How Earth was Created.

[gallo]

Quote by: Kuroko Under your context for a theory, were another team or even another physicist to (let us say) come to the same realisation between the relationships of spacial distortion and light, were that body to go through the community and establish their theory and have it reviewed as any normal theory presented by such a body would. Should that work come back with a possitive peer-review from the scientific community with correct results from tests I must stress stretch any institutes budget would not my theory which as previously stated is identical from conception as that other body (be it a team, institute or single person) be then considered a theory even though I did not do the work or even apply it, even though I had the very same foundations and represented evidence.

Did that actually make sense to you when you wrote it?

Quote by: Kuroko I have given you AMPLE reasoning for my conclussion,

No you haven't. You have merely asserted your conclusion. You have not stated an hypothesis, you have made no predictions, and you haven't tested it, and you haven't submitted it for peer review. You don't have a theory.

Quote by: Kuroko I have watered it down and explained points which may confuse others, you have offered no single piece of rebutle except with regards to my methods of display, format and layout, indeed even the very construction of the words in each sentance.

True. That is because I don't think your fantasy is worthy of further consideration. Try to state it in English, with correct grammar and spelling, and relate it to known science.

Quote by: Kuroko Yet for this falicy of science you proclaim it so openly is, you have not rebutled using any hint or reasoning of even your own, except to slander the literacy of the orriginator and author (of said theory).

Because your marginal literacy turn it into gibberish.

Quote by: Kuroko The theory in that form is still a theory. What you have there is an explination of my theory, and I believe I made that intention clear from the begining of that orriginal post,

You still don't understand that you don't have a theory, do you. Learn what science is and how it works.

Quote by: Kuroko I applaud and thank you for keeping this thread alive through your neandering responses and will take your consideration to accomodate the intellectually rock stupid (unable to move off an absolute).

No need to refer to yourself as rock stupid. I think you might be capable of learning. Give it a try. The grammar and spelling seems to have gone down hill. The whole post has been turned into gibberish.

[Kuroko]

No you haven't. You have merely asserted your conclusion. You have not stated an hypothesis, you have made no predictions, and you haven't tested it, and you haven't submitted it for peer review. You don't have a theory

And you came to that conclusion based on the post explaining the theory I made up?

Or is it that you are making an assumption that I have done none of the things you have mentioned, I will only state that being so sure of any thing is a bad thing.

In any case, you have highlighted your lack of even imagination and indeed a lack of insight into the topic by offering nothing other then your opinion to the points I presented.

I gave examples of how space distortion can appear to be the effects of gravity distortion, I also believe I made a point that testing them would be nigh on impossible as the result can be technically given by both effects.

You have not even offered your OPINION on that thought, except to state that my poor spelling is a compelling arguement against my point.
Nice style of both debate and deductive reasoning.

Yes it is a theory, be it tested or presented by me or not, should it ever become a tested theory down the line the fact I honestly don't have the ability to test distortion in space by even simple means (think of the stalites they put into space with the large spinning balls designed to test several of Einstein's theories).

Yes it's a theory, and until you become the entire scientific community board or even a respected peer by me you shall remain a volconvo visitor and thus my presentation will be as equal to you as it is to the next person.

In this case, apparantly and according only to you (thus your opinion) it is a poorly writen one, and yet I have writen it and you have offered nothing contrary to any points made be them poorly spelt or not.

I will lay ten to one odds that your next post will be reminding me that in your opinion I do not have a theory, that my post and probobly this one is poorly writen and riddled with crimes against the gramatically sane and I will also lay odds ten fold on the previous one's that my next post will be re-affirming that you still have an arguement based on opinion which only has the merrit of the person holding it at the time, unfortunately not a person able to hold it or express it in any colourfull (colorfull for you) manor.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Geneticist String theory is a mathematical theory, it is also a physical theory. There really isnt a clear cut distinction between theoretical physics and mathematics, the two blur together. That is why string theorist are able to put forth their ideas and get them published, because they are currently based in mathematical concepts and mathematically are valid while at the same time not being contradicted by current knowledge of physics. As for Darwin, while he did not put his theory down in mathematical terms, it should be remembered that his was a biological theory. There is a profound difference between what is acceptable and expected in biology and mathematics. Physics is based on math and it is expected that any physical theory be broken down to mathematics. Biology is becoming increasingly mathematical in nature, but the complexity is still so great that it is only now that it is really coming into its own. Darwin did not break his theories down to mathematics, but he provided more than ample support to make his theory plausible and convincing. Biology and physics are different and what constitutes proof in physics is not what constitutes proof in biology and vice versus.

