor happens to be one of the few people working on it.
The Hutchison effect appears to be little more than a short entry on Hutchison's Wiki page and plenty of paranoid conspiracy theorist websites. Unless you can point me to a few published papers showing careful investigation of such phenomena I question whether it even exists.
/edit
Einstein had a PhD in physics when he was working in that patent office. It's a complete urban myth that he had no formal physics education. A physics PhD puts you a long way ahead of Joe Public and back then a year or two of work in a PhD would put you at the bleeding edge of research. It takes a little longer now. Einstein took the job in the patent office because it was so easy and gave him loads of time to read the latest papers in physics and loads of text books. Cranks now-a-days citing Einstein having no formal training to excuse why they have no physics knowledge don't read papers or textbooks. They want an excuse for their ignorance and stupidity. Einstein doesn't provide one.
Last edited:
It wasn't renounced. He and others call Sereda a scientist, but he is nothing but a photographer with NO education in science. Do you get it now?
Now that you've chosen to lie to support your argument, it makes no sense to continue this discussion.
What about lying? Why have you resorted to that? You've lost all credibility, just like Sereda did when he sold out.
"Later, they moved to Italy and Albert continued his education at Aarau, Switzerland and in 1896 he entered the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich to be trained as a teacher in physics and mathematics. In 1901, the year he gained his diploma, he acquired Swiss citizenship and, as he was unable to find a teaching post, he accepted a position as technical assistant in the Swiss Patent Office. In 1905 he obtained his doctor's degree."
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-bio.html
It has now been established that you are lying to support your argument, hence it stands to reason you wouldn't remember anything truthfully.
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
Naturally you deemphasize what you yourself do not understand. All three are as real as any aspect of science you yourself have studied.
What a DUMB statement!!! Please show us some indisputable PROOF that anti-gravity technology exists!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You believe in pure fantasy!
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
Doesn't stop the FACT that you were WRONG does it?
Incidentally, I watched a part of the DVD again last night and guess what? Sereda was misquoted and NEVER claims himself that ACA & ACB are the closest technically. Naturally it's whacked out of context by pathetic minds that troll for their own entertainment.
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
Please explain to me exactly what is dumb about my statement and why I need to provide indisputable proof for the existence of anti gravity, for it to exist. I wasn't aware that I am responsible for all things that exist.
You ARE responsible for CLAIMING it exists - that's what was dumb. And now that you've claimed it, it's up to you to either put up or shut up!!:bugeye: In other words, proove it exists or admit that you made a very stupid mistake in believeing it. (Are you man enough to do that??)
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
And, until you have provided proof, you are in fact lying with respect to your discrediting of David Sereda.
Einstein had no formal training that in any way shaped or defined his theory of relativity. His LATER obtained "PhD" was a technical requirement to validate his papers and NOT a precursor to his understanding.
"Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school."
Albert Einstein
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."
Albert Einstein
He wrote his most potential renderings at a very early age and later needed his wife's help to articulate these early writings. Yes, on my behalf, it was a very poorly put "Einstein had ZERO formal education" (in fact, I don't remember writing that as it makes no sense. I mean him going to kindergarten is a "formal education" of sorts, but whether my post was manipulated or not, I can admit I am wrong a MILLION time if needed.)
The bottom line is that Einstein was borderline autistic and did HORRIBLY throughout school as well as the fact that he did fail his entrance examine.
He HATED school and made that extremely clear. He had ZERO use for it and NEVER promoted it.
Thank you very much.
Actually, I know a decent amount (not much compared to professors, **** loads compared to you) about zero point energy, quantum vacuums, vacuum energy and their phenomenology. Multidimensional string singularities and their antigravity effects in higher dimensions is something I do research on (not much but it's a working understanding). I also do research into 10 and 11 dimensional supergravity models. So there isn't much you mention which I'd have any need to deemphasize.
Given Hutchinson cannot even 'reproduce' the effects he claims there is, almost by definition, no scientific work I can deemphasize. Despite decades since his initial claims and actually a great deal of funding into various quantum effects in exotic materials, nothing has come of his claims.
