@Lou

Quote:

There was a bright ball of fire in the sky near the horizon.

That would be the sun.

But seriously how do you not know it was an optical illusion? I've seen glowing bright lights in valleys of the road when driving, for example. It certainly wasn't very small aliens but a mirage like effect between heat and light. Or something akin to a hologram? The reflective materials in the window can duplicate an image at the correct angles. Or even the recent video in China of a double sun that is an optical illusion.

Instead of assuming what it is why not evidence?

Last edited by BrianK on 13-Dec-2011 at 03:14 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: There was a bright ball of fire in the sky near the horizon. That would be the sun. But seriously how do you not know it was an optical illusion? I've seen glowing bright lights in valleys of the road when driving, for example. It certainly wasn't very small aliens but a mirage like effect between heat and light. Or something akin to a hologram? The reflective materials in the window can duplicate an image at the correct angles. Or even the recent video in China of a double sun that is an optical illusion. Instead of assuming what it is why not evidence?

when are people like you going to stop telling me what I saw when you didn't see it? The is the ultimate game of disinformation. "I saw a dog" "No, you saw a cat, I know even though I wasn't there." /rocketscientist

It was not the sun. The Sun was 90 degrees from where this was as the plane was heading west. You do recall it rises in the east, right?

From moving my head I could tell it was a distant object. It's not rocket science to perceive dept/distance this way. It was definitely infront of the horizon, not beyond it. It was big considering it was so far away.

By the way, your name is Edgar, I don't care what your mother told you.

@Lou

Quote:

when are people like you going to stop telling me what I saw when you didn't see it? The is the ultimate game of disinformation. "I saw a dog" "No, you saw a cat, I know even though I wasn't there." /rocketscientist

If you saw a mirage your comparision is off. It's more akin to seeing two dogs. Either 1 dog is real and the 2nd dog is an optical illusion OR there are two dogs and the 2nd dog is an advanced space alien with cloaking technology.

What we have is an observation. Because observations can be fallible we need to use extra-Lou sources to confirm if Lou got it right. Your word here is a claim not a proof of truth. So if you want to prove true we got to use other things than Lou to do so. (people simply are fallible it's nothing personal)

You said you hated religion. The situation here isn't much different. Accepting the Bible is true because the bible says it's true is circular logic which doesn't support itself. If the Bible is true the only way we can confirm that is by using extra-Biblical sources of evidence. Just as the only way we can confirm Lou got it right is by using extra-Lou sources of evidence.

What is no evidence exists? Then we simply can never prove or disprove Lou. Fairly we conclude that we don't know. The best I can confirm is Lou stated he saw something.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: when are people like you going to stop telling me what I saw when you didn't see it? The is the ultimate game of disinformation. "I saw a dog" "No, you saw a cat, I know even though I wasn't there." /rocketscientist If you saw a mirage your comparision is off. It's more akin to seeing two dogs. Either 1 dog is real and the 2nd dog is an optical illusion OR there are two dogs and the 2nd dog is an advanced space alien with cloaking technology. What we have is an observation. Because observations can be fallible we need to use extra-Lou sources to confirm if Lou got it right. Your word here is a claim not a proof of truth. So if you want to prove true we got to use other things than Lou to do so. (people simply are fallible it's nothing personal) You said you hated religion. The situation here isn't much different. Accepting the Bible is true because the bible says it's true is circular logic which doesn't support itself. If the Bible is true the only way we can confirm that is by using extra-Biblical sources of evidence. Just as the only way we can confirm Lou got it right is by using extra-Lou sources of evidence. What is no evidence exists? Then we simply can never prove or disprove Lou. Fairly we conclude that we don't know. The best I can confirm is Lou stated he saw something.

The sun was behind the airplane far from my field of view. A mirage would have warped the shape, this was round, it could have been the exhaust of a firey rocket and if it was, what was it doing there. Once again you fill in details that didn't exist to fulfill your quest for the mundane.

Best I can prove: Edgar likes living in boxes.

@Lou

Quote:

Once again you fill in details that didn't exist to fulfill your quest for the mundane.

