The Advent of Dionysus

Buy The Advent of Dionysus


Go Back   Dionysus Forums > Science vs Religion > Scientific Research
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-24-2009, 10:25 AM
Pegasus's Avatar
Pegasus Pegasus is offline
Prophet
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,974
Default Roy's Thesis: Gravity Driven Universe

Roy's thesis, "Gravity Driven Universe" is available to read here. There will be a debate on his radio program on Friday, June 26th:

http://www.fhu.com/gravity-driven-universe.html
http://www.fhu.com/pdf/Gravity-Driven-Universe.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-22-2009, 06:41 AM
Pegasus's Avatar
Pegasus Pegasus is offline
Prophet
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,974
Default Re: Roy's Thesis: Gravity Driven Universe

The link to Roy's thesis, "Gravity-Driven Universe" has been removed from the FHU website.

It has been moved to its own website.

http://www.gravitydrivenuniverse.org/

I found out when I was at "Be Still and Know."

Quote:
Mystery Solved...
www.gravitydrivenuniverse.org has the Thesis for download. He found out that the IRS did not approve of the Science stuff being on the CHURCH website, so he took it down and has it on its own website.
http://www.activeboard.com/forum.spa...45703&pag e=4

I just noticed that the introduction is written by Robert (Bob) Just.

http://www.gravitydrivenuniverse.org...n-Universe.pdf

http://www.bobjust.com/
http://bobjust.com/bio/
http://www.wnd.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=165

Last edited by Pegasus : 07-22-2009 at 08:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-02-2009, 10:25 AM
ben125521 ben125521 is offline
The Faithful
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 65
Default Re: Roy's Thesis: Gravity Driven Universe

I tried to post comments on Roy's "physics" ideas at FHU.com. Eventually there was back and forth between myself and Roy. He dared me to call in. When I told him that I would if he got a "semi-impartial moderator" for the discussion he immediately clammed up. You see, he only wanted me to call in so he could play a game. Likely the game would either be that he would simply say that I shouldn't listen, or he would get frustrated with the discussion, tell me that I'm "brainwashed by the system" and then hang up.

One posting I tried to submit was this:

Roy's input can be relevant and useful. He'll tell you that you need to separate from the emotion of anger and not have your buttons pushed by others. He is, however, a dichotomy. People often get hooked on him because they cannot see where he departs from sensibility and becomes insane. His writings in physics serve as a beautiful opportunity for people to pull away from him. As an engineer I can easily well argue that his understanding of physics is almost non-existent. He says he "loves science". What he loves and romanticizes is the concept of being a revered scientist. Any technologist looking at the cover of his gravity thesis and seeing his picture next to an image of Einstein can readily identify his egomania.

Roy has no grasp of basic physics; ideas like conservation of energy and propagation of light. It's as if he has a chip on his shoulder for not having an education and childishly wants to feel that he has divined the unified field theory without having that education. No math, no experimentation, no accounting for all known observable phenomena pertinent to what he's writing about: Just a deep rationalization that the whole scientific community is involved in a conspiracy to suffocate original thinking. Roy is taking advantage of an audience of emotionally debilitated people who have a need to ingratiate themselves to him- telling him that his theory is brilliant or that he doesn't look like he's 80 years old (when he clearly does).

The biggest thing to watch out for is if he tries to raise equity financing to build some machine based on his theory. I've seen this in industry. He would no doubt blow any such money and either say that he learned a lot and just needs a little more money to finish, or he'll blame the "powers that be" for his failure. If he "loved " science he would read all he could get on the topic, maybe take some courses, network with scientists and temper his self delusion until it became rational, level-headed thought.

For the record, neither push gravity nor kinetic ether are new concepts. Both ideas have been repeatedly rejected for good reasons. They go back in various forms to 1690. Roy might have known this if he merely knew how to surf the internet. If Roy believes he has a novel idea, he should subject it to scrutiny prior to announcing to the world that he is 99% certain that he's right. He's 99% ignorant on the topic.


I then added:

[Note: If this letter isn't posted it may still be illuminating to the FHU screeners.]

It did lead to a few emails between myself and a screener.

