MagneGas, Anyone?

Step right up for 3-card Monte...
Pepijn van Erp
New Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:32 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by Pepijn van Erp » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:14 pm

The scientists who would take care of Santilli's articles and see through those are probably not the people who would bother to warn investors in penny stocks, I guess. I wouldn't even know how they could, because it's probably not illegal to ask people to spend their money on silly projects, anyway. Maybe tell it to journalists?
Problem is: to see through the whole scheme, you need some knowledge of the science, business and financials. Not many combine those skills in one person.

The gain for Santilli is quite obvious, I think, his so-called science gives credit to his Magnegas. A former president and director of Magnegas, Bo Linton, uses the same tactic in selling his project: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lrTiaAz-NU. He uses theTelesio-Galilei Academy of Science (formerly known as Santilli-Galilei Association) as 'scientifical' backing for his product.

jpelverding
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by jpelverding » Sat Oct 13, 2012 3:17 pm

Pepijn, all others,

Is this discussion still alive?

Pepijn van Erp
New Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:32 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by Pepijn van Erp » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:59 pm

MagneGas ocassionally comes with 'good news' like http://www.marketwatch.com/story/magnegas-adds-new-florida-customer-in-capital-scrap-metal-2012-09-19 . But still the statements mention that they are not producing the gas with liquid waste, because they don't have the permits. Seems it bit strange that it would take so long to obtain those permits, if their technology is so promising, don't you think?

The other developments are that Ermanno Santilli has returned from Europe to take his seat as CEO of MagneGas: http://www.magnegas.eu/magnegas-appoints-ermanno-santilli-chief-executive-officer . I didn't find that many activities of his as director of MagneGas Europe. And their stocks are now traded on NASDAQ http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/mnga

User avatar
isodual
Poster
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:50 am
Custom Title: Show me the Equation

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by isodual » Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:48 pm

Oh enough Pepijn.

How exactly would “the scientists” “see through” the observational reality and experimentally verified evidence of Santilli’s scientific achievements?

Would they do as you do and just turn their heads away from the physical evidence and start quoting from the scripture of their high school chemistry books and proclaim what’s going on behind them isn’t actually happening??

Perhaps the high priests of mainstream science could then tell us more about the magical invisible pink unicorns (aka “dark matter”) that they have extracted billions from tax-payers to ‘study’ and keep us all interested in their creationist stories (aka the “big bang”, “God Particles” etc)

Dr Santilli is the Ron Paul of science and calls it as it is. You don’t make many friends amongst the indoctrinated masses by challenging the status the quo with technical arguments and the truth.

Do you have a technical argument to WHY clients have been using this fuel for years now and new clients are signing up all the time IF the fuel does not work better than acetylene? I would really like to hear it.

I would also LOVE to hear your technical argument against Santilli’s position that 20th century theory has limitations.

http://www.santilli-foundation.org/sant ... ries-4.php
Google/Wikipedia is NOT a scientific instrument.
Update 11/15/16: The “miraculous” properties of MagneGas have now all checked out as real & a mass outbreak of selective amnesia has swept across the inhabitants of this board.


“If Santilli could produce a safe gas that burnt hotter than the hottest chemical flame Mankind has ever known, I'd have his baby.” - Major Malfunction 2013

Pepijn van Erp
New Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:32 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by Pepijn van Erp » Thu Oct 25, 2012 10:07 pm

isodual wrote:
I would also LOVE to hear your technical argument against Santilli’s position that 20th century theory has limitations.

http://www.santilli-foundation.org/sant ... ries-4.php


Oh great, another article co-authored by the infamous Kadeisvili, who is no other than Santilli himself. I already dared user Globalreach to get me his curriculum vitae (see post #78). I only got strange e-mails, which got creepier when I kept asking for it. In one of the final mails I was called "a threat to America and mankind." :lol:

You could try via basicresearch@i-b-r.org

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32212
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by Gord » Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:11 am

isodual wrote:Perhaps the high priests of mainstream science could then tell us more about the magical invisible pink unicorns (aka “dark matter”) that they have extracted billions from tax-payers to ‘study’ and keep us all interested in their creationist stories (aka the “big bang”, “God Particles” etc)

Holy crap! Is Santilli a Creationist? :shock:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
isodual
Poster
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:50 am
Custom Title: Show me the Equation

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by isodual » Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:19 pm

Gord wrote: Holy crap! Is Santilli a Creationist? :shock:


No Gord, Santilli is a scientist. Those who purport the universe is 7 days (or 7 trillion days) old based upon a creation event formulated from their own personal beliefs (and NOT scientific evidence) are the creationists.
An example of a creationist would be the catholic priest Georges Lemaitre who first proposed the "big bang" theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Sir Fred Hoyle, a feisty and provocative astrophysicist of the last half of the century, coined it "the Big Bang" to ridicule the theory which he vehemently opposed. Ironically, Edwin Hubble who is often credited as the scientist behind the "big bang" also refused to accept the theory and died never believing the theory and its implications, namely - If universe is expanding around us in all directions at speeds proportional to the distance, then that puts the Earth smack dab where it was back in the dark ages - at the CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE.

http://www.science20.com/eternal_blogs/ ... ress-85962

Anyone who buys into the "big bang" theory should turn their "Skeptic" badge in at the door and get in line with the other sheep.

Have you really never questioned big bang conjecture or even heard of detractors such as Halton Arp?
Google/Wikipedia is NOT a scientific instrument.
Update 11/15/16: The “miraculous” properties of MagneGas have now all checked out as real & a mass outbreak of selective amnesia has swept across the inhabitants of this board.


“If Santilli could produce a safe gas that burnt hotter than the hottest chemical flame Mankind has ever known, I'd have his baby.” - Major Malfunction 2013

User avatar
isodual
Poster
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:50 am
Custom Title: Show me the Equation

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by isodual » Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:26 pm

Pepijn van Erp wrote:Oh great, another article co-authored by the infamous Kadeisvili,


In other words Pepijn, you have NO technical arguments.