I would agree with you viewpoints about my presentation of this so-called theory. I would agree that more advanced interpretations about evolution deal in great part with biology. It should be clear that I am publishing my idea here on Volconvo for debate purposes and not in a scientific journal and the requirments here at not the same - at least I did not see such in any of the Volconvo "rules". I resented a webpage that details and illustrates how light can alter when passing through a normal lens (not a gravitational lens) and compared such a clear lens with cruved space which is also clear in that we can see through it like we would if looking through a camera lens. I do not think there is any really good knowledge to date about just how much space is curved and that such is still a matter of speculation. To confirm this theory I would need to wait until that data is better known via future discoveries. I do not have the means withall to make that discovery my self and so the debate would be based on an assumption that space is curved the same as a camera lens which is not an absolute and subject to furture re-speculations. This would thusly be an on-going research and not a final deduction. The principles concerning how light rays can alter when passing through a lens have already been explained in mathematical terms and so I do not need to repeat that information as it is "old hat" stuff. You would just apply the same math to my assumption that space is curved like a lens.

Perception alters when we view things through water, if you wish to spab fish in a pond you must not aim directly at where you think the fish is or you will miss your target, as any spear fisherman knows. What we are dealing here with is our perception and how we must adjust the facts to account for those illusions created by the optics of cruved space.

The Darwin theory of evolution is of course supported by how old rocks are at different levels of the earth so that "time" can be carbon dated or dated by other means. Example: A bird could not have evolved from a dinosaur unless the age of the dinosaur is older then then the first known birds. Such a theory is founded on the age of rocks and fosils within rocks. Is a rock biological? When we are making a theory about distant planets are we talking about rocks, water, gasses or "living biological systems". The point being that the evolution of planets and stars from their orgin (if they had one?) would not be classified as biology and not all aspects concerning the evolution of life on earth would not be biological.

Determining cosmic events cannot depend totally on physics or other forms of math. That is because math is static and cannot relate novelty when it occurs, unless that novelty is pre-known and the math is adjusted to account for that alteration in the final outcome. Be sure to check out this link about the Novelty Theory. You cannot create the History of the Universe unless you know what novelties took place (which remain as unknown factors currently).

Novelty theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Math is founded on the idea of repeatable constants which might not be the case when it comes to biological or cosmic evolution.

A Roar of Approaching Cataracts

TERENCE MCKENNA VS. THE BLACK HOLE

Physics is useful if you are into "intelligent design" concepts that would would have predictable results rather then concpets based on "random causes for evolution" as advocated by Darwin's theory. The universe and it's development might not of followed mathematical pathways during it's historic momentum of cause and effects.

Thusly, we must open our mind to visionary theories as well as just depending on those "cast in stone" scientific processes of determination.

Which I might add has caused some alarm in the field of new age physics.

MIT Press Journals - Perspectives on Science - 13(4):431 - Abstract

Some folks are worred that phyics might plunge science back into the dark hole of being pure metaphyics. (metaphysical).

[Kuroko]

Things can appear backwards, I will give you that one techno, every thing I know about light and lensing says gravity be it the current theory or mine can allow for the reverse lensing effect especially over time. (distance)

[gallo]

Quote by: Technosoul I would agree with you viewpoints about my presentation of this so-called theory.

There you go. Much better. "So called theory" is much closer to what you have.

Quote by: Technosoul I would agree that more advanced interpretations about evolution deal in great part with biology.

