An Interesting Site
Billie Jean Allison
http://www.nwphx.quik.com/anomaly
It is quite a surprising thesis. I cannot claim to understand it all,
but the implications seem plausible. In particular, it pretty well
trashes the prevailing system of historical geology--and with it,
what passes for evidence of evolution. Since I know nothing of
physics I referred the site to alt.sci.physics.new-theories and
alt.astronomy (in a posting entitled 'Another Question') asking
for comments about the physical soundness of the thesis, but
my plea went entirely unanswered. Nevertheless, I deduce that
nobody was able to find serious fault with it or they would have
been glad to expose it. Possibly some reader here will be able
to add some intelligence on this point.
Grinder
"Billie Jean Allison" <bil...@hei.net> wrote in message
news:3f57...@news.hei.net...
Why does the author attempt to fit gravitational acceleration
to a superposition of sin waves? After that, I cannot see what
meaning their calculations have -- did you get that part?
Dale
I think the most important question one should ask, and especially in the
case of TrueAnomaly, is: why are scientific crackpots always so pompous and
long winded?
gen2rev
<bil...@hei.net> wrote:
> Some readers might be interested in the posting at
> http://www.nwphx.quik.com/anomaly
> It is quite a surprising thesis. I cannot claim to understand it all,
> but the implications seem plausible. In particular, it pretty well
> trashes the prevailing system of historical geology--and with it,
> what passes for evidence of evolution. Since I know nothing of
> physics I referred the site to alt.sci.physics.new-theories and
> alt.astronomy (in a posting entitled 'Another Question') asking
> for comments about the physical soundness of the thesis, but
> my plea went entirely unanswered.
I couldn't find a message with that subject line in either of those
groups. What was/were the message ID(s)?
> Nevertheless, I deduce that
> nobody was able to find serious fault with it or they would have
> been glad to expose it. Possibly some reader here will be able
> to add some intelligence on this point.
It's hard to know where to start. But he needs for adjust his kerning to
make his pages more readable.
John Harshman
Billie Jean Allison wrote:
> Some readers might be interested in the posting at
> http://www.nwphx.quik.com/anomaly
> It is quite a surprising thesis. I cannot claim to understand it all,
> but the implications seem plausible.
For sufficiently weird definitions of plausible, perhaps. Thesis: most
of what we think of as fossiliferous sediments are deposited by comets
and come from the 4th dimension.
> In particular, it pretty well
> trashes the prevailing system of historical geology--and with it,
> what passes for evidence of evolution.
Well, actually no. If all fossil evidence were discounted for some
reason (perhaps because you think they all came from the 4th dimension)
we would still have plenty of evidence for evolution from extant
organisms. Unless your site has some 4th-dimensional explanation for
that, and I didn't find it.
> Since I know nothing of
> physics
Or, presumably, geology or biology.
> I referred the site to alt.sci.physics.new-theories and
> alt.astronomy (in a posting entitled 'Another Question') asking
> for comments about the physical soundness of the thesis, but
> my plea went entirely unanswered. Nevertheless, I deduce that
> nobody was able to find serious fault with it or they would have
> been glad to expose it. Possibly some reader here will be able
> to add some intelligence on this point.
There doesn't seem to be anything of a real nature to argue with. It's
my belief that it's all gibberish. Sorry.
r norman
I don't have the patience to get through the whole work, but the sine
wave business is not a problem. The author is looking at deviations
in the motion of the moon and a Fourier analysis is entirely
appropriate to detect periodic "wobbles". A periodic change in
gravitational acceleration means a periodic change in force. That is,
potentially a force due to another object moving in a periodic
(orbital) manner. It seems lik the explanation is that large objects
(planets) are responsible but they are moving in orbits in alternate
dimensions and so are not visible.
I don't know enough of planetary orbital mechanics to know whether
these deviations are really true and, if so, whether there are more
mundane explanations. For example, the author mentions in the first
paper the "anomoly" between the time of high tide and the position of
the sun and moon with respect to earth. But it is well established
that, although the position of these bodies determines the tidal
_forces_ on the oceans, the actual movement of the water depends on
the mass of water and the dynamics of flow in each particular tidal
basin. That is why times of high and low tides vary so much even
along one coastline.
That there are large objects "nearby", hence in a position to
influence us, yet in an alternate dimension is sort of intriguing. I
don't see enough methematical development to know wether you can even
begin to build a consistent and coherent complete theory of everything
around such a conjcept. For a start, the author proposes that the
heavy core of the earth is really due to the mass of these
other-dimensional things, as is the "dark matter" in the universe.