I showed you mathematical and experimental proof that 20th century "quantum" chemistry is structurally incapable of representing the complexities of nature and you dismiss that in favor of discussing your utterly irrelevant and totally absurd Santilli-Kadeisvili-split-personality theory?

May I ask how old you are? (just curious, please no offense)

Look, I realize you really really really want to validate your own pre-existing belief that scientific theory cannot ever progress past our 20th century understanding but it’s time for you and the world to finally wake up and move on.

I will admit I was skeptical of Dr. Santilli at first too but if you evaluate his arguments on a technical basis there is absolutely no denying this dude is an off the chart genius.

This is SERIOUS BIG TIME stuff – like world changing. I realize you see this (and attack it the same) as just another sketch ball peddling snake oil, but it is NOT. Remember, his accomplishment over the past 50 years was developing new mathematics that opened the door to new 21st science. His new magnecular fuels are only the first of the many industrial applications which can be realized using his new science.

Why wouldn’t mainstream scientists have recognized and celebrated this accomplishment? Well, same reason you don’t. You refuse to even evaluate it based upon your assumption that someone else smarter than would have already stepped up and done it for you. Similar I suppose to the bystander effect.

Check out Dr. Santilli’s expose’ (II Grande Grido) he wrote about the decay of modern science published back in 1984 after quitting Harvard. The supporting volumes have page after page of correspondence he had with major research laboratories around the world requesting experiments to test the limitations of current theories (which as a scientist using public funds, is part of their ethical duty)

If you have a lazy mind or are too busy there is a simple one page review published in the Crimson Harvard newspaper back 1985.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1985/ ... ameficans/

As stated by the author of the review: “It would be a shame if after all his efforts. Santilli's case were never heard.”

Please open your mind and take another look. I am here to answer any technical questions you may have.
Google/Wikipedia is NOT a scientific instrument.
Update 11/15/16: The “miraculous” properties of MagneGas have now all checked out as real & a mass outbreak of selective amnesia has swept across the inhabitants of this board.


“If Santilli could produce a safe gas that burnt hotter than the hottest chemical flame Mankind has ever known, I'd have his baby.” - Major Malfunction 2013

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32212
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by Gord » Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:19 am

isodual wrote:
Gord wrote: Holy crap! Is Santilli a Creationist? :shock:


No Gord, Santilli is a scientist. Those who purport the universe is 7 days (or 7 trillion days) old based upon a creation event formulated from their own personal beliefs (and NOT scientific evidence) are the creationists.
An example of a creationist would be the catholic priest Georges Lemaitre who first proposed the "big bang" theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Sir Fred Hoyle, a feisty and provocative astrophysicist of the last half of the century, coined it "the Big Bang" to ridicule the theory which he vehemently opposed. Ironically, Edwin Hubble who is often credited as the scientist behind the "big bang" also refused to accept the theory and died never believing the theory and its implications, namely - If universe is expanding around us in all directions at speeds proportional to the distance, then that puts the Earth smack dab where it was back in the dark ages - at the CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE.

http://www.science20.com/eternal_blogs/ ... ress-85962

According to the theory of the expanding universe, there is no actual center. Every point is the relative center of its own universe.
Anyone who buys into the "big bang" theory should turn their "Skeptic" badge in at the door and get in line with the other sheep.

Have you really never questioned big bang conjecture or even heard of detractors such as Halton Arp?

I majored in astronomy at university (until my own Big Bang). So yes, I learnt the evidence, and I learnt some alternative theories. However, the evidence supports the theory of the Big Bang, and there is no good reason to disbelieve it.

But I'll ask again, is Santilli a Creationist? And please not, I am not using your peculiar definition, but rather the more mainstream definition:

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being....
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

Pepijn van Erp
New Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:32 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by Pepijn van Erp » Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:45 pm

isodual wrote:
Pepijn van Erp wrote:Oh great, another article co-authored by the infamous Kadeisvili,


In other words Pepijn, you have NO technical arguments.

I showed you mathematical and experimental proof that 20th century "quantum" chemistry is structurally incapable of representing the complexities of nature and you dismiss that in favor of discussing your utterly irrelevant and totally absurd Santilli-Kadeisvili-split-personality theory?

May I ask how old you are? (just curious, please no offense)



I will answer this with another fabulous quote from the e-mails I got from a member of one of Santilli's fantasy institutions, the International Committee on Scientific Ethics and Accountability, Richard Cox (well, Santilli again, I guess):

'You are a dirty filthy puking man in great need of some legal fixing for which our Committee has been set forth and fully funded, that's what we do, fixing human filth in science, and here is part of the action going on to fix you.
Our specialized Investigative Agency on scientific filth that includes former CIA operatives has already "bugged" your computer and is now collecting info to identify your real name, affiliation and ethnic connotation.'


And I was just asking for the scientific credentials of Kadeisvili and never hid my identity ;-)

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9775
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by Poodle » Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:24 am

Bad use of commas in that email. That would worry me.

User avatar
isodual
Poster
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:50 am
Custom Title: Show me the Equation

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by isodual » Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:13 pm

Pepijn van Erp wrote:I will answer this with another fabulous quote...

No, you do not get to answer a technical question with a quote – regardless of how fabulous you think it is. Truth of the matter is that you have no technical argument against magnegas because there is no technical argument that opposes observational and scientific reality

Seriously Pepijn, this is some big time world changing science. If you were born a hundred years ago would you have been the one trying to knock Einstein’s special relativity on the grounds that Albert failed his university entrance exam and had an illegitimate child? Please, focus on the science, not the politics.
Google/Wikipedia is NOT a scientific instrument.
Update 11/15/16: The “miraculous” properties of MagneGas have now all checked out as real & a mass outbreak of selective amnesia has swept across the inhabitants of this board.