Can you point to scientific work into those things which prove them to be real? Given AdS/CFT gravity models are a conjecture even in terms of their mathematical concepts, never mind physical phenomena and GR doesn't give anti-gravity systems for anything but some extreme situations (the immediate region around rotating charged singularities for instance), antigravity isn't supported by evidence. Extraction of zero point energy is possible but not in a way which makes it a power source. You can extract energy from the vacuum via photon generation by using two mirrors very close to one another (micrometres) and then oscillating them slightly. Except the frequency of the oscillations cannot be constant (or even it's derivative be constant if memory serves) and the forces required to produce enough acceleration for the effect to be measurable would pretty much liquify the mirrors due to stress.
But feel free to prove me wrong. Given you admit you don't know quantum mechanics and even the nonsense in the 'galaxy spiral' or whatever it was not obvious to you, I think it's a little silly of you to claim that there's certain results or phenomena in physics which not only fly in the face of all current physics but are also entirely outside your range of knowledge.
Actually, Einstein had considerable correspondence with people like Lorentz and Minkowski, both of whom made huge contributions to special relativity. Special relativity was published in 1905, along with several other ground breaking papers on Brownian motion, the photoelectric effect (which got him a Nobel prize) and the relationship between mass, energy and momentum. In the 10 years which followed, up to 1915 when he published general relativity, Einstein worked closely with Hilbert, one of the greatest mathematicians ever (certainly the best mathematician on the planet in terms of maths relating to what was to become GR).
Before 1905 Einstein had done a physics degree. He was part of a 'journal club', who did considerable reading of the major physicists and philosophers of the day, including Poincare (who also was to be a major player in relativity) and Mach. He'd studied electromagnetism too.
I'll admit I was incorrect about him having a PhD while in the patent office, he obtained it during his time at the patent office. None the less, he had considerable formal education into the physics of the day, put in a lot of time keeping up with the latest developments and certainly general relativity was the culmination of working with the best and brightest mathematicians and physicists of the day.
Just look at the Wikipedia page on Einstein and you'll see he had plenty of physics education.
You do not require a PhD to publish a paper. Speaking as someone who doesn't have a PhD, part of getting a PhD is to write papers which add to scientific knowledge. If I couldn't publish a paper till I had a PhD I'd have serious trouble getting the PhD due to lack of contribution to science. A sort of Catch 22. And as a shameless pat on my own back, my first paper went online today!
If Einstein were alive I'm sure he'd say that he wouldn't have done what he did if he had zero education in maths and physics. After all, another quote of his is "Whatever your problems in maths, I can assure you mine are greater." because he was wrestling with a level of mathematics which even now is something a lot of universities don't teach in any depth to undergraduates, only to postgraduates. As I said, he worked with Hilbert.
Education can get in your way, I don't deny that, but I would say it's because if you have a teacher who has a particularly eclectic way of looking at something you might end up having a bad understanding of a topic because the lesson didn't make much sense. More than once I've been reading a textbook and said outloud "So that is what that means!!" and thought "Why did Professor [Something] teach it in such a convoluted way". Doesn't mean I would have been better off not going to his classes at all. It would be cutting off your nose to spite your face.
But cranks, nuts, conspiracy theorists and idiots (feel free to wonder which I might associate you with) use quotes of Einstein saying "Imagination is more important than knowledge" to give them an excuse for having no knowledge. All imagination and no knowledge is worse than having no imagination and tons of knowledge because at least the person lacking imagination can be given a problem and told "Apply this method, give me the results". Someone with no knowledge won't even understand the problem. I'm sure you don't understand zero point energy in quantum field theory, nor would you understand the AdS/CFT description of repelling singularities. Yet you're happy to claim ZPE and antigravity are within our ability to prove exist. When was the last time you read a physics textbook or a physics journal? For me it's been however long this post has taken me to type.
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
Yes, I am man enough to do that as I have done so many time prior. However I believe, or rather am convicted, to give these cutting edge "claims" a fair shot. I do not believe that just because I personally as a lay person choose to champion these claims that I should be required to "prove" them.
I mean, is that my place? Did I invent them?
It's a strange world we are living in Read-Only. This being when what we cannot see for ourselves is proved on paper and yet we still don't accept it as proved. At the same time what we can see for ourselves also has to be proved on paper, and even though we can see it, and yet are not carrying around written proof in our breast pocket, it must not exist.
Remember what Planck said about the door to the temple of science?
This would be a great time for us not to forget.