RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Well, I am just doing my usual job of exposing inconsistencies and bad science in the story of a hoaxer. When Charlie returned, I decided I would give him a nice long time to hang himself before I began tearing his hoax apart in earnest. Enough time has passed, and we are now in the midst of the "unveiling" as it were. Go get some popcorn. I promise a memorable ending.
Right, so where were we? Ahhhh, yes, Charlie's "New-Agey" language coupled with his claim that he is a highly trained physicist. What evidence has Charlie given us that he is no highly trained physicist? Plenty. Let's start with the low-hanging fruit... From the following post:
http://www.timetravelinstitute.com/ttiforum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=time_travel&Number=14955&Forum=All_Forums&Words=timeline_39&Match=Username&Searchpage=3&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=14934&Search=true#Post14955
This from a physicist? Bad, bad boy. All matter does not resonate at the same, "specific" frequency. This is pretty fundamental, undergrad physics. Different compositions of matter have different resonant frequencies. Heck, the least Charlie could have done is to read over the Wikipedia entry on resonance before he posted this claptrapcrap!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance
<font color="red"> In physics, resonance is the tendency of a system to oscillate at maximum amplitude at certain frequencies, known as the system's resonance frequencies (or resonant frequencies). At these frequencies, even small periodic driving forces can produce large amplitude vibrations, because the system stores vibrational energy. When damping is small, the resonance frequency is approximately equal to the natural frequency of the system, which is the frequency of free vibrations. Resonant phenomena occur with all types of vibrations or waves: there is mechanical resonance, acoustic resonance, electromagnetic resonance, and resonance of quantum wave functions. Resonant systems can be used to generate vibrations of a specific frequency, or pick out specific frequencies from a complex vibration containing many frequencies. [/COLOR]
So different forms of matter within our own "dimension" /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif resonate at different frequencies. Moreover, while the composition of a body is the primary determinant of what frequency it resonates at, it is not the only factor. The environment that the body lives in also has an impact on resonance. For example, the same airplane with the same mass properties can resonate at different frequencies depending upon the density of the air it is flying through. In general, the resonant frequency of the airplane's wings goes DOWN (becomes a lower resonance point) as the airplane climbs in the atmosphere. The reason is because as you go up in altitude density decreases, which decreases the aerodynamic forces that act to damp out resonance.
Suffice it to say, Charlie's New Age invocation of resonant frequency is so far from real physics as to be embarassing. And his second statement about how if you want to exist in another dimension, all you have to do is change the resonant frequency....? Even more bunk. As I explained above, an airplane's resonant frequency changes just by changing altitude. Does that mean the airplane has magically jumped into another dimension??? Of course not.
From his same post on 11/10/2003:
Yeah, on Zetatalk... but not in any serious physics publications.
Wow. That is some real physics bunkum right there. Change the density of a body and somehow the laws of nature are magically different? I don't think so. This one could be picked apart from so many angles it is truly humorous. First, "moving to a higher density" as juxtaposed with "faster than light space travel" is downright funny. If density is increasing then (by the definition of density) the mass is changing per unit volume. According to Einstein (the real one, not our local Einstein) the greater your mass, the greater the inertial resistance to even approaching (much less exceeding) the speed of light. It is exactly the opposite of what Charlie has suggested. So much for his physics degree!! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
So let's see some other gems from Charlie that belie his claim to be an educated person:
http://www.timetravelinstitute.com/ttiforum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=time_travel&Number=15074&Forum=All_Forums&Words=timeline_39&Match=Username&Searchpage=2&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=14934&Search=true#Post15074
Actually, the most common form of kinetic energy is the motion of a body with respect to another body, plain and simple. All real physicists know this because the very equation that defines kinetic energy is KE = (1/2)*mass*velocity^2. What Charlie is really suggesting above is called thermal energy. Thermal fluxes result from friction because the surfaces in contact that cause friction heat up with respect to the rest of the environment around them. Clearly, Charlie's grasp on physics is worse than that of a college freshman. But let's move on:
http://www.timetravelinstitute.com/ttiforum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=time_travel&Number=15075&Forum=All_Forums&Words=timeline_39&Match=Username&Searchpage=2&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=14934&Search=true#Post15075
Wow. There may not be enough time left in the universe for me to debunk all his bad physics. Here again we see Charlie never bothered to research nuclear fusion before he threw this little gem out there. Again, a look to Wikipedia shows his bunkum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power
You can read much in this article that will explain how fusion reactions generate large amounts of radioactivity. Here is just one such statement regarding a real fusion experimental device:
<font color="red"> The neutron flux expected in a commercial D-T fusion reactor is about 100 times that of current fission power reactors, posing problems for material design. Design of suitable materials is under way but their actual use in a reactor is not proposed until the generation after ITER. After a single series of D-T tests at JET, the largest fusion reactor yet to use this fuel, the vacuum vessel was sufficiently radioactive that remote handling needed to be used for the year following the tests. [/COLOR]
How many physics strikes is that now, Charlie? I lost count. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif But let us look at Charlie's level of education... at least it has improved from his first visits in 2003 until now:
http://www.timetravelinstitute.com/ttiforum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=time_travel&Number=15087&Forum=All_Forums&Words=timeline_39&Match=Username&Searchpage=2&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=14934&Search=true#Post15087
This is Charlie's first ever mention of the "Great Catastrophy (sic)." It does appear that since his visits in 2003 that he has at least gone back to school and learned to spell. Here is from his first post since returning here last year in 2008:
Ahhh, very nice. You know how to spell now. Here was another misspelling from back in the day that I have a hard time believing an educated physicist would commit...and it is certainly not a typo:
Not even afraid of "critisism (sic)" of your spelling? LOL. From the same post:
You got the conspiracy theory wrong, Charlie. The UFO parts are allegedly held deep underground at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton. I know, cuz I go there a lot... I've seen 'em! Even had lunch with the aliens!
What should we talk about next, Charlie? Perhaps your weak attempt to cover for your change in your birthday? That is also filled with serious problems for your "fan base". LOL.
RMT