“If Santilli could produce a safe gas that burnt hotter than the hottest chemical flame Mankind has ever known, I'd have his baby.” - Major Malfunction 2013

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 12485
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by Major Malfunction » Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:17 pm

Seriously, socks, my farts have more cutting power.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
isodual
Poster
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:50 am
Custom Title: Show me the Equation

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by isodual » Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:20 pm

Gord wrote: However, the evidence supports the theory of the Big Bang, and there is no good reason to disbelieve it.


Careful Gord, that is the trap everyone (including myself for years) seems to fall into. Look at how the argument always seems to be focused around the implications of an expanding universe and how to explain the motion when in reality, we forgot to first determine whether or not a shift in the frequency of light even demands actual motion/expansion/contraction.

Put simply, the real question before the “big bang” is even a relevant discussion, is whether or not the speed of light is constant throughout the entire universe. If it is not, then redshift can occur without relative motion. According to Santilli and EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIED results (published in Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering, Vol. 12, pages 165-188 (2012) this is indeed the case as demonstrated by our own Sun at sunset.

Or did you think the measurable redshift of DIRECT sunlight which occurs when our sun moves from zenith to sunset was attributable to the sun flying away from us? It would be a very COLD day on planet Earth if that was the case for each sunset over the previous 4 billion years.

Recall scattering/absorption theories were all dismissed (including Zwicky’s 1929 “tired light theory”) for cosmological redshifts as those mechanisms have been verified as not being able produce redshift.

http://www.santilli-foundation.org/no-u ... ansion.php

Without any credible evidence of the actual event the “big bang” is purported to account for, the whole thing really becomes a difficult little cosmic WMC (Weapon of Mass Creation) pill to swallow. Let alone the side effects of such a pill which are known to cause the extrapolation of billions dollars from tax-payers to fund delusional investigations of hallucinogenic and hypothetical conjectures (dark matter, dark energy, god particles etc.)

Gord – please follow me on this one. With your background in astronomy and skeptical nature, I have no doubt all this will eventually hit you like a freight train - as it did me (provided you can reopen the case and keep your mind open for a moment)

I kid you not Santilli is like FREAK level genius ridiculous smart. His discoveries are absolutely revolutionary to the field of cosmology/astrophysics.

Of course, this thread is about his absolutely revolutionary advances in chemistry so I will start a new topic on Santilli’s isoredshift where we can continue the “big bang” discussion.

Bottom line for Bart’s original question, YES, magnecular fuels are REAL and it is very disappointing that people seem to ignore/dismiss it.
Google/Wikipedia is NOT a scientific instrument.
Update 11/15/16: The “miraculous” properties of MagneGas have now all checked out as real & a mass outbreak of selective amnesia has swept across the inhabitants of this board.


“If Santilli could produce a safe gas that burnt hotter than the hottest chemical flame Mankind has ever known, I'd have his baby.” - Major Malfunction 2013

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 12485
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by Major Malfunction » Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:26 pm

Would suck cutting non-ferric metals then.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32212
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by Gord » Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:35 pm

isodual wrote:
Gord wrote: However, the evidence supports the theory of the Big Bang, and there is no good reason to disbelieve it.


Careful Gord, that is the trap everyone (including myself for years) seems to fall into.

I'm sorry, but I don't consider following the evidence to be a trap.

Gord – please follow me on this one. With your background in astronomy and skeptical nature, I have no doubt all this will eventually hit you like a freight train - as it did me (provided you can reopen the case and keep your mind open for a moment)

You should definitely doubt it. With my background and skeptical nature, I need good evidence to overthrow currently accepted theory, not something that is easily posted on a message board.

Also, you failed to answer my one question: is Santilli a Creationist? And please note, I am not using your peculiar definition, but rather the more mainstream definition:

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being....
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
isodual
Poster
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:50 am
Custom Title: Show me the Equation

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by isodual » Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:47 pm

Gord wrote: With my background and skeptical nature, I need good evidence to overthrow currently accepted theory, not something that is easily posted on a message board.


So let me get this right, you proclaim to be a skeptic yet you require really “good evidence” before you will even consider questioning your presumption of validity in prevailing dogma?

PLEASE THINK GORD – if light from a star appears reddish in color to us here on Earth, is it really safe to ASSUME it must be moving away from us (redshift/Doppler effect) ?? That ENTIRE assumption is in itself based on the ASSUMPTION that the speed of light is constant throughout entire universe (including inside of a star, proton etc.) and we all KNOW that cannot be the case because light has been experimentally verified to SLOW DOWN when traveling through medium (eg Water!).

With that, ANY true skeptics’ mind should open right about now. If yours doesn’t, your next step will be to start a frantic search on the internet to find a rebuttal to the OBVIOUS fact that the SPEED OF LIGHT has NEVER been declared to be constant outside of vacuum. You will then come back with some word-salad about photon reduction and scattering/absorption of light and conclude the Doppler effect is still valid because redshift CANNOT be caused by scattering/absorption effects (which is true and is why Zwicky’s 1929 “tired light” theory was dismissed)

However, that reply tacitly avoids the ENTIRE question of whether or not the speed of light is constant in ALL conditions throughout the universe. Never the less, let’s go with it. So, according to the orthodox mainstream scientific establishment, scattering & absorption cannot cause redshift. I agree with that.

Unfortunately, where mainstream science exits into theology is when they make the leap that the redshift/Doppler effect must then ONLY be attributable to motion away from the object and observer - ergo the universe must be expanding around us..

WAIT A SECOND… What if the star I asked you to look up at was our SUN? It has been EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIED and is VISIBLE to the naked eye that light from our Sun redshifts as it transitions to sunset with NO appreciable relative motion between the source and observer!