Last edited by ben125521 : 09-02-2009 at 02:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-02-2009, 12:25 PM
Pegasus's Avatar
Pegasus Pegasus is offline
Prophet
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,974
Default Re: Roy's Thesis: Gravity Driven Universe

Quote:
Originally Posted by ben125521 View Post
He says he "loves science". What he loves is the concept of being a revered scientist. Any technologist looking at the cover of his gravity thesis and seeing his picture next to an image of Einstein can readily identify his egomania.
Nice to hear from you again, ben. I looked at the cover of the thesis to see what you meant about Roy's picture being next to the image of Einstein. I don't think I really noticed it before because the image is very faint but if you strain your eyes and squint a little, you can recognize the image of Einstein. I guess Roy didn't want to be overshadowed by the likes of Einstein.



http://gravitydrivenuniverse.org/
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-04-2009, 09:36 AM
ben125521 ben125521 is offline
The Faithful
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 65
Default Re: Roy's Thesis: Gravity Driven Universe

Look at that picture. What an egomaniac!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-04-2009, 11:31 AM
Pegasus's Avatar
Pegasus Pegasus is offline
Prophet
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,974
Default Re: Roy's Thesis: Gravity Driven Universe

Quote:
Originally Posted by ben125521 View Post
Look at that picture. What an egomaniac!
I think I need a new monitor at work because the image of Einstein on the cover is much clearer on the monitor I'm using at the library. There's just an indication of our beloved Einstein on my monitor. It's an old monitor--white and it's a humongous thing. I don't know if you can even buy a white/off-white monitor anymore. All the monitors, computers and keyboards that I've seen at Best Buy are black. It took me awhile to get used to the black keyboard when they first started buying them (doesn't match my monitor). I have seen some laptops with white keys though.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-10-2009, 10:53 AM
ben125521 ben125521 is offline
The Faithful
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 65
Default Re: Roy's Thesis: Gravity Driven Universe

Roy sees space as filled with a “time wind” consisting of a rivers of particles racing in every conceivable direction simultaneously. As a result he sees light as a particle accelerated to “the speed of light” by the time wind. Before going into much detail, this raises certain points. First, neither push gravity nor kinetic ether is a new concept. Both ideas have been repeatedly rejected for good reasons. They go back in various forms to 1690 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation). Secondly, if light is being dragged along by “time wind”, how is it that we are able to generate and propagate electromagnetic radiation of different wavelengths and frequencies and therefore energy levels? Also, if this time wind contains so much energy, how come it does not rip our hand apart when we pass it through space?

Looking at his specific writings we can make the following comments:

Finding God in Physics

pg. 113

"Contrary to the traditional view of lightning, I believe that wherever a column of moist air possesses sufficient density and reaches high enough into the atmosphere, the everpresent electric charge surrounding our planet is conducted to ground as lightning bolts."

Clouds move through the air and pick up static charge. In addition, clouds contain ice crystals. The crystals smash into each other further enhancing their surface charge. When the associated charge density (voltage) exceeds the dielectric strength of the air, it discharges to the ground as lightning.

pages 150-151

"light does not need its emitting source for power."

Light needing its emitting source for power is, however, commonly observed, measured and engineered.

"Light slows down through the denser media of air, water, or glass, but upon emerging from the other side of any of those media, light instantly accelerates back to its precise former velocity."

Photons don’t “slow down” in a piece of transparent material. Their net speed is reduced because they keep getting interrupted in their motion by striking electronic bonds in the solid. The electrons absorb the photons and then re-emit them in the original direction of propagation. This occurs again as the photons hit the net set of bonds and so on. This process takes a finite amount of time and thus the net speed is reduced.

"If I throw a baseball through a plate glass window, will it emerge from the other side at the same velocity? Of course not. Then how on earth do photons do it?? From what source do they derive the power to regain their velocity?"

The loss of energy from light is indicated in the lowering of its frequency and not in "slowing down". Blue light has more quantum energy per photon than red light. When light passes through a "clear" solid, it can experience lowering of its frequency and/or a drop in its intensity.

"light is either pushed by an ether "wind", or "light has some kind of infinite, self-regulating, internal propulsion. Obviously, the first is the only plausible line of inquiry".

Light exists as an electric wave interchanging into a magnetic wave and back again. It does not draw on internal propulsion because its energy isn't spent by pure motion.


Gravity Thesis

Page 14: “Do you want evidence that space-time is a three-dimensional shaping force from the smallest symmetries of fundamental particles and beyond to the shaping of stars? Then ask your professor why raindrops are spherical; he will tell you it is surface tension. Then ask him to explain why perfect ball bearings form when molten metal is poured into space. There is no surface tension there.”