There's no details filled in. They're questions that are asked to help determine if we have any more info than your opinion.

For example, today CERN said they have evidence of the existence of the Higgs-Boson. Exciting. But, it is their observation. There's lots of work to do to validate their experiment, replication the experiment, and observe Higgs with multiple lines of evidence prior to accepting Higgs. We don't say Higgs is real cuz that guy over there said so with his expensive toy. Doesn't work that way.

Quote:

Best I can prove: Edgar likes living in boxes.

The universe is a huge box with many opinioned answers. Your 'alien' may be an 'angel' to some, for example. What is the truth cannot be demonstrated by opinion of a single observer. That only comes from evidencing the situation. Some situations we may never fully answer and as such we cannot draw a conclusion. In this sense my box is a very open box welcoming everyone and demanding the same thing, evidence, to demonstrate how your truth is more valid than the guy in the seat behind you that observed the same effect but didn't conclude alien from another planet.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Once again you fill in details that didn't exist to fulfill your quest for the mundane. There's no details filled in. They're questions that are asked to help determine if we have any more info than your opinion. For example, today CERN said they have evidence of the existence of the Higgs-Boson. Exciting. But, it is their observation. There's lots of work to do to validate their experiment, replication the experiment, and observe Higgs with multiple lines of evidence prior to accepting Higgs. We don't say Higgs is real cuz that guy over there said so with his expensive toy. Doesn't work that way.

If you are referring to this: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/12/rolling-the-dice-understanding-how-physicists-hunt-for-the-higgs.ars

It all looks like a crap shoot. Particle physics boils down to a crapshoot.

Quote:

Quote: Best I can prove: Edgar likes living in boxes. The universe is a huge box with many opinioned answers. Your 'alien' may be an 'angel' to some, for example. What is the truth cannot be demonstrated by opinion of a single observer. That only comes from evidencing the situation. Some situations we may never fully answer and as such we cannot draw a conclusion. In this sense my box is a very open box welcoming everyone and demanding the same thing, evidence, to demonstrate how your truth is more valid than the guy in the seat behind you that observed the same effect but didn't conclude alien from another planet.

My box is bigger than your box, Edgar.

@Lou

Quote:

It all looks like a crap shoot. Particle physics boils down to a crapshoot.

News is that Higgs detection was made to roughly a 2.3 Sigma level or roughly a 49/50ths confidence. This is significant enough to not call off the search. Instead it indicates more resolution may be useful. We won't know more until that greater resolution is available and we conduct the actual tests. Confidence is fairly established once 5 sigma level is reached which is roughly a chance of error estimate around 1 out of 1.5 million. And as anything the best learning comes through failure. So as much as you hate science working in this direction no matter the outcome we do learn something.

Quote:

My box is bigger than your box

The boxes are clearly different.

My box accepts everything as a postulate and makes an assignment of truth only based upon demonstrable ability. It's flexible and changeable as better evidence comes into existence. It's fairly useful as we rely on this daily in our lives to get food to our table, to work, and outside the solar system.

Your box accepts everything as truth. This version is far closer to religous kookiness, as you call it, than useful. Though it is a viable system for my undetectable invisible room temperature fire breathing dragon to exist.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: My box is bigger than your box The boxes are clearly different. My box accepts everything as a postulate and makes an assignment of truth only based upon demonstrable ability. It's flexible and changeable as better evidence comes into existence. It's fairly useful as we rely on this daily in our lives to get food to our table, to work, and outside the solar system. Your box accepts everything as truth. This version is far closer to religous kookiness, as you call it, than useful. Though it is a viable system for my undetectable invisible room temperature fire breathing dragon to exist.

I supposed in a tiny box such as yours that is how large you percieve my box to be, but that is to be expected from that point of view. Your box only changes about 30 years after everyone else's.

@Lou

Quote:

I supposed in a tiny box such as yours that is how large you percieve my box to be, but that is to be expected from that point of view. Your box only changes about 30 years after everyone else's.

Good try but no.

The box is in immediate and in sustained continual flux. It's huge enough and open to all ideas as quickly as people can present them. It's huge enough and open to all evidence as quickly as it becomes available. It's immediately and continually critiquing these two things to see which ideas provide the most encompassing and accurate explaintion possible.