CAREFUL now.. before you claim the EXPERIMENTALLY MEASURED redshift of DIRECT light from our Sun is just from scattering & absorption of sunlight in the Earth’s atmosphere - please recall you already ACCEPTED THE MAINSTREAM POSITON above that scattering & absorption CANNOT be the source of the EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIED redshift of our Sun at sunset..

How is this non-sense double standard not detectable to someone “with your background”?

It is SO simple. Light loses energy when it travels through our atmosphere resulting in a shift in the frequency. You can feel sunshine upon your face and feel it warm the air around you. Did you think light could give away energy without losing any?

The continuous loss of energy as light continuously traverses around our universe is the source of the continuous cosmic background ration we detect – not just some ‘remnants’ of some primordial mythological explosion we created in our MINDS as a conclusion to explain our misunderstanding of the nature of light.

There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that universe is actually expanding. Did it even occur to you to review the original case on your own before you dismissed review of the appeal?

If I came to you and said our Sun experiences a redshift thus its moving away from us in violation of known laws of gravity as well as observational reality would you believe me??

Of course not. But when a high priest of “mainstream science” with his flowing robes and shiny Nobel medals around his necks and authoritative appeal proposes the same thing and dismisses your objections with his mysterious, magical, non-detectable ‘dark matter’.. well then its HOOK LINE AND SINKER…and we end up forking over 2 billion tax-payer dollars for this wizard to “study” the magic which fixes the experimental inconsistences of his conjecture.

Come on Gord.. you have to be smarter than this. Wake up – do NOT dismiss Dr. Santilli and experimentally verified evidence just because others do. Other people all believing something is true because others believe something is true is NOT evidence of anything but the stupidity and heard mentality of people.
Google/Wikipedia is NOT a scientific instrument.
Update 11/15/16: The “miraculous” properties of MagneGas have now all checked out as real & a mass outbreak of selective amnesia has swept across the inhabitants of this board.


“If Santilli could produce a safe gas that burnt hotter than the hottest chemical flame Mankind has ever known, I'd have his baby.” - Major Malfunction 2013

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32212
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by Gord » Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:02 pm

isodual wrote:
Gord wrote: With my background and skeptical nature, I need good evidence to overthrow currently accepted theory, not something that is easily posted on a message board.

So let me get this right, you proclaim to be a skeptic yet you require really “good evidence” before you will even consider questioning your presumption of validity in prevailing dogma?

No, I require really "good evidence" before I ignore the other evidence. I question the science every time I think about it, but nothing has invalidated it yet.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
isodual
Poster
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:50 am
Custom Title: Show me the Equation

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by isodual » Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:21 am

Gord wrote: No, I require really "good evidence" before I ignore the other evidence. I question the science every time I think about it, but nothing has invalidated it yet.


Ah… Did you not read the detailed explanation I provided for you Gord? Seriously, a 6th grade science student could comprehend that I just explained why there is actually NO EVIDENCE stars and/or entire galaxies are all speeding away from Earth.

One last time, this time at a 5th grade hockey player level.

You aim your “universe radar gun” at a distant star and it says its speeding away at x km/h. You measure other celestial objects and find them all to be speeding away from you. Thus, you CONCLUDE everything is moving away from us.

Dr. Santilli has been requesting for over two decades now that we test this “universe radar gun” first to see if it actually works before we move on to making up “dark” things to explain how the speeds detected on our “universe radar gun” violate known laws of physics.

Dr. Santilli finally conducted the test himself (NO government funding) by aiming the “universe radar gun” at our own Sun which we KNOW isn’t speeding away from Earth.

Of course, the “radar gun” said the Sun WAS speeding away from us. MEANING, the “radar gun” doesn’t WORK! BOOM… your entire big bang case is THROWN out of court because there is NO case since there is NO evidence of anything except a faulty equation/”radar gun”.

Get it yet Gord? It’s like the star eye witness (and the ONLY witness in the case for that matter) was just proved to be BLIND.

The EXPERIMENT which proves the “radar gun” doesn’t work has been repeated and verified. Here is the paper published in a referred scientific journal back in June of this year.

http://iospress.metapress.com/content/m ... &volume=12

R.I.P. “Big Bang” “Dark Matter” “Dark Energy” .. etc etc.
Google/Wikipedia is NOT a scientific instrument.
Update 11/15/16: The “miraculous” properties of MagneGas have now all checked out as real & a mass outbreak of selective amnesia has swept across the inhabitants of this board.


“If Santilli could produce a safe gas that burnt hotter than the hottest chemical flame Mankind has ever known, I'd have his baby.” - Major Malfunction 2013

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 12485
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by Major Malfunction » Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:34 am

We know quiiite a bit about chemistry.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32212
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by Gord » Thu Nov 08, 2012 7:17 am

isodual wrote:
Gord wrote: No, I require really "good evidence" before I ignore the other evidence. I question the science every time I think about it, but nothing has invalidated it yet.

Ah… Did you not read the detailed explanation I provided for you Gord? Seriously, a 6th grade science student could comprehend that I just explained why there is actually NO EVIDENCE stars and/or entire galaxies are all speeding away from Earth.

Wow. Please remember, I majored in astronomy in university. In fact, I actually collected and examined evidence for myself that demonstrated the expansion of the universe. And I did not accept the expanding universe theory at the time; I looked through other proposed theories to find other explanations for the evidence. But in the end, I had to accept the evidence, and come to the only logical conclusion: The universe is expanding.

Just as with my search for God when I was younger, I would really have liked to find otherwise. I can't lie to myself, though. I have to accept the outcomes of my own searches.

One last time, this time at a 5th grade hockey player level.

What exactly do you think your statement is saying?

