@Lou

Quote:

Blah blah blah your evidence adds up to mine.

Since you have no demonstrable proof that aliens or alien tools exist this clearly is not true. If you want to argue that we should weight only on 'Actual did it'. Then great. We have something that can never be proven. By your logic saying anything is equal to aliens. So, dragons and angels did it together is just as valid as aliens.

Quote:

you assume they are bound by the same laws of physics

Just wow! Do you realize that greater quantities of unknowns does not increase your validity?

Quote:

why would it be so hard to believe aliens used

As aliens are unknown we can continue to assign unknown properties to them. Again doesn't prove anything valid. Instead it creates a larger problem. And further pushes 'aliens' into the realm of faith and the 'religious kooks'. And so yes the unproven 'finer details' are just as worthless as they're built on faith and lack evidence.

Quote:

Great, so now you are saying they had bulldozers in ancient times

I never made that claim. You made the claim that Ghost Towns are not covered up by 'magic shovels'. I agree they aren't. However they have been covered up by men and they have been covered up by mother nature. Aliens is another argument from ignorance. You claim 'we don't know' therefore it's aliens.

EDIT:
Clearly your view is ignorance built upon ignorance. The formal definition is 'ad ignormatium'. What 'ad ig' says is a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true. In order for a valid conclusion to be drawn positive evidence must be available. Absence of evidence doesn't mean one gets to insert as fanciful a definition as possible because you hate the mundane, then conclude you're view is more truthful. That's a HUGE logical failure.

Lets go over this again.
Aliens traveled from their world to ours - No evidence. IGNORNANCE
Aliens were at the planet at the time Stonehenge was built - No evidence. IGNORANCE.
Aliens used their own tools - No evidence. IGNORANCE.
Tools were used as only aliens can - No evidence. IGNORANCE.
Physics were unique to only them - No evidence. IGNORANCE.
Aliens actually did it - Conclusion that's undemonstrated and gained by belief.

Vs
People existed - proven by evidence
People had tools - proven by evidence
Tools could be used in a manner that Stonehedge buildings, roads, and rocks could have been moved - proven by use of evidence
Physics wasn't unique - proven by evidence
People actually did it - Conclusion drawn by the best available evidence we have.

Go back to your arguement -- Insert dragons or angels or bzlidiz and you'll see the results are exactly the same. If your argument is 'we don't know could have been aliens' great then it's unknown. I'd at best agree to that. But, concluding aliens is not supported in the smallest iota. Certainly a few bricks are missing in the 'people did it' wall of evidence. I'd at best agree to that. But, the 'aliens did it' doesn't have a wall let alone a single brick.

Last edited by BrianK on 23-Dec-2011 at 04:46 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Great, so now you are saying they had bulldozers in ancient times I never made that claim. You made the claim that Ghost Towns are not covered up by 'magic shovels'. I agree they aren't. However they have been covered up by men and they have been covered up by mother nature. You have yet to demonstrably demonstrate anything so sure dragons it is, it's just as evidenced as aliens.

Your definition of "covered up" leaves alot to the imagination.

When ancient cities are uncovered, their structures are mostly intact because they built with stone. When a colony from the 1600's is uncovered, they were covered by leaves and surrounded by forest and only foundations are found since the bulk of the structures were wood that decayed (or burned) and because fertilizer for plants and trees...

But alas, your definition of "covered up" meets your criteria for the mundane...

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Then try the same process on Neptune. (with or without holding your breath, the choice is yours.)

What point are you trying to make with Neptune, so that I can answer it.

@Lou

Quote:

When ancient cities are uncovered, their structures are mostly intact because they built with stone. When a colony from the 1600's is uncovered, they were covered by leaves and surrounded by forest and only foundations are found since the bulk of the structures were wood that decayed (or burned) and because fertilizer for plants and trees...

Certainly stone does withstand the forces of nature better. But, there is wood that was uncovered from Stonehenge. Here's a great example of nature Runs found in Lake . Though clearly this was a competiting set of aliens who prefer water over dirt that got to the village first. And certainly different than the Pyrovile in Pompeii. Huzzah Aliens is true! (that last part is tongue in cheeck if you didn't figure it out.)

Last edited by BrianK on 23-Dec-2011 at 05:43 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: When ancient cities are uncovered, their structures are mostly intact because they built with stone. When a colony from the 1600's is uncovered, they were covered by leaves and surrounded by forest and only foundations are found since the bulk of the structures were wood that decayed (or burned) and because fertilizer for plants and trees... Certainly stone does withstand the forces of nature better. But, there is wood that was uncovered from Stonehenge. Here's a great example of nature Runs found in Lake . Though clearly this was a competiting set of aliens who prefer water over dirt that got to the village first. And certainly different than the Pyrovile in Pompeii. Huzzah Aliens is true! (that last part is tongue in cheeck if you didn't figure it out.)

