Balanced Water / Imbalanced Opinions

Hundreds of TPODs have been published since the summer of 2004. In particular, we invite discussion of present and recent TPODs, perhaps with additional links to earlier TPOD pages. Suggestions for future pages will be welcome. Effective TPOD drafts will be MORE than welcome and could be your opportunity to become a more active part of the Thunderbolts team.
KTMKim
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2021 6:20 pm

Balanced Water / Imbalanced Opinions

Unread post by KTMKim » Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:55 pm

Warning* small rant to follow.

I grow more emotionally unstable the more I point out the obvious to close ‘family’ members, who seem unwilling to suspend belief long enough for some common sense to seep in.

As I’m viewing the Sunday email, and considering the Picture of the Day from Mel’s 2012 article, I chuckled out loud at the postulation of weathering or erosion. My boyfriend seemed curious about my laugh, and I was curious about his willingness to listen. I usually avoid more and more subjects of conversation with him, due to my growing frustration in being misunderstood and looked at like…. A flat earther!

“What do you see here,” I asked. “How do you think that was made?” Of course the knee jerk reaction was water erosion. I asked him to look closer.
“Do you really think water would do that?”
“Well maybe wind, or something pushed something….. oh what is it, electricity?!” His sarcasm and frustration set me off.
No matter what evidence I can refer to in lab, on videos proving this can be recreated by electricity, his stance is that it is not scalable because we don’t have lightning big enough today to test the results in real time. The conversation deteriorated into an argument again, with him finally asserting “why does any of this matter,” and “you’re defending this as if it’s your family,” etc.

He’s right, I do defend this stuff like family. When something makes sense, it makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is when smart people are unwilling to let go of concepts in the face of new evidence due to its seeming impracticality, and real world uselessness.
“If everything was electric, astronomers would know it by now.”

I’m stuck between a rock and a hard place explaining the politics of why EU (and other concepts) are not accepted, and sick of putting myself in a defensive position. I don’t have all the ammo I need to verbally support my conclusions like Dave, Anthony, Wal, or Don, but you bet I consider them as an extended family of deep and critical thinkers.

When the Picture of the day is enough to make a child understand, yet keep adults in a fog of confusion, I think a great point has been made. May those of the chaff float away on the ‘wind or something’ so the wheat may seed the earth with those less gullible and stubborn.

Thanks Thunderbolts Project.

User avatar
nick c
Posts: 2775
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:12 am

Re: Balanced Water / Imbalanced Opinions

Unread post by nick c » Mon Jan 17, 2022 1:14 am

For reference:
Balanced Water

jackokie
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:10 am

Re: Balanced Water / Imbalanced Opinions

Unread post by jackokie » Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:01 am

@KTMKim I don't have anyone close with whom to discuss cosmology, but I run into the same attitude on comment threads when I post an EU counter-point to the latest gnome (as BeAChooser would call it). People who haven't spent even five minutes reviewing EU theory will immediately reply, regurgitating the standard model's sophistries as if they are holy writ. The last time I included links to articles about the comets being electric and the craters formed by plasma arc machining, one fellow called it "drivel". When I asked if he had read the linked articles, he replied he didn't have time to read "crackpot drivel". I don't see how anyone can look at the bullseye craters with the little craters centered on their peaks and not question that they were created by impacts. The same with crater chains. And the Emily Litella "supernovas" that came back to life. There is a wealth of evidence that seems to be studiously ignored.

It has really puzzled me as to why so many people seem locked into their received wisdom. Then I started reading Joel Shepherd's science fiction novels, and ran into this:

Shepherd introduced a concept labeled Compulsive Narrative Syndrome in his series "Cassandra Kresnov". Here is an explanation by Shepherd's characters (h/t Andrew Pollack's blog at Northern Collaborative Technologies):
“The human brain is trained to look for and identify patterns, but in abstract concepts, fixed and unarguable facts are hard to find. So the brain looks for narratives instead, stories that can tie together various ideas and facts in a way that seems to make sense, to make a pattern. And the human brain, always seeking a pattern as a basic cognitive function, will latch onto a narrative pattern compulsively, and use that pattern as a framework within which to store new information, like a tradesman honing his skill, or someone learning a new language. That’s why religions tell such great stories, the story makes a pattern within which everything makes sense. A synchronicity of apparent facts. Political ideologies, too. Humans are suckers for a great story because we can’t resist the logical pattern it contains."