Anyway, back to the only real question I have for you: is Santilli a Creationist? And please note, I am not using your peculiar definition, but rather the more mainstream definition:

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being....

I made it a nice spiffy colour in the hopes you would not ignore it.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 12485
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by Major Malfunction » Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:09 am

I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out how religion and cosmology fits in with MagicGasTM.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32212
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by Gord » Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:23 am

Major Malfunction wrote:I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out how religion and cosmology fits in with MagicGasTM.

Religion and magic? You don't see a connection there? :|
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 12485
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by Major Malfunction » Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:31 am

It's the trying to use religion to disprove cosmology to prove MagicGasTM angle that I'm not getting.

Discordant. That's the word I'm feeling.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32212
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by Gord » Fri Nov 09, 2012 3:01 am

Major Malfunction wrote:It's the trying to use religion to disprove cosmology to prove MagicGasTM angle that I'm not getting.

Discordant. That's the word I'm feeling.

I think it's the old "one thing is wrong so a different thing is also wrong!" attempt to rationalise something. Hard to say though. My brain is made of cotton lately.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

Pepijn van Erp
New Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:32 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by Pepijn van Erp » Fri Nov 09, 2012 4:02 pm

This talking about Santilli's redshift theories seems like a distraction from the main subject: Magnegas.

For a discussion on his redshift theorie, you could look at the jref forum: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... ost8680865 it is simply wrong.

User avatar
isodual
Poster
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:50 am
Custom Title: Show me the Equation

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by isodual » Fri Nov 09, 2012 7:55 pm

Gord wrote: No, I require really "good evidence" before I ignore the other evidence.


Gord wrote: “before I ignore the other evidence.
You get to ignore evidence??

Gord wrote: “And I did not accept the expanding universe theory at the time; I looked through other proposed theories to find other explanations for the evidence. But in the end….”


In the End? As it was in the beginning? Really? Lol.. and you’re trying to accuse me of being the religious one?

“Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.”
-Karl Popper


:oops:
Google/Wikipedia is NOT a scientific instrument.
Update 11/15/16: The “miraculous” properties of MagneGas have now all checked out as real & a mass outbreak of selective amnesia has swept across the inhabitants of this board.


“If Santilli could produce a safe gas that burnt hotter than the hottest chemical flame Mankind has ever known, I'd have his baby.” - Major Malfunction 2013

User avatar
isodual
Poster
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:50 am
Custom Title: Show me the Equation

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by isodual » Fri Nov 09, 2012 7:59 pm

Major Malfunction wrote:I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out how religion and cosmology fits in with MagicGasTM.


By chance Major, did you happen to try reading the discussion above before asking for help? :D

Seriously though, I am not sure why Gord is absolutely insistent upon bringing deities into this should-be technical discussion. I did bring cosmology up but that was clearly relevant to the discussion, which again, is apparent if you read (and comprehend) the preceding conversation.

I am excited to learn you believe you know “quiite” a bit about chemistry and I am eager to have a technical discussion about the glaring insufficiencies in modern “quantum” chemistry.

Note: there is no need to discuss the validity of Santilli’s magnecules any further because it ABSOLUTLEY POSITIVELY without QUESTION has been experimentally validated- unless you have experimental counter-evidence? I am sorry but “well wikipedia says he is a fringe scientist” is NOT experimental evidence.

In essence, magnegas is no longer on trial, “mainstream science” is.

Here is a summary of the evidence against it.
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/sant ... ries-4.php

Looks like you got some explaining to do.
Google/Wikipedia is NOT a scientific instrument.
Update 11/15/16: The “miraculous” properties of MagneGas have now all checked out as real & a mass outbreak of selective amnesia has swept across the inhabitants of this board.


“If Santilli could produce a safe gas that burnt hotter than the hottest chemical flame Mankind has ever known, I'd have his baby.” - Major Malfunction 2013

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32212
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by Gord » Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:16 am

isodual wrote:
Gord wrote: No, I require really "good evidence" before I ignore the other evidence.

Gord wrote: “before I ignore the other evidence.
You get to ignore evidence??

That's what you're telling me to do. I'm the one saying it will take strong opposing evidence before I'll do it.

Gord wrote: “And I did not accept the expanding universe theory at the time; I looked through other proposed theories to find other explanations for the evidence. But in the end….”


In the End? As it was in the beginning? Really? Lol.. and you’re trying to accuse me of being the religious one?

That's right. I only studied it for so long; eventually every examination must reach a conclusion.

“Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.”
-Karl Popper


:oops:

Have you applied that to yourself yet? Because you don't seem like the type of person who would be able to do so.

isodual wrote:Seriously though, I am not sure why Gord is absolutely insistent upon bringing deities into this should-be technical discussion.

I didn't bring it up, you did. I merely asked a follow-up question: "Is Santilli a Creationist?"

You still haven't answered it. I don't trust you will, either.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
isodual
Poster
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:50 am
Custom Title: Show me the Equation

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by isodual » Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:33 pm

Gord wrote: I didn't bring it up, you did. I merely asked a follow-up question: "Is Santilli a Creationist?"


Oh stop.. You initially asked if Santilli was a creationist to which I REPLIED:
isodual wrote:No Gord, Santilli is a scientist. Those who purport the universe is 7 days (or 7 trillion days) old based upon a creation event formulated from their own personal beliefs (and NOT scientific evidence) are the creationists.


Clearly, you didn’t like that answer as it didn’t fit with your predetermined conclusion that Dr. Santilli is some kind of religious zealot whom you could easily dismiss as being non-scientific-- and in the process, salvage your own belief that you are some rational, super-intelligent, “skeptical” mind who has successfully selected the appropriate end-all-be-all theory of the universe.

I answered your question Gord yet you continued to beg the question under your revised definition of the term “creationist” which apparently frames ANYONE who doesn’t rule out the role of something beyond their current imagination as a “creationist”.