Failed to read anything in that article relating to any point you are trying to make.
Infact, I don't even know what point you are trying to make.

@Lou

Quote:

Failed to read anything in that article relating to any point you are trying to make. Infact, I don't even know what point you are trying to make.

Nature works well to cover cities over time.

No need, and no evidence, that Pyroviles or other aliens stopped by and did it. I mean really they're probably too busy stomping on wheat and moving stones anyhow.

@Lou

Quote:

What point are you trying to make with Neptune, so that I can answer it.

No particularly important point, I was simply a bit rushed to go to work so couldn't really expand on a bit of basic mathematics ( You may remember BrianK kept suggesting you try it. i.e."Do the math")

To expand on the hint.
Orbital distance from the sun:- 4,503,443,661 km (30.10366151 AU)
Period of rotation:- 16 h 6 min 36 s
Inclination of equator:- 28.32 degrees

So the planet is 30 times as far from the sun as the Earth is and since the power of the suns output decreases as the square of the distance Neptune is effected 900 times less by the suns magnetic field yet it spins on its axis faster than the Earth does. By your statement, to match the Axial rotation of the Earth Netune would need a magnetic field 900 times that of the Earth. Also in all cases the planets would need to spin on their magnetic axis. In the case of the Earth the magnetic north differs from the axial north by 8 degrees, but in Neptunes case the difference is 47 degrees. If the system were EM driven, the FIRST thing to happen would be the alignment of magnetic fields, not have the magnetic field wobbling around all over the place like a drunken sailor.
You "explained" Mars away by inventing a global thermonuclear war involving some mythical race of theoretical aliens, so how do you explain Neptune?
Once you have done that look up the astronomical details for Uranus, and try the same thing again, paying special attention to the axial tilt and how that can be achieved in a EM universe.

BrianK keeps trying to explain your position as Argumentum ab Ignorantia, although I would describe them as Argumentum ab absurdia. The latin phrase that covers my approach to the universe is "Lex parsimoniae" or the law of economy. I believe tha there is an acronym that covers it, for the benefit of those that do not use Latin.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

You "explained" Mars away by inventing a global thermonuclear war involving some mythical race of theoretical aliens, so how do you explain Neptune?

I think the answer lies in Lou's question and response to the large rocks at Stonehenge. He believes people didn't build Stonehenge because it makes no sense, to him I might add, why people wouldn't have used a couple smaller stones instead of a large big stone. I posed the question to him that wouldn't the properties be the same to aliens? Larger stones means more work to do. His answer certainly didn't boarder on the mundane. You see the aliens work through a physics that we know nothing about. And in actually bigger stones were as easy if not easier for the aliens to move.

Since aliens are an unproven and unknown entity it's a matter of convience to give the aliens an unproven and unknown technology using unproven and unknown physics. If larger rocks are easier then planets, even larger, should be even easier than moving the rock. The aliens moved Neptune to their liking using physics we know nothing about.

See this really isn't a problem. Neptune being out of alignment proves aliens as true.

'It's turtles all the way down' -- Stephen Hawking

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Failed to read anything in that article relating to any point you are trying to make. Infact, I don't even know what point you are trying to make. Nature works well to cover cities over time. No need, and no evidence, that Pyroviles or other aliens stopped by and did it. I mean really they're probably too busy stomping on wheat and moving stones anyhow.

Yes, and the great flood was natural as well.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: What point are you trying to make with Neptune, so that I can answer it. No particularly important point, I was simply a bit rushed to go to work so couldn't really expand on a bit of basic mathematics ( You may remember BrianK kept suggesting you try it. i.e."Do the math") To expand on the hint. Orbital distance from the sun:- 4,503,443,661 km (30.10366151 AU) Period of rotation:- 16 h 6 min 36 s Inclination of equator:- 28.32 degrees So the planet is 30 times as far from the sun as the Earth is and since the power of the suns output decreases as the square of the distance Neptune is effected 900 times less by the suns magnetic field yet it spins on its axis faster than the Earth does. By your statement, to match the Axial rotation of the Earth Netune would need a magnetic field 900 times that of the Earth. Also in all cases the planets would need to spin on their magnetic axis. In the case of the Earth the magnetic north differs from the axial north by 8 degrees, but in Neptunes case the difference is 47 degrees. If the system were EM driven, the FIRST thing to happen would be the alignment of magnetic fields, not have the magnetic field wobbling around all over the place like a drunken sailor. You "explained" Mars away by inventing a global thermonuclear war involving some mythical race of theoretical aliens, so how do you explain Neptune? Once you have done that look up the astronomical details for Uranus, and try the same thing again, paying special attention to the axial tilt and how that can be achieved in a EM universe. BrianK keeps trying to explain your position as Argumentum ab Ignorantia, although I would describe them as Argumentum ab absurdia. The latin phrase that covers my approach to the universe is "Lex parsimoniae" or the law of economy. I believe tha there is an acronym that covers it, for the benefit of those that do not use Latin.