Why is it such a chore for you to at least learn the basics of something before you speak. You constantly use the word "evolution" with two distinct meanings and conflate the two. All interpretations of the theory of evolution are biology. Evolution is a theory of biology. If you talk about the evolution of the universe, or the evolution of galaxies, or the evolution of stars, you are not talking about the theory of evolution. Evolution means change, specifically, change in a specified direction towards a particular outcome. That is why Darwin objected to the use of the word when talking about his theories, which have come to be called collectively, the theory of evolution. But in biology the term evolution carries no connotation of change in any particular direction, along any particular path, or towards any particular outcome or goal. If you lump the two connotations of the word into a single statement as you have done above, you reveal your lack of knowledge of the topic.

Quote by: Technosoul It should be clear that I am publishing my idea here on Volconvo for debate purposes and not in a scientific journal and the requirments here at not the same - at least I did not see such in any of the Volconvo "rules".

Of course not. Here there is no requirement that your idea be logical, well thought out, well stated, stringently tested, or peer reviewed. You can "publish" any sort of rambling that you wish.

Quote by: Technosoul I resented a webpage that details and illustrates how light can alter when passing through a normal lens (not a gravitational lens) and compared such a clear lens with cruved space which is also clear in that we can see through it like we would if looking through a camera lens.

You resented the webpage? Why would you resent it? How does that make a comparison to space (i.e., a gravitational lens) valid? Do you actually know what the concept of curved space means?

Quote by: Technosoul I do not think there is any really good knowledge to date about just how much space is curved and that such is still a matter of speculation.

So because you don't understand something, you get to make anything up that you want as you go along.

Quote by: Technosoul To confirm this theory I would need to wait until that data is better known via future discoveries.

Actually, you could try to test it agains what is already known, it you actually knew what is known.

Quote by: Technosoul I do not have the means withall to make that discovery my self and so the debate would be based on an assumption that space is curved the same as a camera lens which is not an absolute and subject to furture re-speculations.

In other words, you assume your conclusion.

Quote by: Technosoul This would thusly be an on-going research and not a final deduction. The principles concerning how light rays can alter when passing through a lens have already been explained in mathematical terms and so I do not need to repeat that information as it is "old hat" stuff. You would just apply the same math to my assumption that space is curved like a lens.

Why should we assume that? What evidence is there that the assumption is valid?

Quote by: Technosoul Perception alters when we view things through water, if you wish to spab fish in a pond you must not aim directly at where you think the fish is or you will miss your target, as any spear fisherman knows.

I notice that you misuse the word "alter" a lot. You seem to be unaware that it is a transitive verb. Further, it isn't perception that is changed but the path of the light. It seems you actually have no idea of why lenses work. A lens works because light is passing from one medium to another, for example from air to glass or air to water. It is not the transmission of the light through the lens that that "curves" light. Further, the path of the light is changed relative to the angle at which it encounters the interface between the media. That is why convex lenses cause light to converge, while concave lenses cause it to diverge.

Quote by: Technosoul What we are dealing here with is our perception and how we must adjust the facts to account for those illusions created by the optics of cruved space.

Please explain where the light in outer space crosses interfaces between media boundaries. The curvature of space is not optics and it doesn't work like optics. The curvature of space is general relativity, i.e., Einstein's gravitational theory. That theory was confirmed when the effects of gravitational lensing was observed. In other words, the path of light is changed when it passes through a massive gravitational field. In other words, light follows a straight line through space that is curved by gravity. It does not cause images to reverse and it does not reverse time. The concept is quite different from a optical lens that changes the velocity of light as it crosses the interface between two different media. No such effect exists in space.

Quote by: Technosoul The Darwin theory of evolution is of course supported by how old rocks are at different levels of the earth so that "time" can be carbon dated or dated by other means.

Yes. Darwin's theory is supported by the principles of geology. However, one cannot date "time". That is a particularly clumsy way to state that. Further, carbon dating is useless in determining the age of rocks. Carbon dating is not a method that is used in geology. It is this sort of inaccuracy that makes your posts seem silly.