To what end Gord?? What does it matter if a scientist also holds personal theological/spiritual positions? Do you ignore Einstein’s theories because he believed “God doesn’t play dice with the universe”?

We are talking SCIENCE here.. Not philosophy or theology. I will gladly participate in a subjective discussion with you on another thread - but not here.

Dr. Santilli’s mathematics has opened the door to a new scientific era that mankind so desperately needs. That is FAR too important to allow internet cynics an opportunity to derail the case with immaterial and equivocal arguments.

Gord wrote: “No, I require really "good evidence" before I ignore the other evidence.”


You are without question free to ignore evidence and the entire scientific method (of NOT allowing yourself to make a discretionary judgments based upon about how “good” you feel about something) all you want – BUT PLEASE, don’t call it science or pretend you have any regard for the truth.

Nobody is asking you to ignore experimental evidence that light can redshift due to Doppler effect. That fact does not in any way conflict with the NEW experimental evidence that light can also redshift as it travels through a transparent medium. The conclusion or theory derived from the evidence however can come into conflict with reality (scientific evidence). The “Big Bang” theory is based on the assumption that light can ONLY redshift via Doppler. Now that this postulate has been experimentally dismissed, there is no reason to even have a theory to explain something that is NOT verified to be occurring (eg universal expansion).

If you want to know what a creationist sounds like, ask someone staring up at the night sky when the universe was born. A creationist will say 7 days or 14 billion years. An actual SCIENTIST like Dr. Santilli will respond – “I have NO idea… it may even be infinite.”


Start a new thread if you want to talk religion. Other than that, I will be here patiently awaiting a technical argument to why “quantum” chemistry and quantum mechanics are COMPLETE and structurally capable of describing every event under every condition possible throughout the universe.
Google/Wikipedia is NOT a scientific instrument.
Update 11/15/16: The “miraculous” properties of MagneGas have now all checked out as real & a mass outbreak of selective amnesia has swept across the inhabitants of this board.


“If Santilli could produce a safe gas that burnt hotter than the hottest chemical flame Mankind has ever known, I'd have his baby.” - Major Malfunction 2013

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 12485
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by Major Malfunction » Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:04 pm

Because oxidising H2, CO and CH4 is a scientific revolution... :roll:
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32212
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by Gord » Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:10 pm

isodual wrote:
Gord wrote: I didn't bring it up, you did. I merely asked a follow-up question: "Is Santilli a Creationist?"


Oh stop.. You initially asked if Santilli was a creationist to which I REPLIED:
isodual wrote:No Gord, Santilli is a scientist. Those who purport the universe is 7 days (or 7 trillion days) old based upon a creation event formulated from their own personal beliefs (and NOT scientific evidence) are the creationists.


Clearly, you didn’t like that answer as it didn’t fit with your predetermined conclusion that Dr. Santilli is some kind of religious zealot whom you could easily dismiss as being non-scientific-- and in the process, salvage your own belief that you are some rational, super-intelligent, “skeptical” mind who has successfully selected the appropriate end-all-be-all theory of the universe.

No, I'm sorry, you're still refusing to answer my question and replacing it with your own. I'm specifically talking about the generally accepted definition of Creationism, and I linked to it so you would understand. Here, I'll do it again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being....

That is my question. It's not the question you are answering.

I answered your question Gord yet you continued to beg the question under your revised definition of the term “creationist” which apparently frames ANYONE who doesn’t rule out the role of something beyond their current imagination as a “creationist”.]

I'm sorry, but you are the one using as revised defintion of the term "Creationist". I am using the one I quoted, which I will do again:

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being....

That is what I am asking. It is not what you are answering.

To what end Gord?? What does it matter if a scientist also holds personal theological/spiritual positions? Do you ignore Einstein’s theories because he believed “God doesn’t play dice with the universe”?

If Santilli is a Creationist, then he is biased against the evidence. He willingly contorts the evidence to fit his belief system. I feel that goes to the heart of the matter.

Einstein was not a Creationist. Your reference to him is a strawman.

Will you answer my question, or not?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
isodual
Poster
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:50 am
Custom Title: Show me the Equation

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by isodual » Sun Feb 10, 2013 8:31 pm

Gord wrote: No, I'm sorry, you're still refusing to answer my question and replacing it with your own. I'm specifically talking about the generally accepted definition of Creationism…Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being....That is my question. It's not the question you are answering.


Oh for the LOVE of GOD Gord !!! (No pun intended) what about me stating that Santilli is NOT a creationist do you not understand?? lol

Isodual wrote: No Gord, Santilli is a scientist…


Santilli is NOT a creationist – Once again, Santilli is NOT a creationist - not even by your “mainstream definition”. A ‘creation story’ is a story of creation - and if you don’t have a story of creation, you simply cannot be considered a creationist. Does that not make sense to you?

Of course I don’t speak for the man, but I have never once heard any mention in his papers or lectures of any cosmic fairy tales like “primeval atoms/eggs” exploding the universe into ‘creation’ with the aid of “God particles” and leaving Earth at the center of the universe (Recall, your theory/belief states the expansion of the universe is ACCELERATING proportionate to the distance from Earth in all directions. If you just said it was expanding everywhere at the same rate, then fine, but you don’t – you say it is ACCELERATING – thus, Earth must be in the CENTER of the universe according to the “big bang” model. Please draw it out on a cocktail napkin before attempting to challenge me on that)

Santilli has zero time for anything that cannot be numerically represented, measured, predicted and experimentally verified – as again, he is a scientist.

Gord wrote: If Santilli is a Creationist, then he is biased against the evidence. He willingly contorts the evidence to fit his belief system. I feel that goes to the heart of the matter


Precisely. Most creationists (“big bang” believers or “bible bangers”) are indeed probably biased against any evidence which doesn’t fit their belief system. (Believe it or not, but belief in God or disbelief in God are equally unscientific as they are both based in belief – not in numerical measurement.)