It seems to me that you are confusing things.
Planets rotate because they spin around their dynamoes.
Planets orbit because they as a whole are magnets spinning around another magnet, the sun.

I thought that since you discovered the videos yourself proving this phenomenon that you would understand...

This is why trying to measure the universe using gravity has been full of fail.

Last edited by Lou on 24-Dec-2011 at 04:30 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Nimrod Quote: You "explained" Mars away by inventing a global thermonuclear war involving some mythical race of theoretical aliens, so how do you explain Neptune? I think the answer lies in Lou's question and response to the large rocks at Stonehenge. He believes people didn't build Stonehenge because it makes no sense, to him I might add, why people wouldn't have used a couple smaller stones instead of a large big stone. I posed the question to him that wouldn't the properties be the same to aliens? Larger stones means more work to do. His answer certainly didn't boarder on the mundane. You see the aliens work through a physics that we know nothing about. And in actually bigger stones were as easy if not easier for the aliens to move. Since aliens are an unproven and unknown entity it's a matter of convience to give the aliens an unproven and unknown technology using unproven and unknown physics. If larger rocks are easier then planets, even larger, should be even easier than moving the rock. The aliens moved Neptune to their liking using physics we know nothing about. See this really isn't a problem. Neptune being out of alignment proves aliens as true. 'It's turtles all the way down' -- Stephen Hawking

As for Mars, time will tell if its rotation is actually slowing down since the demise of its magnetic field...

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Blah blah blah your evidence adds up to mine. Since you have no demonstrable proof that aliens or alien tools exist this clearly is not true. If you want to argue that we should weight only on 'Actual did it'. Then great. We have something that can never be proven. By your logic saying anything is equal to aliens. So, dragons and angels did it together is just as valid as aliens. Quote: you assume they are bound by the same laws of physics Just wow! Do you realize that greater quantities of unknowns does not increase your validity? Quote: why would it be so hard to believe aliens used As aliens are unknown we can continue to assign unknown properties to them. Again doesn't prove anything valid. Instead it creates a larger problem. And further pushes 'aliens' into the realm of faith and the 'religious kooks'. And so yes the unproven 'finer details' are just as worthless as they're built on faith and lack evidence. Quote: Great, so now you are saying they had bulldozers in ancient times I never made that claim. You made the claim that Ghost Towns are not covered up by 'magic shovels'. I agree they aren't. However they have been covered up by men and they have been covered up by mother nature. Aliens is another argument from ignorance. You claim 'we don't know' therefore it's aliens. EDIT: Clearly your view is ignorance built upon ignorance. The formal definition is 'ad ignormatium'. What 'ad ig' says is a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true. In order for a valid conclusion to be drawn positive evidence must be available. Absence of evidence doesn't mean one gets to insert as fanciful a definition as possible because you hate the mundane, then conclude you're view is more truthful. That's a HUGE logical failure. Lets go over this again. Aliens traveled from their world to ours - No evidence. IGNORNANCE Aliens were at the planet at the time Stonehenge was built - No evidence. IGNORANCE. Aliens used their own tools - No evidence. IGNORANCE. Tools were used as only aliens can - No evidence. IGNORANCE. Physics were unique to only them - No evidence. IGNORANCE. Aliens actually did it - Conclusion that's undemonstrated and gained by belief. Vs People existed - proven by evidence People had tools - proven by evidence Tools could be used in a manner that Stonehedge buildings, roads, and rocks could have been moved - proven by use of evidence Physics wasn't unique - proven by evidence People actually did it - Conclusion drawn by the best available evidence we have. Go back to your arguement -- Insert dragons or angels or bzlidiz and you'll see the results are exactly the same. If your argument is 'we don't know could have been aliens' great then it's unknown. I'd at best agree to that. But, concluding aliens is not supported in the smallest iota. Certainly a few bricks are missing in the 'people did it' wall of evidence. I'd at best agree to that. But, the 'aliens did it' doesn't have a wall let alone a single brick.