This neatly ignores the evidence of seismic waves for the core and the
rather arcane properties of dark matter. And don't even go into the
theory of the Noachic flood and the origin of the material called
loess!
observa
case of making assertions in the hope that soemthing will stick. Just a
case of either lies, or ignorance.
Alan Jeffery
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/2003
Bobby D. Bryant
> Billie Jean Allison wrote:
>
>> Some readers might be interested in the posting at
>> http://www.nwphx.quik.com/anomaly
>> It is quite a surprising thesis. I cannot claim to understand it all,
>> but the implications seem plausible.
>
> For sufficiently weird definitions of plausible, perhaps. Thesis: most
> of what we think of as fossiliferous sediments are deposited by comets
> and come from the 4th dimension.
Some people must *really* not want to believe in evolution!
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Dale
news:3F57B8DA...@pacbell.net...
>
> Billie Jean Allison wrote:
>
> > Some readers might be interested in the posting at
> > http://www.nwphx.quik.com/anomaly
> > It is quite a surprising thesis. I cannot claim to understand it all,
> > but the implications seem plausible.
>
> For sufficiently weird definitions of plausible, perhaps. Thesis: most
> of what we think of as fossiliferous sediments are deposited by comets
> and come from the 4th dimension.
Thank you for slogging through all that crap and providing us with a
summary. I started to read it, but after so many paragraphs of bibble
babble, my eyes started glazing over.
Nantko Schanssema
[snip]
>Why does the author attempt to fit gravitational acceleration
>to a superposition of sin waves?
^^^
This typo seems so, ehrm, appropriate.
[snip]
regards,
Nantko
--
The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike. (Delos McKown)
David Jensen
<h08glvs6nhs2qj58m...@4ax.com>:
>"Grinder" <gri...@no.spam.maam.com>:
>
>
>[snip]
>
>>Why does the author attempt to fit gravitational acceleration
>>to a superposition of sin waves?
> ^^^
>This typo seems so, ehrm, appropriate.
Well, sin is the standard English abbreviation for sine.
(sin, cos, tan, cot).
>[snip]
>
>regards,
>Nantko
John Wilkins
Just cos something is the same spelling as something else doesn't make
it the same word. Well, I think I'll go tan the kids' hides and retire
to the cot...
>
> >[snip]
> >
> >regards,
> >Nantko
--
John Wilkins
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
wilkins.id.au
Mike Dworetsky
"Billie Jean Allison" <bil...@hei.net> wrote in message
news:3f57...@news.hei.net...
You have been led down the path of deception by a glib (but long-winded)
charlatan (What we term in the trade as a crank. I'm surprised it wasn't
written in closely spaced green or purple ink.). Your problem is that you
have no knowledge of physics or science and are unable to distinguish cranks
from genuine scientists.
The first paragraph is a set of sentences, every one of which is untrue.
The ponderous "ad hoc" theories in the dreary and silly pdf documents are so
devoid of any clear physical understanding and logical common sense that
this is undoubtedly the reason that no one has replied. It seems unlikely
in the extreme that some scientists read it and said, "Oh dear, we never
thought of that, well, back to the beginnings, burn the libraries, tear down
the universities, start over." Even worse than the creationist claims on
the second law of thermodynamics.
Ohter posters have noted that your postings elsewhere have not been found in
google searches. This may, of course, be the more likely explanation of why
your posts have not been answered: no one has ever read them.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
Walter Bushell
<Snip>
> Why does the author attempt to fit gravitational acceleration
> to a superposition of sin waves?
"In Adam's fall we sined all."
--
The last temptation is the highest treason:
To do the right thing for the wrong reason. --T..S. Eliot
Walter
Walter Bushell
I could say "secant and you shall find" , but that would be going off on
a tangent.
John Wilkins
> Grinder <gri...@no.spam.maam.com> wrote:
> <Snip>
> > Why does the author attempt to fit gravitational acceleration
> > to a superposition of sin waves?
> <Snip>
>
> "In Adam's fall we sined all."
Only to a degree...
Walter Bushell
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > Grinder <gri...@no.spam.maam.com> wrote:
> > <Snip>
> > > Why does the author attempt to fit gravitational acceleration
> > > to a superposition of sin waves?
> > <Snip>
> >
> > "In Adam's fall we sined all."
>
> Only to a degree...
That would be a small sin < pi/180.