It is your belief in your theory which in reality is making you bias against the evidence which doesn’t fit YOUR belief system.

Direct light from our sun turns (shifts) red at sunset without any appreciable motion between the Earth and Sun REGARDLESS of the religious or political positions of the observer. If you discovered Hubble was actually a ‘biblical creationist’ would you then dismiss the experimentally verified fact of the redshift distance correlation? Of course not, as that would be non-scientific nonsense. So why do you now feel compelled to ignore/dismiss the experimentally verified fact that direct light from our sun redshifts as it transverses through a medium (our atmosphere)??

Can you answer me that?

Before you start in with the claim that the redness of our sun is due to ‘scattering’ – I will remind you ‘scattering’ is known and accepted by all in the scientific community not to be able to cause redshift. That’s why the ‘scattering’ / “tired light” theories which attempted to explain Hubble’s results were dismissed 80 years ago. So no need to evoke any ‘scattering’ claims unless you are really desperate to protect your belief system from scientific evidence which eliminates the need for your “big bang” belief system all together.
Google/Wikipedia is NOT a scientific instrument.
Update 11/15/16: The “miraculous” properties of MagneGas have now all checked out as real & a mass outbreak of selective amnesia has swept across the inhabitants of this board.


“If Santilli could produce a safe gas that burnt hotter than the hottest chemical flame Mankind has ever known, I'd have his baby.” - Major Malfunction 2013

User avatar
isodual
Poster
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:50 am
Custom Title: Show me the Equation

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by isodual » Sun Feb 10, 2013 8:34 pm

Major Malfunction wrote:Because oxidising H2, CO and CH4 is a scientific revolution... :roll:


Wow – that almost sounds like you think you know what you are talking about Major. Perhaps you should grab your high school chemistry book and run over to General Motors to tell them that the tests they conducted on Magnegas prior to their approval for use their facilities is all wrong.


[GM tested MagneGas™, assessing its environmental, health and safety impacts. It found it cut cleaner, faster and is more cost-effective than acetylene.

"We are always in pursuit of technologies that enhance quality and efficiency while also performing well on a holistic business case," said John Bradburn , manager of waste-reduction efforts at GM. "In its current state, this technology does just that. We're working closely with MagneGas to discuss possible future applications with potential to reduce our environmental impact."]


http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/ ... gnegas.htm
Google/Wikipedia is NOT a scientific instrument.
Update 11/15/16: The “miraculous” properties of MagneGas have now all checked out as real & a mass outbreak of selective amnesia has swept across the inhabitants of this board.


“If Santilli could produce a safe gas that burnt hotter than the hottest chemical flame Mankind has ever known, I'd have his baby.” - Major Malfunction 2013

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32212
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by Gord » Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:01 am

isodual wrote:Oh for the LOVE of GOD Gord !!! (No pun intended) what about me stating that Santilli is NOT a creationist do you not understand?? lol

As far as I can see, that's the first time you said it. Previously you implied it, but your language left room for doubt.

Isodual wrote:(Recall, your theory/belief states the expansion of the universe is ACCELERATING proportionate to the distance from Earth in all directions. If you just said it was expanding everywhere at the same rate, then fine, but you don’t – you say it is ACCELERATING – thus, Earth must be in the CENTER of the universe according to the “big bang” model. Please draw it out on a cocktail napkin before attempting to challenge me on that)

It's not my theory, or my belief.

And every point is the center of the universe.

Santilli has zero time for anything that cannot be numerically represented, measured, predicted and experimentally verified – as again, he is a scientist.

Y'know, the more times you say that, the less I believe it.

Gord wrote: If Santilli is a Creationist, then he is biased against the evidence. He willingly contorts the evidence to fit his belief system. I feel that goes to the heart of the matter


Precisely. Most creationists (“big bang” believers or “bible bangers”)....

Again, you've altered the meaning of the term "Creationist". No Creationist accepts the Big Bang theory.

Your constant abuse of the language like that is the reason I can't trust your word on anything you say. How can I know what you really mean, if your words have their own meaning different from the norm? Shall I question you on every single term you've used first? I don't think I'll bother....

It is your belief in your theory which in reality is making you bias against the evidence which doesn’t fit YOUR belief system.

No.

Direct light from our sun turns (shifts) red at sunset without any appreciable motion between the Earth and Sun REGARDLESS of the religious or political positions of the observer. If you discovered Hubble was actually a ‘biblical creationist’ would you then dismiss the experimentally verified fact of the redshift distance correlation? Of course not, as that would be non-scientific nonsense. So why do you now feel compelled to ignore/dismiss the experimentally verified fact that direct light from our sun redshifts as it transverses through a medium (our atmosphere)??

Can you answer me that?

Scattering is a different effect from red-shifting. Redshift distance correlation has been verified, regardless of Hubble's beliefs.

Before you start in with the claim that the redness of our sun is due to ‘scattering’ – I will remind you ‘scattering’ is known and accepted by all in the scientific community not to be able to cause redshift. That’s why the ‘scattering’ / “tired light” theories which attempted to explain Hubble’s results were dismissed 80 years ago. So no need to evoke any ‘scattering’ claims unless you are really desperate to protect your belief system from scientific evidence which eliminates the need for your “big bang” belief system all together.

See, here is another example where your words must have different meanings from everything else. Scattering is completely different from red-shifting. Neither causes the other.

See Mie Scattering and Rayleigh Scattering.

Then look at a nice simple internet site, like Earthsky: http://earthsky.org/space/sun-looks-on-horizon

Sunlight encounters more air molecules when the sun is low in the sky than when the sun is overhead. Even more blue light is scattered away, leaving mostly the reddish component of white sunlight to travel the straighter path to your eyes. So the setting sun looks red.