The one thing it tries hard to not do is confuse guess for conclusion something your box severly lacks.

EDIT: I think this conclusion is your sticking point of understanding. The scientific method provides for continual skeptical reanalysis. The 'conclusion' is the one we can draw from the available evidence. It's truly not a 'conclusion' as it's never ending. When different and better information arrives the 'conclusion' may possibly be discarded. Though that's it's strength unlike religion or 'it's all EM' it doesn't prejudge the answer. It's the best system we have that's open to any and all conclusions. You simply have to provide the proof. Today 'It's all EM' is insufficently evidence and as such isn't possible to fairly draw that as a conclusion. Again you may be prefectly right but lack demonstrable predictability. Gravity works better, at present. And that may change in the future. (I know being so open is hard.)

Last edited by BrianK on 14-Dec-2011 at 02:24 PM.

@BrianK

Don't forget your gravity breaks outside your box...among other things...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214162054.htm

Magnetism, makes the brain go round, it seems...

I wonder how the 'big-bangers' will explain this:
http://news.yahoo.com/comet-lovejoy-survives-fiery-plunge-sun-nasa-says-015706403.html

So much for the 'dirty snowball' theory...

@Lou

Quote:

Don't forget your gravity breaks outside your box...among other things...

Again there really is no 'outside box'. THe box holds all ideas and judges those ideas on the available evidence. It holds 'gravity is real' and 'gravity is not real' both as likely postulates. When we query the best understanding we have today the box reviews the evidence and selects 'gravity is real' as soon as you fill the box with better evidence that gravity is not real it'll change the outcome.

So unlikely holding ideas by faith the system is transformable. This is a good thing as it allows reviews in multiple diverse directions. Even if the '30 years' you claim to be true does exist it's far better than no chance of change ever.


As for your comment on the Comet Lovejoy not sure what 'disproof' you think this evidence convey's? At most it's a snowy dirtball instead of a dirty snowball, which is really a semantic difference more so than anything else.

@BrianK

Sorry BrianK, you don't think outside the box until someone replaces your box with a new not-quite-as-outdated box.

Not much progress has been made by limiting your thinking to inside the box.

@BrianK

As for your comment on the Comet Lovejoy not sure what 'disproof' you think this evidence convey's? At most it's a snowy dirtball instead of a dirty snowball, which is really a semantic difference more so than anything else.
[/quote]
What about a "dense" sun that has a 'high mass' how does a tiny piece of snowy dirt fly thru it?

Oh wait, you might have to leave your box for this one...

@Lou

Quote:

Sorry BrianK, you don't think outside the box until someone replaces your box with a new not-quite-as-outdated box

That's an incorrect statement. The box continually gets new input from both postulates and evidence it's a continually morphing 'box'. I think again you're confused on the difference between a postulate and a conclusion. Conclusions morph a bit slower because they are dependent upon multiple evidences and multiple postulates working together to define an output. Multithreaded inputs can work at the same time. Though if it's a single output you're looking for they're only as fast as the slowest processing time. (CPU-like). I still argue a changing box is better than your unchangeable cherry picker box. Your box has 'it's all EM' as it's conclusion and selects only that evidence which supports the conclusion.

Not much progress? You need look to your finger tips.. Progress? You're typing on it Bub!


BTW the Comet went through the corona. Not through either the chromosphere nor photosphere. You do realize material changes do take time right? If your oven is set to 475 degrees and you put a pan of ice in there it doesn't immediately vaporize. (Afterall phase changes are at 0 and 212.) It takes time to expose itself to the heat before all of the material changes to a gas. Why do you expect a material in space to be any different?