Quote by: Technosoul Example: A bird could not have evolved from a dinosaur unless the age of the dinosaur is older then then the first known birds. Such a theory is founded on the age of rocks and fosils within rocks. Is a rock biological?

Very poorly stated. No one tries to identify any particular dinosaur that is ancestral to birds. Birds evolved from some lineage of theropod dinosaur. The earliest theropods evolved in the late Triassic (about 220 mya) while birds probably evolved some time in the early Jurassic (about 200 mya), so yes, the dinosaurs are older than the first birds. As for your question, "Is a rock biological?", no. That's why it cannot be carbon dated. Besides, it would be the pinacle of ignorance to declare that a dinosaur fossil could be dated by radiocarbon dating.

Quote by: Technosoul When we are making a theory about distant planets are we talking about rocks, water, gasses or "living biological systems".

Not unless you have a way to sample those distand planets. Sometimes that can be done by analysing light reflected from the surface or by observing the effects of its orbital motion on other bodies. But mostly it's guesswork, most certainly in the case of "living biological systems."

Quote by: Technosoul The point being that the evolution of planets and stars from their orgin (if they had one?) would not be classified as biology and not all aspects concerning the evolution of life on earth would not be biological.

Again, you are using the same word with two different meanings. The evolution of planets and stars is not part of the theory of evolution, and all aspects concerning the evolution of life on earth are biological. That's what the word means. Biology is the study of life and the theory of evolution explains the mechanisms that cause life to change over time.

Quote by: Technosoul Determining cosmic events cannot depend totally on physics or other forms of math.

Physics isn't a form of math. Math is a tool used in physics, just as it is a tool used in some fields of biology (genetics, population biology, wildlife biology, to name a few).

I'm going to snip the rest since you are again wandering off into fantasy about things that you don't understand.

Except for this.

Quote by: Technosoul Physics is useful if you are into "intelligent design" concepts that would would have predictable results rather then concpets based on "random causes for evolution" as advocated by Darwin's theory.

See. There you go again talking about things that you don't understand and getting it wrong. Darwin's theory doesn't "advocate" random causes for evolution. Darwin's theory doesn't "advocate" anything. It explains the causes for the changes that we observe in living things. It also explains why those changes are not random.

Quote by: Technosoul Thusly, we must open our mind to visionary theories as well as just depending on those "cast in stone" scientific processes of determination.

But before you can be a visionary you have to understand what science is, how it works, and the current thinking in a given field. That is your problem. You miss on all three.

[The Dunedan]

OK, let me jump in and see if I can help. Gallo, it's been awhile since I read up on this, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Techno: Gravitational Lensing works because Space/Time works, very simply put, like a big sheet of foamrubber. If you put something down on the foamrubber, it makes a dent. The heavier the object, the larger, deeper, and more sharp-sided your dent gets.

In this sense, a Black Hole is what you get when you put a heavy enough object down to actually cause the "dent" to become a "hole" with right-angle sides; ie the sides of the hole are at 90 degrees to the "surface" of our foamrubber. One the sides are at 90 degrees, there's no possibility of anything "rolling" out, no matter how hard it tries. This is, again -very- simply put, why nothing escapes a Black Hole.

What this illustrates is the way in which Gravity alters space-time. The heaviest of objects, a Singularity, is what makes that bigass, 90-degree "dent" in the foamrubber of space-time.

Now, it effects physical objects and even light in a likewise analagous way. If you slide a marble (planet) onto your foamrubber and give it a push, so that it intersects the dent made by, say, a 3-lb hammer, it will roll around the circumferance of the dent until it finally reaches the centre of the dent. This is analagous with -any- situation in which the gravity of a larger object captures the gravity of a smaller one.

Now, the important thing here is that light can be effected too. Upon striking a big enough "dent" in spacetime, like that created by a Black Hole or certain kinds of superdense, collapsed/ing stars, light can actually be deflected. It "rolls" round the edge of the dent in a similar way to that of a physical object, but it can still (usually) escape. Imagine shooting a stream of water from a hose into your foamrubber dent, and you'll have a pretty good idea of how this works. It'll be disorganized, and moving in a different direction, but the light will (usually) escape all but the largest gravity-wells. THAT, as I understand it, is how Gravitational Lensing works.