“When you’re learning a new skill, discarding irrelevant information and organizing the relevant stuff within that framework is good. But in ideologies, it means any information that doesn’t fit the ideological narrative is literally discarded, and won’t be remembered . . . which is why you can argue facts with ideologues and they’ll just ignore you. They’re not just being stubborn, their brains are literally structurally incapable of processing what they perceive as pattern-anomalous data. That’s why some ideologues get so upset when you offer facts that don’t match their pattern, it’s like you’re assaulting them."
In Shepherd's novel, the Syndrome is caused by ubiquitous implant technology linked to the internet that changes the brain. This Syndrome seems strikingly familiar to the attitudes we've encountered.
Time is what prevents everything from happening all at once.

KTMKim
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2021 6:20 pm

Re: Balanced Water / Imbalanced Opinions

Unread post by KTMKim » Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:21 pm

nick c wrote:
Mon Jan 17, 2022 1:14 am
For reference:
Balanced Water
Sorry about that Nick, I should have put the link. I was referring to this week's email and forgot to reference directly thank you

KTMKim
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2021 6:20 pm

Re: Balanced Water / Imbalanced Opinions

Unread post by KTMKim » Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:29 pm

jackokie wrote:
Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:01 am

They’re not just being stubborn, their brains are literally structurally incapable of processing what they perceive as pattern-anomalous data.

This Syndrome seems strikingly familiar to the attitudes we've encountered.
Just like Wal explaining that the path to learning requires a further journey to unlearn what you have learned. thank you for the source This man's book seems to hit the nail on the head.

I bet you wanted to hit that other dude on the head! No time for drivel. As if Balanced Water and EU etc is some flatearth YouTube creation.

User avatar
nick c
Posts: 2775
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:12 am

Re: Balanced Water / Imbalanced Opinions

Unread post by nick c » Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:50 pm

Sorry about that Nick, I should have put the link. I was referring to this week's email and forgot to reference directly thank you
No problem.
Notice that I linked to the original TPOD from 2012.
If you link your target TPOD when it is the one current for that day, the link will only work until another TPOD becomes the daily TPOD.
And then that link will take you to whatever TPOD is current for that day.

BeAChooser
Posts: 701
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: Balanced Water / Imbalanced Opinions

Unread post by BeAChooser » Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:23 am

jackokie wrote:
Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:01 am
Shepherd introduced a concept labeled Compulsive Narrative Syndrome in his series "Cassandra Kresnov". Here is an explanation by Shepherd's characters (h/t Andrew Pollack's blog at Northern Collaborative Technologies):
“The human brain is trained to look for and identify patterns, but in abstract concepts, fixed and unarguable facts are hard to find. So the brain looks for narratives instead, stories that can tie together various ideas and facts in a way that seems to make sense, to make a pattern. And the human brain, always seeking a pattern as a basic cognitive function, will latch onto a narrative pattern compulsively, and use that pattern as a framework within which to store new information, like a tradesman honing his skill, or someone learning a new language. That’s why religions tell such great stories, the story makes a pattern within which everything makes sense. A synchronicity of apparent facts. Political ideologies, too. Humans are suckers for a great story because we can’t resist the logical pattern it contains."

“When you’re learning a new skill, discarding irrelevant information and organizing the relevant stuff within that framework is good. But in ideologies, it means any information that doesn’t fit the ideological narrative is literally discarded, and won’t be remembered . . . which is why you can argue facts with ideologues and they’ll just ignore you. They’re not just being stubborn, their brains are literally structurally incapable of processing what they perceive as pattern-anomalous data. That’s why some ideologues get so upset when you offer facts that don’t match their pattern, it’s like you’re assaulting them."
In Shepherd's novel, the Syndrome is caused by ubiquitous implant technology linked to the internet that changes the brain. This Syndrome seems strikingly familiar to the attitudes we've encountered.
It does, doesn't it. I wonder if "mass formation psychosis" is a similar phenomena? ;)

jackokie
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:10 am

Re: Balanced Water / Imbalanced Opinions

Unread post by jackokie » Wed Jan 19, 2022 5:29 pm

@BeAChooser I was going to dive into the "Mass Formation Psychosis" phenomenon because of the similarities to Shepherd's concept, but didn't have the time at the point I wanted to reply to @KTMKim. I'll follow up if I manage to learn anything useful.
Time is what prevents everything from happening all at once.

