»break general relativity» [is suspect to Alain]
This is wrong statement. Because general relativity is known to be false
with infinite probability, because big bang was infinitely improbable event
in dynamic cosmos according GR. And we have observed in CMB that cosmos is
flat and this is impossible state of dynamic cosmos according general
relativity. (Therefore cosmos as a whole is gravitationally balanced, not
dynamic. I.e. the (accelerating) expansion of universe has nothing to do
with it's energy density.)
Also GR not only fails in cosmic scale, but it also fails in galactic
scale, because it fails to give an explanation for the rotational curves of
galaxies. Newton's inverse square law is broken in long distances.
But most serious problems comes in quantum scale, because GR is inherently
against the quantum theory. This is not a small issue.
I would say that there is almost no other as throughly debunked theory than
GR. SR is even worse, because unlike GR what is well empirically supported
in limited scale (after all it is just a reformulation of Newton's gravity
theory, and indeed we know that apples fall...), SR does not enjoy any
observational evidence that would distinquish it from basic aether theories
where Earth's gravity field is chosen as fixed frame of reference. I think
that the only relevant argument for SR is that it's four dimensional
space-time metrics is useful to GR. I consider such an a priori argument as
zero scientific value.
—Jouni
Ps. I also believe that antimater has negative gravitational effect. This
kind or any kind of antigravity falsifies GR outright. Of course we do not
have empirical evidence for this. Therefore it is only my belief. But I can
bet €100 that there are no fundamental reasons in quantum theory why
gravity cannot be repulsive and this plausibility alone is enough to
falsify GR. Of course this bet is meaningless, because it cannot probably
be resolved in decades if someone does not accidentally stumble upon
antigravity and get positive observational evidence.
PPS. I think very highly general relativity (after all it is an Aether
theory!), because it is almost brilliant reformulation of Newton's gravity
theory. GR did not come first into my mind when I first looked the
Newton's equation in high school. But it is not just enough and certainly
it is not onthological theory of reality.
On Dec 3, 2011 2:10 PM, "Alain dit le Cycliste" <alain.sep...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I'm surprised, but their position seems correct.
> the real spirit of wikipedia is to let different position express, givent
> they have references...
>
> clearly the article is skeptic, but it is the mainstream position.
>
> their information on preliminary patent office position is useful.
>
> it seems that todays clearly the theories, and event the facts are not
> enough settled, event to battle.
>
> my fear would have been that like on some really controversial subject
> they suppress the dissent.
>
> another usual method is to set as mainstream a non mainstream position,
> fruit of an insider lobby , despite of scientific and industry knowledge.
>
> we have been lucky,
> and BTW despite my positive spirit here, I'm really skeptic of any
> position, including negatives ones.
> When the truth is known, either we will see that we can me scammed by a
> network of internet dog, or manipulated by mainstream press and similar
> media like wikipedia (wikipedia is clealy taken under control by mainstream
> lobby and media, and not the one you imagine named lobby, the one that are
> very politically correct- forget Exxon and other dying devil of previous
> century).
>
> trying to settle and believe in a theory before the fact are settled, if a
> bit risky.
>
> by the way, anything that:
> - break the conservation of energy
> - break the growth of entropy
> - transmit useful information faster than light (group velocity, not phase
> velocity)
> - break Heisenberg inequality
> - break general relativity
> is very very very suspect to me.
> but CF and LENR does not need such, like superconduction.
> I would say that CF and LENR don't break the law of physics, just the
> tradition.
> We are not far from what have been sais about plane (cannot fly because
> heavier than air).
>
> if the measures are good, weakness of gamma could imply nucleus spin
> transition (energy do match), maybe also lattice behavior like in
> superconduction or semiconductors, and even maybe surface effects and 2D
> lattice.... but it is a guess.
> I don't understand nano-magnetism, but if it is nucleus spin transition,
> or nucleus-electroninteraction, or nucleus-lattice spin transition, It
> could be a candidate... today the most important (and our society have
> forgotten that principle), is to settle the facts.
>
> many talking of zero point energy seems not to really understand what it
> is really. by definition, you cannot use energy from it.
> however it can catalyse, by creating temporary particle and energy (let's
> say it is a short term loan)... like what is done for tunneling.
> really , and wikipedia is right, we should be careful when promoting
> theories... we could (do) look crazy.
>
>
> 2011/12/2 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
>
>> I am surprised they did not erase the whole article.
>>
>> They probably will, soon.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>