Let's go over this again.
You will not believe anything you don't want to believe.
Your views are based on living in a box.
I can't believe you've even believe any book you've ever read considering someone else wrote it.
Its a wonder you believe in anything at all.

mmmk?

@Lou

Quote:

Planets orbit because they as a whole are magnets spinning around another magnet, the sun.

Please at least make some kind of effort to understand one of the most basic concepts of electromotive principles. If the magnetic field of the sun is going to push the planets around, it must first align the magnetic field to be moved with its own. It will actually take far less effort to do this than to move the rotor (planet) around the stator (sun) Also in order to move something that is further away, the magnetic field of the further item would need to be stronger by a ration that is proportional to the distance squared.
If you look at the relative strengths of the magnetic fields in this chart you will see that the magnetic fields do not follow a distance squared path. If they did the magnetic field strengths would read
Mercury:- 0.15
Venus:- 0.52
Earth:- 1.0
Mars:- 2.32
Jupiter:- 27.1
Saturn:- 91
Uranus:- 368
Neptune:- 900
Since the magnetic field strengths of the planets do not follow this curve, and since the magnetic fields of the planets do not align with that of the sun, then it is mathematically demonstrated that the motion of the planets cannot possibly be due to EM forces. Also since the magnetic field density of the sun at the distances involved is too low, and does not align, the interaction of the magnetic fields cannot possibly account for the rotation of the planets on their axes.

Quote:

I thought that since you discovered the videos yourself proving this phenomenon that you would understand...

In response to the video that you posted of somebody spouting a load of pseudoscientific technobabble while demonstrating a motor, I showed that what he claimed was a new discovery that confused scientists was actually one of the earliest experiments in converting EM force to movement. You may find this difficult to accept, but I do understand, which is why I reject your fantasy. Not because I refuse to listen, but because I have listened and then thought about it. I fully understand the low power and efficiency of these motors, and I know that within minutes the batteries shown are completely discharged.

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

@Lou

Quote:

Yes, and the great flood was natural as well.

What's 'the great flood'? There was a great one in Cambodia in 1942, probably one of the largest ever experienced by man. Is that the one you mean?

Quote:

You will not believe anything you don't want to believe.

Though this is fairly said of every human. People only believe what they want to believe. And yes taking belief as the conclusive truth doesn't work. It's undemonstrateable to anyone in that manner. For example, your belief in aliens is no different than the 'religious kooks' belief in God. Well, except you get to skip the reading exercises.

Quote:

I can't believe you've even believe any book you've ever read considering someone else wrote it.

I don't believe any book anyone writes. Instead I accept them all as postulates and ask what evidence we have that the author really knows the truth. Or are they mistaken or lying. Reading and believing a book enabled people to drive themselves into skyscrapers. Evidencing, experimentation, and prediction enabled people to drive to the moon.

Quote:

Its a wonder you believe in anything at all.

Thank you for the complimen!. I'm sure I have some beliefs, as people are a mixture of logic and emotion. I do try to evidence as much as possible. Once that happens 'belief' goes out the window. 'Belief' of a truth gives no credence to the idea actually being true.

I see why you fail to fact check or do any math for EM is everything. Belief doesn't need evidence, by definition, it only needs acceptance and is therefore your 'EM is all' is your own flavor of religious kookiness (as you called it.)

Last edited by BrianK on 24-Dec-2011 at 09:00 PM.

@All

Keeping an open mind on the subject of UFO's as NORAD are tracking something that they first picked up over the North Pole.

(Current location @ 07:45 GMT San Diego California USA)

Have a good day

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Planets orbit because they as a whole are magnets spinning around another magnet, the sun. Please at least make some kind of effort to understand one of the most basic concepts of electromotive principles. If the magnetic field of the sun is going to push the planets around, it must first align the magnetic field to be moved with its own. It will actually take far less effort to do this than to move the rotor (planet) around the stator (sun) Also in order to move something that is further away, the magnetic field of the further item would need to be stronger by a ration that is proportional to the distance squared. If you look at the relative strengths of the magnetic fields in this chart you will see that the magnetic fields do not follow a distance squared path. If they did the magnetic field strengths would read Mercury:- 0.15 Venus:- 0.52 Earth:- 1.0 Mars:- 2.32 Jupiter:- 27.1 Saturn:- 91 Uranus:- 368 Neptune:- 900 Since the magnetic field strengths of the planets do not follow this curve, and since the magnetic fields of the planets do not align with that of the sun, then it is mathematically demonstrated that the motion of the planets cannot possibly be due to EM forces. Also since the magnetic field density of the sun at the distances involved is too low, and does not align, the interaction of the magnetic fields cannot possibly account for the rotation of the planets on their axes. Quote: I thought that since you discovered the videos yourself proving this phenomenon that you would understand... In response to the video that you posted of somebody spouting a load of pseudoscientific technobabble while demonstrating a motor, I showed that what he claimed was a new discovery that confused scientists was actually one of the earliest experiments in converting EM force to movement. You may find this difficult to accept, but I do understand, which is why I reject your fantasy. Not because I refuse to listen, but because I have listened and then thought about it. I fully understand the low power and efficiency of these motors, and I know that within minutes the batteries shown are completely discharged.

