Here are some latest ideas - just ideas.
A Stone in the Pool of the Absolute
First, doesn't the fact that light does not accelerate when its source accelerates mean that the point of initiation of a light beam does not move when the physical source moves? The accelerating physical source must attached to at least one of these - an object moving relative to the earth, the rotating earth, the revolving earth, the solar system revolving with the galaxy, the galaxy moving with the local cluster. So if light is accelerated by none of these then is not its point of initiation located in absolute space? If light moves in absolute space wouldn't this explain why it is independent of the speed of its emitter and its receiver.
It's like a stone thrown in a pool - the rings spread out from the point of origin. But if light is not accelerated by any of the above motions, but its physical source is accelerated by them then must not the physical source and the point of origin of light part company almost at once? The physical source moves with all the motions it is part of - away from the point of origin of the light.
The light moves outward with the speed of light from the point of origin which is not part of any motion - The point of origin is at rest in absolute space. The center of the sphere of light is not the moving physical source, in this idea, the center is the point in absolute space at which the physical source was when the light sphere began. This non-moving point shows that we must consider absolute space for we have a physical phenomenon - the light sphere which is in absolute space.
And because the point of origin parts company with the physical source - then this explains why the "clocks", which are only considering relative motions, give different times. If the point of origin "moves back" from the physical source - toward an approaching wall and "away" from a receding wall - then the actual distance covered in the time at the constant speed of light on both sides of the physical source needs to be calculated differently.
Flower Power
I've been taking flower pictures so as to have my own gallery of plant morphology. It's pretty evident that plants grow in spirals.
Darwinism has no clothes
Darwin proposed a gradualist theory of evolution - a gradualist theory not supported by the facts embedded in sedimentary rock formations. Darwin's theory was upgraded by Sewell Wright, Julian Huxley, Von Verschuer (Mengele's mentor) and others in the early Forties. They maintained the gradualist orientation. In the early Fifties, Professor Irene Manton of Leeds proposed a theory of evolution which was not gradualist. This theory has now prevailed in scientific work but The Darwinists continue to peddle Dogmatic Gradualism. You will fail in biology if you advocate evolution in jumps even though you will fail in a career in biology if you work on any other theory.
Professor Manton said that changes in chromosome number were the leading cause of evolution and her students, including a hardy band of New Zealand academics, showed how to apply the theory. In particular they showed that block changes inside chromosomes usually were the cause of evolution in those plant species which had the same chromosome number as a closely allied species. The Darwinists resisted - forcing two generations of students to imbibe their theory which said that gene mutations added together by natural selection were the cause of evolution.
The consequence was the eugenics. a theory which rests on evolutionary gradualism, was intellectually respectable till the year 2000. At that date the Human Genome Project showed that there were not enough genes to account for evolution in a gradualistic mode. Instead combinations of genes, not mutations of genes, must explain species diversity or in other words, evolution. Ever since then hundreds of scientific articles have charted the evolution of species by counting and comparing chromosomes. The idea of mutating genes as the cause of evolution has sunk like the Titanic.
Unlike the Titanic, however, the shipwreck of Darwinism is not a story. IT ISN'T COVERED. So now a new school year starts. Anyone, anywhere who advocates the Manton theory will fail or be ridiculed - any student, that is. In science the position is the opposite. When will the story be told? When the NYT and MSM are honest? I hope it won't take that long before we see the headline in student newspapers
DARWINISM HAS NO CLOTHES!
A Stone in the Pool of the Absolute
First, doesn't the fact that light does not accelerate when its source accelerates mean that the point of initiation of a light beam does not move when the physical source moves? The accelerating physical source must attached to at least one of these - an object moving relative to the earth, the rotating earth, the revolving earth, the solar system revolving with the galaxy, the galaxy moving with the local cluster. So if light is accelerated by none of these then is not its point of initiation located in absolute space? If light moves in absolute space wouldn't this explain why it is independent of the speed of its emitter and its receiver.
It's like a stone thrown in a pool - the rings spread out from the point of origin. But if light is not accelerated by any of the above motions, but its physical source is accelerated by them then must not the physical source and the point of origin of light part company almost at once? The physical source moves with all the motions it is part of - away from the point of origin of the light.
The light moves outward with the speed of light from the point of origin which is not part of any motion - The point of origin is at rest in absolute space. The center of the sphere of light is not the moving physical source, in this idea, the center is the point in absolute space at which the physical source was when the light sphere began. This non-moving point shows that we must consider absolute space for we have a physical phenomenon - the light sphere which is in absolute space.
And because the point of origin parts company with the physical source - then this explains why the "clocks", which are only considering relative motions, give different times. If the point of origin "moves back" from the physical source - toward an approaching wall and "away" from a receding wall - then the actual distance covered in the time at the constant speed of light on both sides of the physical source needs to be calculated differently.
Flower Power
I've been taking flower pictures so as to have my own gallery of plant morphology. It's pretty evident that plants grow in spirals.
Darwinism has no clothes
Darwin proposed a gradualist theory of evolution - a gradualist theory not supported by the facts embedded in sedimentary rock formations. Darwin's theory was upgraded by Sewell Wright, Julian Huxley, Von Verschuer (Mengele's mentor) and others in the early Forties. They maintained the gradualist orientation. In the early Fifties, Professor Irene Manton of Leeds proposed a theory of evolution which was not gradualist. This theory has now prevailed in scientific work but The Darwinists continue to peddle Dogmatic Gradualism. You will fail in biology if you advocate evolution in jumps even though you will fail in a career in biology if you work on any other theory.
Professor Manton said that changes in chromosome number were the leading cause of evolution and her students, including a hardy band of New Zealand academics, showed how to apply the theory. In particular they showed that block changes inside chromosomes usually were the cause of evolution in those plant species which had the same chromosome number as a closely allied species. The Darwinists resisted - forcing two generations of students to imbibe their theory which said that gene mutations added together by natural selection were the cause of evolution.
The consequence was the eugenics. a theory which rests on evolutionary gradualism, was intellectually respectable till the year 2000. At that date the Human Genome Project showed that there were not enough genes to account for evolution in a gradualistic mode. Instead combinations of genes, not mutations of genes, must explain species diversity or in other words, evolution. Ever since then hundreds of scientific articles have charted the evolution of species by counting and comparing chromosomes. The idea of mutating genes as the cause of evolution has sunk like the Titanic.
Unlike the Titanic, however, the shipwreck of Darwinism is not a story. IT ISN'T COVERED. So now a new school year starts. Anyone, anywhere who advocates the Manton theory will fail or be ridiculed - any student, that is. In science the position is the opposite. When will the story be told? When the NYT and MSM are honest? I hope it won't take that long before we see the headline in student newspapers
DARWINISM HAS NO CLOTHES!
Labels: Darwinism, Einstein, Irene Manton
posted by wildswan at 9/27/2007 10:03:00 AM
0 comments