I thought you might like this. Dark Flow

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Sorry BrianK, you don't think outside the box until someone replaces your box with a new not-quite-as-outdated box That's an incorrect statement. The box continually gets new input from both postulates and evidence it's a continually morphing 'box'. I think again you're confused on the difference between a postulate and a conclusion. Conclusions morph a bit slower because they are dependent upon multiple evidences and multiple postulates working together to define an output. Multithreaded inputs can work at the same time. Though if it's a single output you're looking for they're only as fast as the slowest processing time. (CPU-like). I still argue a changing box is better than your unchangeable cherry picker box. Your box has 'it's all EM' as it's conclusion and selects only that evidence which supports the conclusion. Not much progress? You need look to your finger tips.. Progress? You're typing on it Bub!

Uhm, computers were invented quite a long time ago and typewriters had keyboards even before computers.

Quote:

BTW the Comet went through the corona. Not through either the chromosphere nor photosphere. You do realize material changes do take time right? If your oven is set to 475 degrees and you put a pan of ice in there it doesn't immediately vaporize. (Afterall phase changes are at 0 and 212.) It takes time to expose itself to the heat before all of the material changes to a gas. Why do you expect a material in space to be any different?

So let me get this straight, traditional scientists are suprised, but BrianK has a logical explanation...

Clearly we are not worthy...

and actually yes, since things do behave differently in a vaccuum and you are assuming space is zero farenheight when isn't space supposed to be colder? ...hence greater temperature variation. Then ofcourse the other thing that's suprising is the expected mythical gravitational effect. The comet should never had exited the sun. So much for gravity...is that box opening up yet?

Last edited by Lou on 17-Dec-2011 at 08:19 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 17-Dec-2011 at 08:18 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

typewriters had keyboards even before computers

Is it seriously this much over your head or are you trying to be difficult?

Quote:

So let me get this straight, traditional scientists are suprised, but BrianK has a logical explanation...

Mock all you want it's still the case that you were the one that falsely claimed the comet flew thru the sun. It did not. It flew about 75K miles away brushing the corona and destroying 90% of the comet. What you don't seem to get is science makes a prediction and it's found out wrong the next question is always why. They then analyzed why/what was wrong that their prediction was incorrect. It's called learning. Interesting (not really) that the response was to analyze the experiment not destroy science and pick up your faith based view of the universe.

Quote:

The comet should never had exited the sun So much for gravity...

Completely failed logic here. Perhaps you can figure out why rockets allowed us to go to the moon and leave the solar system.

Last edited by BrianK on 18-Dec-2011 at 12:57 AM.
Last edited by BrianK on 18-Dec-2011 at 12:00 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

The comet should never had exited the sun. So much for gravity...is that box opening up yet?

The velocity of the comet was greater than the escape velocity of the son at the distance that the comet bypassed the sun. At no point did the comet "impact" or cross the photosphere, let alone pass through the main body of the sun as you imply.

Quote:

you are assuming space is zero farenheight when isn't space supposed to be colder?

You are quite correct in your statement that space is colder than zero Fahrenheit, however at no point did BrianK assume that this was the temperature. The microwave background temperature of open space is approximately 2.7 degrees Kelvin, or -270.3 Celsius. What this is in Fahrenheit, I neither know nor care. The point BrianK attempted to make was that in passing to a greater temperature, the ice would pass through two changes of state, from solid to liquid, and from liquid to gas. This would take some time and during that time the comet had moved back into a cooler location.

Quote:

So let me get this straight, traditional scientists are suprised, but BrianK has a logical explanation...

No, scientists are not actually surprised. They do produce mathematical models that enable them to make predictions, and they do update their theories to take into account new data that arises when the aforementioned predictions are slightly off. This is in total contrast to those who make a conclusion, look for any possible evidence that can be mangled to fit their quasi-religious belief system, while blindly ignoring mountains of contradictory evidence. (e.g. It's all EM, despite randomly aligned or non existent magnetic fields on planets, and no equations describing aforementioned planetary motions)

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod & Briank

At the top of mount Everest water boils at 65 degrees Celcius, hence in a vacuum it will "boil" at an even lower temperature.

Here is the temperature of the Sun's photosphere:
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/sun/photosphere.html

You two are on crack. That comet should have disintegrated...and when it lost 90% of it's mass, it should not have escaped the Sun.

What you believe is wrong and you are merely scrambling with excuses.

Last edited by Lou on 18-Dec-2011 at 03:46 PM.