Notice that this is -NOT- how an optical lens works. Gravitational Lensing can make things appear to be where they aren't (if the gravity-well is big enough and far enough away) but it can't make time run backwards, and it can't flip an image 180 degrees.

And yes, this is all supported by mathematics and empirical data...not by remote viewing.

[Kuroko]

I particullarly hate to do this, as my stance on Techno's theory of time being reversed as apposed to simply light being mirrored differ.

However due to the nature of your debate style which seems reckless (in that it delves only into insulting the author and not the presentation the author attempts to put forthe, be it poorly or well presented at all) I'm going to defend part of what techno talked about.

Please explain where the light in outer space crosses interfaces between media boundaries. The curvature of space is not optics and it doesn't work like optics.

Actually, there are many things light may cross which could interfere with it, using even outspace as an environment won't save you from the fact that a body of gas could easily exist in 'deep' or 'outer' space, funnily enough, it is the crossing of that medium which would highlight it to us, if no light were to pass through a pocket of gas then no illumination of the gas would occure, yet the gas "cloud" would still exist.

The curvature of space is general relativity, i.e., Einstein's gravitational theory. That theory was confirmed when the effects of gravitational lensing was observed. In other words, the path of light is changed when it passes through a massive gravitational field. In other words, light follows a straight line through space that is curved by gravity. It does not cause images to reverse and it does not reverse time.

However, if light were to be curved to a focus point BEFORE the observer (and they tought this in junior high school so I honestly think you should drop the attitude) the image would appear reversed.

The concept is quite different from a optical lens that changes the velocity of light as it crosses the interface between two different media. No such effect exists in space.

The velocity of light does not change, it still passes through an object, or refracting body at the same speed, however it's path it changed in order for it to do so, in other words, in changing it's frequency to pass through the medium (of a lense in this example) it is still traveling at the same speed, instead to pass through however it must for lack of a better term "zig-zag" which means it must cover more distance because of it's altering course.

Indeed it does take more time to pass through such a body, or medium but it's velocity stays very much the same.

And I believe I already gave one example of such a medium. vacuum and a gas (pick one any type of gas really) they are very different.

[Fonceai]

You guys are off on so many tangents none of you really has any idea what you're talking about any more; uber-derailment.

In the meantime, the original train has enough velocity to gather with other trains in a dance of Lagrange points and gravitational balance until the fusion of matter and density creates a core that compresses the surrounding matter in a truly beautiful celestial event.

Visualizing the birth of the planet, from initial matter collection and compression to the final result related to distance from the primary star is amazing. Few can really see such a process in their minds, and fewer still know enough of the science to step you through each individual event, lasting millenia, that results in a "ball of rock" we take for granted.

The creation of the Earth is a birth; a natural process similar to the creation of a child that is both scientifcally complex and aesthetically beautiful. To fanatically focus on so many aspects and derailment of one is ignorant of the wonder of the other.

[gallo]

Quote by: Kuroko I particullarly hate to do this, as my stance on Techno's theory of time being reversed as apposed to simply light being mirrored differ.

We weren't talking about light being mirrored.

Quote by: Kuroko However due to the nature of your debate style which seems reckless (in that it delves only into insulting the author and not the presentation the author attempts to put forthe, be it poorly or well presented at all) I'm going to defend part of what techno talked about.

Oh, goody.

Quote by: Kuroko Actually, there are many things light may cross which could interfere with it, using even outspace as an environment won't save you from the fact that a body of gas could easily exist in 'deep' or 'outer' space, funnily enough, it is the crossing of that medium which would highlight it to us, if no light were to pass through a pocket of gas then no illumination of the gas would occure, yet the gas "cloud" would still exist.