Molten metal in space forms balls because of surface tension. The idea that there is no surface tension in space is silly.

Page 15: “Because of compression gravity, the earth will never cool or lose its magnetic field always rotating from the very same force spinning the elements at the quantum level.”

Also

“Massive bodies capable of magnetic crystallization at their core explain why planets rotate on their axes.”

First, the Earth’s core is not cooling or cooling as fast as one might otherwise expect because it contains
radioactively decaying potassium, uranium and thorium sustaining its heat. Secondly, planets rotate because they can only form from matter which is in a high state of angular momentum (swirling in the same plane). The matter comes together under gravity and the remaining spin represents the conservation of the cumulative angular momentum. In the specific case of the Earth, there is a
strong theory that 4.5 billion years ago a large object struck it off-center creating debris that produced the moon and setting the Earth spinning making it a planet. There is, however, no continuous force being reapplied over and over again to the Earth’s rotation.

Page 25: “The gravity field within a certain type of rotating wheel is not equivalence; it is real gravity. It
requires no uniform acceleration; has no resistance; flows forever continuously doing work (work being pushing astronauts against the interior and keeping them grounded).”

Also

“As a space station rotates forever with 360 of gravitational force radiating from the axis against the
peripheral wall, it will produce work forever.”

First, the static pressing of astronauts does not constitute work. Secondly, a rotating object represents a
very finite, single state of energy. If it performed work, it would have to lose energy from its rotation. To produce work forever the rotating space station would represent an infinite amount of energy. We can, however, stop the rotation with a very finite amount of energy and the rotation will not begin again on its own.

Page 27: “If there is no gravitational field, what then could push a weightless astronaut against the peripheral wall of the space station?”

This is simply centripetal force toward the center.

Page 31: “Electrons actually spin from the field and not the copper coil. It is the changing magnetic state thatmpulls electrons from the field into the copper windings.”

There are no electrons in the electric field. The field emanates from the electrons flowing through the wire.

On a recent broadcast of his Saturday science program, Roy said that the Earth’s magnetic field is due to iron in the core forming a “perfect magnet”. The Earth’s core is largely iron with a little nickel. This cannot form a permanent magnet. Such material is ferromagnetic at room temperature requiring an external magnetic field to bring out its own amplified field. In the case of the Earth’s core, however, even this does not apply. The core is hotter than the Curie temperature of all ferromagnetic materials
and all magnetic material in the core is only paramagnetic responding only slightly to an external field. It is generally regarded that the Earth’s mild magnetic field is generated from slight electrical currents forming from the molten metal flow in the outer core which in turn is enhanced by coupling with ferro- and para-magnetic material throughout the Earth’s entire structure.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-10-2009, 02:10 PM
Pegasus's Avatar
Pegasus Pegasus is offline
Prophet
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,974
Default Re: Roy's Thesis: Gravity Driven Universe

You must have a background in physics. As I know far less about physics than either you or Roy, I can't agree of disagree. At least on the surface, your comments seem to make sense but I really wouldn't know the difference. It would be interesting to hear these same arguments in a physics forum with members that have a genuine knowledge in the field of physics. Have you tried posting it in a physics forum?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-11-2009, 06:42 AM
Iacchus32's Avatar
Iacchus32 Iacchus32 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,601
Send a message via ICQ to Iacchus32
Default Re: Roy's Thesis: Gravity Driven Universe

Maybe Roy bases his premise upon the notion that something cannot come from nothing? In other words if there was a point where time and space did not exist (ere the Big Bang, that is), then what gave rise to it? There would have to exist something even more fundamental in its own or separate dimension, that exists as the basis for and, sustains the laws of physics. Or, if not, are we to conclude that everything just "magically" appeared out of nowhere? If this is the basis for Roy's premise, then I think he's barking up the right tree. Of course I also believe he's implied elsewhere that the the Big Bang did not occur, and I have to question that.
__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-11-2009, 08:53 AM
ben125521 ben125521 is offline
The Faithful
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 65
Default Re: Roy's Thesis: Gravity Driven Universe

I'm an engineer. I've posted in the few sites that seem relevant. Roy is not touching on anything new, and much of what he says is drivel stated with immense confidence.

Last edited by ben125521 : 09-11-2009 at 10:39 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump




All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.