Again, this is not red-shifting; the spectroscopic lines are not shifted when the Sun looks red near the horizon.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
isodual
Poster
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:50 am
Custom Title: Show me the Equation

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by isodual » Mon Feb 11, 2013 10:02 pm

Gord wrote: “Again, you've altered the meaning of the term "Creationist". No Creationist accepts the Big Bang theory.”


Really? Not even Father Georges Lamaitre – the father of the Big Bang Theory? :shock:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

A creation story is a story of creation. From nothing, something. Aka CREATION. Whether it’s a supernatural being or an unexplained force behind the creation event, both creation stories classify as a story of creation.

Gord wrote: “Scattering is a different effect from red-shifting. Redshift distance correlation has been verified, regardless of Hubble's beliefs.”


YES – precisely. Scattering is DIFFERENT then redshift! Are you even paying attention? Seriously have you even listened to one word I have said?

If you measure DIRECT light from the sun from zenith TO the horizon, there is an experimentally verified REDSHIFT. You did actually READ the papers I linked to right? Right??? Go out and get your telescope and measure it yourself if you don’t believe it.

http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs ... ns-212.pdf

Blue light scatters in Earths atmosphere (thus the blue sky) which is TRUE but what happens to red light?

Red light is ABSORBED by our atmosphere and that is also scientific FACT. So the “nice simple” (and flawed) common explanation you provided for the redness of the sun at sunset TOTALLY IGNORES the FACT that red light is absorbed by our atmosphere.

So at sunset, your position is that red light ‘UN-absorbs’ itself back into existence right before it reaches your eyes ???

Look… you thought you were 100% correct about Magnegas and turns out you were 100% wrong. Can you at least now approach Santilli’s isoredshift with a somewhat of open and rational mind?

Please read the paper (published in a referred scientific journal fyi).

Santilli is wicked smart dude. Freak level genius. You will love the guy if you can just give him a chance and listen to what he is saying.
Google/Wikipedia is NOT a scientific instrument.
Update 11/15/16: The “miraculous” properties of MagneGas have now all checked out as real & a mass outbreak of selective amnesia has swept across the inhabitants of this board.


“If Santilli could produce a safe gas that burnt hotter than the hottest chemical flame Mankind has ever known, I'd have his baby.” - Major Malfunction 2013

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32212
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by Gord » Tue Feb 12, 2013 4:23 am

isodual wrote:
Gord wrote: “Again, you've altered the meaning of the term "Creationist". No Creationist accepts the Big Bang theory.”


Really? Not even Father Georges Lamaitre – the father of the Big Bang Theory? :shock:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Yes, really. Did you not check the footnote?

Peter T. Landsberg (1999). Seeking Ultimates: An Intuitive Guide to Physics, Second Edition. CRC Press. p. 236. ISBN 9780750306577. "Indeed the attempt in 1951 by Pope Pius XII to look forward to a time when creation would be established by science, was resented by several physicists, notably by George Gamow and even George Lemaitre, a member of the Pontifical Academy."


A creation story is a story of creation. From nothing, something. Aka CREATION. Whether it’s a supernatural being or an unexplained force behind the creation event, both creation stories classify as a story of creation.

Yes, and Creationism is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

...the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.

I've mentioned this before, but you still continue to misuse the term.

If you measure DIRECT light from the sun from zenith TO the horizon, there is an experimentally verified REDSHIFT.

Show me. I don't make my own stellar spectra anymore.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
isodual
Poster
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:50 am
Custom Title: Show me the Equation

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by isodual » Tue Feb 12, 2013 3:37 pm

I have presented you with experimentally verified evidence (science) which clearly exposes the insufficiencies (OBSCURITIES) in mainstream chemistry, physics, biology, mathematics, astrophysics, cosmology (science) AND apparently all you care to do is quibble with me over the definition of the word “creation”???

I suppose it only makes sense that an internet know-it-all who cannot deal with being wrong about anything would ignore the technical argument if he has no defense against it and attempt to shift the focus to something trivial.

isodual wrote:If you measure DIRECT light from the sun from zenith TO the horizon, there is an experimentally verified REDSHIFT.


Gord wrote: Show me. I don't make my own stellar spectra anymore.


REALLY? You wanna hop up on my lap so I can read you the paper I SHOWED YOU?
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs ... ns-212.pdf

Figure 12, 25, etc.. oh take a good gander at figure 33.

Of course, if science is too hard for you, you could always OPEN YOUR EYES and look at the sun at Zenith (NOT red) then look at the sun at sunset (RED!).

If you are underwater in a pool, and don’t see any red light, is it safe for a 12K + posts card carrying “skeptic” like yourself to assume you just need to swim a little deeper until all the blue light “scatters away” and the red light magically reappears? Ya.. that’s the ticket… pfff… More fiat creation of “evidence” by government funded academia to keep the rivers of tax-funds flowing.

Any other real skeptics on this forum that care to join the conversation here?
Google/Wikipedia is NOT a scientific instrument.
Update 11/15/16: The “miraculous” properties of MagneGas have now all checked out as real & a mass outbreak of selective amnesia has swept across the inhabitants of this board.


“If Santilli could produce a safe gas that burnt hotter than the hottest chemical flame Mankind has ever known, I'd have his baby.” - Major Malfunction 2013

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9775
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by Poodle » Tue Feb 12, 2013 3:50 pm

Oh, alright then.

Anyone found one of those magnecule things yet?

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9925
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: MagneGas, Anyone?

Post by fromthehills » Tue Feb 12, 2013 4:22 pm

Cool! I was one that thought that expansion of the universe was proposed by Hubble. Georges Lemaître is my favorite Catholic, only second to the Vatican priest on the Bill Maher movie.