Surik
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2022 12:28 am

Re: Balanced Water / Imbalanced Opinions

Unread post by Surik » Sun Sep 04, 2022 8:29 am

KTMKim wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:55 pm
Warning* small rant to follow.

I grow more emotionally unstable the more I point out the obvious to close ‘family’ members, who seem unwilling to suspend belief long enough for some common sense to seep in.

As I’m viewing the Sunday email, and considering the Picture of the Day from Mel’s 2012 article, I chuckled out loud at the postulation of weathering or erosion. My boyfriend seemed curious about my laugh, and I was curious about his willingness to listen. I usually avoid more and more subjects of conversation with him, due to my growing frustration in being misunderstood and looked at like…. A flat earther!

“What do you see here,” I asked. “How do you think that was made?” Of course the knee jerk reaction was water erosion. I asked him to look closer.
“Do you really think water would do that?”
“Well maybe wind, or something pushed something….. oh what is it, electricity?!” His sarcasm and frustration set me off.
No matter what evidence I can refer to in lab, on videos proving this can be recreated by electricity, his stance is that it is not scalable because we don’t have lightning big enough today to test the results in real time. The conversation deteriorated into an argument again, with him finally asserting “why does any of this matter,” and “you’re defending this as if it’s your family,” etc.

He’s right, I do defend this stuff like family. When something makes sense, it makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is when smart people are unwilling to let go of concepts in the face of new evidence due to its seeming impracticality, and real world uselessness.
“If everything was electric, astronomers would know it by now.”

I’m stuck between a rock and a hard place explaining the politics of why EU (and other concepts) are not accepted, and sick of putting myself in a defensive position. I don’t have all the ammo I need to verbally support my conclusions like Dave, Anthony, Wal, or Don, but you bet I consider them as an extended family of deep and critical thinkers.

When the Picture of the day is enough to make a child understand, yet keep adults in a fog of confusion, I think a great point has been made. May those of the chaff float away on the ‘wind or something’ so the wheat may seed the earth with those less gullible and stubborn.

Thanks Thunderbolts Project.
I have changed my worldview many times in my life and it has never been an easy process. He really is the framework in which we integrate our personality. I know from experience that the reevaluation of the world view is the result of processes bordering on neuroses, traumas and not logical deduction. Although we all look alike, we are at completely different levels of cognitive ability. When I came to this forum with a new theory that seems logical, simple and consistent to me, I also did not receive a substantive response. For one reason. Because it contains the statement dark energy. After all, the EU theory has not proved that it does not exist.
Plasma must also have a genesis. After all, it cannot be assumed that the electricity has always existed. By the way, I am writing about Theory 31 with which I cannot break :)

User avatar
nick c
Posts: 2775
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:12 am

Re: Balanced Water / Imbalanced Opinions

Unread post by nick c » Sun Sep 04, 2022 4:24 pm

Surik wrote:After all, the EU theory has not proved that it does not exist.
From the Wikipedia entry on Dark Energy: "In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is an unknown form of energy that affects the universe on the largest scales. The first observational evidence for its existence came from measurements of supernovas, which showed that the universe does not expand at a constant rate; rather, the universe's expansion is accelerating."

The Big Bang and Expanding Universe theories are based upon the assumption that high Redshifts of galaxies and quasars represents increasing distances. So there is an inseparable connection betwee Dark Energy and Redshift. If it can be shown that redshift does not necessarily correspond to distance than there is no need for an expanding universe theory, the big bang, and dark energy. Since there is no need for it, then it most certainly does not exist, as its only reason for existence is based upon the assumptions that redshift equates to distance. Dark Energy is therefore, a conclusion derived from a false a priori assumption.

The Dark Energy Survey
Dark energy is another of the phantoms that arise when redshift is applied to observations. Redshift has been the bane of astrophysics since Hubble first identified what he thought was the Doppler effect in images of faint galaxies. Instead of seeing redshift as an effect of acceleration and distance, it may be that it is an intrinsic property of matter. Astronomer Halton Arp proposed that idea many years ago, and it deserves further investigation, especially when anomalous observations are considered: high redshift objects in front of low redshift objects, for example.
A former assistant to Edwin Hubble, Halton Arp, in his remarkable book: Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science (1997) presents case after case of high redshift quasars having a physical connection to a lower redshift active galaxy which is an impossibility under main stream Cosmological understanding of red shift as a measure of distance.