You seem to be basing your math on what you think you know.
Like in the video, a fixed charge will accelerate the stationary magnet to a point of equilibrium. So if you look at early star system formations, masses expelled by their star start close and move farther out, but this takes time. The sun hasn't run out of power in it's theoretical 4.5 billion years of existence, so I don't know why you are throwing out this evidence by saying "induction motors are inefficient". You seem to be the inefficient one, expecting an instantaneous change amongst planetary masses.

Look at how close neptune-sized planets can orbit a star early in their life-cycle: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/12/kepler-20s-oddball-planet-assortment-challenge-models-of-planet-formation.ars

Throws your traditional gravitational computations on it's side, no?

So the moon is still accelerating away from the earth(currently). Changes in the earth's magnetic field will effect this...will we be alive to measure the difference? Who knows?

@Lou

Quote:

You seem to be basing your math on what you think you know.

Might I ask what it is you are basing your mathematics on. From what I can see it is based purely and totally on wishful thinking. You decide what the preferred answer is, and then ignore anything that does not support your desire. This is in marked contrast to how I and othere view the world. I make observations of the world, and then see what mathematical model fits. As my observations are updated, so also my mathematical models and conclusions need to be updated.

From my previous post you may possibly recall the statement Quote:

If the magnetic field of the sun is going to push the planets around, it must first align the magnetic field to be moved with its own.

Do you honestly think that the suns magnetic field is sufficiently effective to do the larger task of "driving" the planets, without achieving the lesser task of aligning the planetary magnetic fields. Please look again at the magnetic fields of Neptune and Uranus and recognise that the only way they could maintain that status is if the lack of EM alignment were irrelevant. For this reason I can clearly state that your "model" is totally invalid and not capable of being supported mathematically. In an EM universe these magnetic fields would have to be aligned.

Quote:

Look at how close neptune-sized planets can orbit a star early in their life-cycle: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/12/kepler-20s-oddball-planet-assortment-challenge-models-of-planet-formation.ars Throws your traditional gravitational computations on it's side, no?

Actually no. But please show what mathematics can be used to "prove" your pet pipe dream. You claim to have rid yourself of the intellectual toxin of religion, but you haven't. All you have achieved is to transfer your allegiance from an invisible skybeard, to an insubstantial extraterrestrial in his starship. Despite all of your own best efforts you have made absolutely no progress.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Look at how close neptune-sized planets can orbit a star early in their life-cycle: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/12/kepler-20s-oddball-planet-assortment-challenge-models-of-planet-formation.ars Throws your traditional gravitational computations on it's side, no? Actually no. But please show what mathematics can be used to "prove" your pet pipe dream. You claim to have rid yourself of the intellectual toxin of religion, but you haven't. All you have achieved is to transfer your allegiance from an invisible skybeard, to an insubstantial extraterrestrial in his starship. Despite all of your own best efforts you have made absolutely no progress.

So your answer to this is what? Oh yes, a BrianK answer of "I don't believe".
You are asking me to prove something that the traditionalists are confused by, yes I have given a simple logical EM-based explanation but the traditional big-bangers now need to rethink how planetary systems are formed... Go figure...

Edit: you do know the earth is still moving away from the sun, right?

Last edited by Lou on 27-Dec-2011 at 06:32 PM.

@Lou

Gravity probes to measure the moon

I'd think if 'gravity' doesn't exist and it's all EM the effects should be different?

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Gravity probes to measure the moon I'd think if 'gravity' doesn't exist and it's all EM the effects should be different?

What effects?

If 'gravity' is based on mass, well, the moon being round, you'd think it's mass is evenly distributed, no? Another problem for the big-bangers it seems...

Interestingly it's magnetic field is warped...who would have thunk it? Almost like it's a co-inky-dink...

I'm amused that their methods for measuring 'gravity' are simply studying the speed of the craft... Not like that's another clue that gravity as you think it is a contrived result or anything... I mean a magnetic field change wouldn't have a similar effect or anything...