None of which is to the point of the discussion. None of that has anything to do with the reversal of images or time. None of that is relevant to Techno's assertion that space is a lens. No one denied that anything doesn't exist except the effects claimed and the reversal of time. If you aren't addressing that, then you are just wandering off topic.

Quote by: Kuroko However, if light were to be curved to a focus point BEFORE the observer (and they tought this in junior high school so I honestly think you should drop the attitude) the image would appear reversed.

But in fact, it doesn't. Gravitational lensing of galaxy clusters has been used to observe galaxies in even deeper space, and the images weren't reversed.

Quote by: Kuroko The velocity of light does not change, it still passes through an object, or refracting body at the same speed, however it's path it changed in order for it to do so,

So you don't know the meaning of the word velocity? Velocity is a vector - speed and direction. If you change the direction, you change the velocity.

Quote by: Kuroko in other words, in changing it's frequency to pass through the medium (of a lense in this example) it is still traveling at the same speed, instead to pass through however it must for lack of a better term "zig-zag" which means it must cover more distance because of it's altering course.

Nope. It actually changes both direction and speed. It isn't a change in frequency.

Quote by: Kuroko Indeed it does take more time to pass through such a body, or medium but it's velocity stays very much the same.

So it takes more time but it isn't moving slower and the velocity is the same even thought it has changed direction?

Anyway, the discussion is even further astray. Nice going. I was trying to explain to Techno why his fantasy is nonsense.

[gallo]

Quote by: Fonceai You guys are off on so many tangents none of you really has any idea what you're talking about any more; uber-derailment.

True.

Quote by: Fonceai In the meantime, the original train has enough velocity to gather with other trains in a dance of Lagrange points and gravitational balance until the fusion of matter and density creates a core that compresses the surrounding matter in a truly beautiful celestial event. Visualizing the birth of the planet, from initial matter collection and compression to the final result related to distance from the primary star is amazing. Few can really see such a process in their minds, and fewer still know enough of the science to step you through each individual event, lasting millenia, that results in a "ball of rock" we take for granted. The creation of the Earth is a birth; a natural process similar to the creation of a child that is both scientifcally complex and aesthetically beautiful. To fanatically focus on so many aspects and derailment of one is ignorant of the wonder of the other.

There! That should clarify things.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Kuroko Things can appear backwards, I will give you that one techno, every thing I know about light and lensing says gravity be it the current theory or mine can allow for the reverse lensing effect especially over time. (distance)

It occured to me that the cause of curved space, as well as other circular systems, could be gravity. As some power would have pull to make it wrap around - in some examples.

But I am not sure what space has that can be pulled upon, other then the material objects observed in space? Or perhaps gravity as we experience it is not all that it is from a more realistic perspective. Could time as a force field act as gravity on space, or could the "center of relative stillness" act as gravity, in the concept of "time" that center would be "now-ness". But is cruved space just one large curve or not? Native American guy by the name of Black Elk remarked that "the center of the universe is everywhere" and Joseph Campbell thought that was rather a profound remark. This would mean that space would have billions of curves like tiny beads, so mentioned in one of the postings in this thead that evolved out of this mushrooming conversation.

And we yet have to discover how many universes might exsist that are smaller then the smallest micro-organizem now visible with a microscope.
Both telescopes and microscopes have allowed us a peak in two directions at once at the vastness of what might become known as we evolve our technological tools. (idea evolution not biological evolution).

Smaller then a nuclear or atomic universe, which oddly look the same due to the orbital systems employed.

But then we do not want to return to the Machanical Universe theory which they came up with following the invention of a clock, just a lot of gears and wheels going around. Tick tock tick tock. Or do we?

[gallo]

Quote by: Technosoul Smaller then a nuclear or atomic universe, which oddly look the same due to the orbital systems employed.