One of the cases cited by Arp is of a high redshift quasar IN FRONT of a low redshift galaxy, which unless refuted, immediately falsifies the Expanding Universe, Big Bang, and Dark Energy theories.

see: Quasar In Front of Galaxy

Video: Halton Arp lecture - Intrinsic Red Shift

Surik
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2022 12:28 am

Re: Balanced Water / Imbalanced Opinions

Unread post by Surik » Sun Sep 04, 2022 7:46 pm

The big bang or redshift issue may not necessarily have to do with dark energy. Its existence is also postulated by the creator of the theory 31, who is closer to the views of the EU. He explains the redshift issue as a gradual loss of the quantum's wave potential depending on its initial energy and, of course, the observer's distance from the source. He even goes so far as to the ingenious in its simplicity thesis that electromagnetic waves propagate linearly only in the case of an emission source, because then spins are formed between the photons, i.e. magnetic dipoles. When the source stops emitting photons, the environment tears up the flux and the photons scatter spontaneously in their own environment. Thus, for the observer, such an object is no longer visible in real time. If we see anything in the sky, it still exists.
If we accept his thesis that dark energy is a one-dimensional magnetic dipole existing in the one-dimensional initial environment of the Universe, its direct detection becomes impossible in a three-dimensional world. It does not require any explosion of the unknown and for what reason, as the adherents of the standard theory postulate. Dark energy exists eternally in the form of unwavering energy. Only the process of kinematic collision between one-dimensional, ever-moving magnetic dipoles causes them to deform by waves into two-dimensional waves and try to return to the one-dimensional state. However, subsequent collisions prevent this. This is how energy is created, expressed in a wave, or rather its segment called a photon. We can detect this one already, because it contains the vibration potential. Theory 31 perfectly describes the next steps in the kinematic evolution of dark energy down to a three-dimensional mass particle. It describes everything in a straight line up to the whole range of atoms from the Mendeleev table with their isotopes.
Everything happens based on the simple principle of kinematic collisions and transformations of one-dimensional elementary particles into more and more complex, three-dimensional energy structures.
So it's time to end the search and award my compatriot the Nobel Prize :)

http://model31.pl/en/kinematical-evolut ... rk-energy/

User avatar
nick c
Posts: 2775
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:12 am

Re: Balanced Water / Imbalanced Opinions

Unread post by nick c » Sun Sep 04, 2022 11:39 pm

Surik wrote:The big bang or redshift issue may not necessarily have to do with dark energy. Its existence is also postulated by the creator of the theory 31, who is closer to the views of the EU. He explains the redshift issue as a gradual loss of the quantum's wave potential depending on its initial energy and, of course, the observer's distance from the source...
The only reason Dark Energy exists as a theory, is because - its presence is detected indirectly by an alleged effect on the red shift. If that possibility is removed by Arp's observations and analysis then there is no other reason to suppose it exists. It has never been observed and Arp (if he is correct) has removed the only indication that it may exist.

If you are wed to the idea of Dark Energy, then it is imperative that you show where Arp was wrong. Otherwise, Dark Energy is a non starter.

Surik
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2022 12:28 am

Re: Balanced Water / Imbalanced Opinions

Unread post by Surik » Mon Sep 05, 2022 3:31 am

nick c wrote:
Sun Sep 04, 2022 11:39 pm
Surik wrote:The big bang or redshift issue may not necessarily have to do with dark energy. Its existence is also postulated by the creator of the theory 31, who is closer to the views of the EU. He explains the redshift issue as a gradual loss of the quantum's wave potential depending on its initial energy and, of course, the observer's distance from the source...
The only reason Dark Energy exists as a theory, is because - its presence is detected indirectly by an alleged effect on the red shift. If that possibility is removed by Arp's observations and analysis then there is no other reason to suppose it exists. It has never been observed and Arp (if he is correct) has removed the only indication that it may exist.