Klaus Hellnick
"John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1g0x7he.9ocye3d7blxxN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the origin of 360 degrees in a
circle? I suspect that it was originally 365, for days of the year. Given
that many ancient cultures used solar calendars, and sundials, I can imagine
someone plotting the longest point of a shadow each day, and ending up with
a circle, or at least an ellipse, made of 365 points. I have not been able
to find any sources to support my hypothesis.
Klaus
Walter Bushell
360 happens to be divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5,8,9,12,15,18,20 very convient.
Year of 360 days with five (or 6) left for year end holidays.
Banks sometimes compute interest on a 360 day year.
gen2rev
<khel...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
> "John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:1g0x7he.9ocye3d7blxxN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
> > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Grinder <gri...@no.spam.maam.com> wrote:
> > > <Snip>
> > > > Why does the author attempt to fit gravitational acceleration
> > > > to a superposition of sin waves?
> > > <Snip>
> > >
> > > "In Adam's fall we sined all."
> >
> > Only to a degree...
> > --
> > John Wilkins
> > DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
> > wilkins.id.au
> >
>
> Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the origin of 360 degrees in a
> circle?
It's a Babylonian thing...
> I suspect that it was originally 365, for days of the year.
Nope, I think that it was always 360. Apparently the Babylonians threw
in an extra month every six years.
http://www.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/lectures/babylon.html
Klaus Hellnick
"gen2rev" <gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:dp4nlv8gear31qv9p...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 14:58:58 +0000 (UTC), "Klaus Hellnick"
> <khel...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > "John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
> > news:1g0x7he.9ocye3d7blxxN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
> > > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Grinder <gri...@no.spam.maam.com> wrote:
> > > > <Snip>
> > > > > Why does the author attempt to fit gravitational acceleration
> > > > > to a superposition of sin waves?
> > > > <Snip>
> > > >
> > > > "In Adam's fall we sined all."
> > >
> > > Only to a degree...
> > > --
> > > John Wilkins
> > > DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
> > > wilkins.id.au
> > >
> >
> > Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the origin of 360 degrees in a
> > circle?
>
> It's a Babylonian thing...
>
>
> > I suspect that it was originally 365, for days of the year.
>
> Nope, I think that it was always 360. Apparently the Babylonians threw
> in an extra month every six years.
>
> http://www.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/lectures/babylon.html
>
Thank you for the post. The link has been informative. Still, I think this
supports my hypothesis of the degrees of a circle being based on days of the
year. Is there any information on exactly how they set up their calendar,
and if they used sundials or solar observations?
Klaus
gen2rev
<khel...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
Definitely. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
> Is there any information on exactly how they set up their calendar,
> and if they used sundials or solar observations?
I suspect solar observations, combined with a sense of aesthetics.
hornc...@aol.com
(snip)
> > > Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the origin of 360 degrees in a
> > > circle?
> >
> > It's a Babylonian thing...
> >
> >
> > > I suspect that it was originally 365, for days of the year.
> >
> > Nope, I think that it was always 360. Apparently the Babylonians threw
> > in an extra month every six years.
> >
> > http://www.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/lectures/babylon.html
> >
>
> Thank you for the post. The link has been informative. Still, I think this
> supports my hypothesis of the degrees of a circle being based on days of the
> year. Is there any information on exactly how they set up their calendar,
> and if they used sundials or solar observations?
> Klaus
>
> >
> > > Given
> > > that many ancient cultures used solar calendars, and sundials, I can
> imagine
> > > someone plotting the longest point of a shadow each day, and ending up
> with
> > > a circle, or at least an ellipse, made of 365 points. I have not been
> able
> > > to find any sources to support my hypothesis.
> > > Klaus
> >
shadow each day would be way too long.
If you want to know how the Babylonians and Greeks did their
astronomy, here is a link to a recent book. It is magnificent.
http://www.oup-usa.org/isbn/0195095391.html
Gotta go,
Cabbage
Ian H Spedding
khel...@houston.rr.com says...
Purely as a guess, I'd have thought it could have come from
starting with the four cardinal points of the compass for
navigational purposes and then progressively subdividing into
smaller and smaller angles to enable increasingly accurate
navigation. Using it for calendrical purposes would have limited
it to 360 degrees as a close enough approximation to the days of
the year.
On the other hand, there is an interesting passage about a method
of counting used by the ancient Mesopotamians partway down this
page:
<http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyctr/books/1801-1900/HDM1873.PDF>
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
Klaus Hellnick
<hornc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3006338f.03090...@posting.google.com...
Yes, you are right. I meant the shortest shadow, when the sun is at it's
highest point.
Klaus