Not true. Electrons don't actually orbit the nucleus of an atom like planets around the sun. With the advent of quantum mechanics the position of electrons to the nucleus is known as an orbital. The electrons themselves are represented as wave functions over space such that both position and velocity cannot be determined. In fact, because of the uncertainty principle, an electron can at any moment be found at any distance from the nucleus and in any direction. However, there is a high probability that the electron is in a region around the nucleus that forms what is known as the boundary surface. Unlike planets around the sun, multiple electrons can and do exist in the same orbital. The orbitals form shells around the nucleus that are together called the electron cloud.

So no, the electrons in an atom don't employ the same orbital system as planets. That is a representation used for small children.

[gallo]

Quote by: Kuroko Not only that but as many of us have viewed by now light also doesn't have a maximum set speed (since 2001 i believe) where light travelled upwards of 300 times faster then previously believed possible.

Not actually correct. It was a laser through cesium atoms, and it was the phase velocity of light, not the front velocity of light. I'm sure that you understand the physics involved that I don't have to try to explain that to you. Essentially, light traveled at the speed of light.

That reminds me of another phenomenon that I have seen. It is said that nothing can travel faster than light. But that's not true either. Nothing can travel faster than light in a vacuum. Through some media it is possible. For example. If you look down through the cooling pool at a nuclear pile at full power (I have at Texas A&M University), you well see it glowing blue. That color is known as Cherenkov radiation. While the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, it may be considerably slower while passing through some medium. Cherenkov radiation is the result of electrons passing through the cooling water faster than light travels through water. It's actually quite beautiful.

[The Dunedan]

I don't remember where I first read it; may have been Discover, but someone recently managed to measure the Front Speed of light traveling through a D-Grade (flawless) diamond. It turned out that diamond is so dense that it slowed the light down to something less than 100mph. I -do- know that this phenomenon was mentioned in a National Geographic feature on diamonds about two years ago.

Damn, now I need to find that article.

[gallo]

Quote by: The Dunedan I don't remember where I first read it; may have been Discover, but someone recently managed to measure the Front Speed of light traveling through a D-Grade (flawless) diamond. It turned out that diamond is so dense that it slowed the light down to something less than 100mph. I -do- know that this phenomenon was mentioned in a National Geographic feature on diamonds about two years ago. Damn, now I need to find that article.

How interesting. I don't know much about the subject except to know that the velocity of light is changed at the boundary of media. (Did some research and wrote a paper in a physics class) Even high school students know that light crossing such a boundary changes speed when striking the boundary perpendicularly. When striking the boundary at an angle, it changes speed and direction. Because different wave lengths of light change velocity differently, the result is chromatic aberration in the image at the other side of a lens.

[gallo]

Quote by: Kuroko And you came to that conclusion based on the post explaining the theory I made up?

Exactly. As you say, you made it up. It isn't a theory.

Quote by: Kuroko Or is it that you are making an assumption that I have done none of the things you have mentioned, I will only state that being so sure of any thing is a bad thing.

Actually, you pretty much said that you hadn't done the science. Certainly, you haven't submitted it to peer review and published.

Quote by: Kuroko In any case, you have highlighted your lack of even imagination and indeed a lack of insight into the topic by offering nothing other then your opinion to the points I presented.

Nonsense. Imagination is only worthwhile at the initial stages, when a wild-ass-guess or a fantasy might yield an idea worthy of testing. But you stopped there.

Quote by: Kuroko I gave examples of how space distortion can appear to be the effects of gravity distortion, I also believe I made a point that testing them would be nigh on impossible as the result can be technically given by both effects.

But what you don't seem to understand is that space is curved by gravity. Space distortion doesn't appear to be gravity distortion. They are one and the same. Your examples are nonsense. Please offer evidence that they are different.

Quote by: Kuroko You have not even offered your OPINION on that thought, except to state that my poor spelling is a compelling arguement [sic] against my point.

I didn't? My opinion is that you are talking nonsense because you don't understand the science.

Quote by: Kuroko Nice style of both debate and deductive reasoning.

Fantasy is no better.

Quote by: Kuroko Yes it is a theory, be it tested or presented by me or not, should it ever become a tested theory down the line the fact I honestly don't have the ability to test distortion in space by even simple means (think of the stalites [sic] they put into space with the large spinni