If you are wed to the idea of Dark Energy, then it is imperative that you show where Arp was wrong. Otherwise, Dark Energy is a non starter.
The only reason, according to the standard theory, which uses the assumption of dark energy to justify its own assumptions. However, there are other reasons, other assumptions that also justify the existence of dark energy. If the universe were a vacuum, there would be no redshift, because in such an environment there would be no resistance to the movement of photons or other energy quanta. Secondly, the quanta could not exist at all without the accelerating energy aimed at their mutual collision and further evolution. Since it takes place according to a simple description of the theory 31, it would be worth exploring these assumptions. Do they make sense. However, proponents of the standard theory do not even think of it.
For thousands of years, nature researchers have been pointing to the existence of aether. Yet the supporters of the EU take seriously the achievements of mankind from ancient times.

jacmac
Posts: 832
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:36 pm

Re: Balanced Water / Imbalanced Opinions

Unread post by jacmac » Mon Sep 05, 2022 3:30 pm

From Surik link:

According to Model 31, dark energy (ether) is an elementary, eternally existing form of matter that fills the Universe. Dark energy particles occur in the form of one-dimensional magnetic dipoles of less than 10-15 m in length and moving at a speed greater than 3 x 108 m/s. Dark energy particles have always been, are, and will be in motion. They move and collide with each other in a perfect vacuum, therefore their collisions are perfectly elastic. The perfectly elastic collisions of dark energy particles are their inherent, inalienable feature.
I'm going to agree with nick c when he said:
The only reason Dark Energy exists as a theory, is because - its presence is detected indirectly by an alleged effect on the red shift. If that possibility is removed by Arp's observations and analysis then there is no other reason to suppose it exists. It has never been observed and Arp (if he is correct) has removed the only indication that it may exist.
The term DARK ENERGY by definition MEANS:
A hidden force that is making the universe expand at an increasing rate.
If Halton Arps work is true....
AS the James Webb telescope seems to support,
then the universe is not expanding.
Therefore, there is no HIDDEN FORCE THAT IS MAKING THE UNIVERSE EXPAND AT AN INCREASING RATE.
Therefore, there is no Dark Energy.

You are free to promote any other theory you like.
But you need to use a DIFFERENT TERM than dark energy to describe, or explain that theory.
Because the term Dark Energy is taken.

Surik
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2022 12:28 am

Re: Balanced Water / Imbalanced Opinions

Unread post by Surik » Mon Sep 05, 2022 4:51 pm

You are free to promote any other theory you like.
But you need to use a DIFFERENT TERM than dark energy to describe, or explain that theory.
Because the term Dark Energy is taken.
[/quote]

Thanks for the substantive suggestion.
I wonder what name to use in order not to trigger an allergic reaction. Ether has bad associations too :)
Assuming that one-dimensional magnetic dipoles move forever, the primary form of energy is kinetic energy, motion, momentum. What causes it? Thread. The perfect vacuum, that is the lack of resistance or friction, causes them to "levitate" in a disorder. There is simply nothing more subtle that could act on 1D magnetic dipoles to weaken their momentum.
It causes a collision of these one-dimensional particles, which in effect induces wave and electromagnetic energy and a quantum appears in the "vacuum".
To prove that this is a phenomenon widely recognized among the supporters of the standard model, I will quote a Polish physicist.

"In a vacuum, it does not have to be completely empty. It turns out that particles are formed and disappear there. And this is because particles can break the principle of conservation of energy for a very, very short moment," replies physicist Prof. Grzegorz Wrochna ...
And since energy in nature has to be conserved, particles - portions of energy - cannot arise out of nothing. They also cannot disappear so that nothing is left of them "- says the researcher.

For me, this is a real confirmation of the correctness of the assumptions of Theory 31 describing the mechanism of quantum formation. Some of them return to the form of one-dimensional dipoles and "disappear" from the field of view of measuring devices. However, the principle of energy conservation, which is unquestionable by anyone in this forum, must be kept.
And it is as the kinetic momentum of one-dimensional magnetic dipoles.
The universe is in fact in perpetual motion, permanently producing elementary particles of wave energy.
Energy cannot disappear because it is a natural emanation of eternal momentum. So no Big Bang is needed to explain the formation of matter and interactions. Each quantum is a generator of magnetic, gravitational and electric fields. How ?
See Theory 31
Do you like the name Eternal Rush?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest