Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6071 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
» Home
» Features
» News
» Forums
» Classifieds
» Links
» Downloads
Extras
» OS4 Zone
» IRC Network
» AmigaWorld Radio
» Newsfeed
» Top Members
» Amiga Dealers
Information
» About Us
» FAQs
» Advertise
» Polls
» Terms of Service
» Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
20 crawler(s) on-line.
 130 guest(s) on-line.
 0 member(s) on-line.



You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 OlafS25:  6 mins ago
 BigD:  6 mins ago
 zErec:  13 mins ago
 amigakit:  16 mins ago
 retrofaza:  45 mins ago
 kolla:  1 hr ago
 edwardsjethro:  1 hr 51 mins ago
 joeyunderwood:  1 hr 53 mins ago
 Sikharubel:  1 hr 56 mins ago
 Musashi5150:  2 hrs 18 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Free For All
      /  Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 Next Page )
PosterThread
Nimrod 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 29-Feb-2012 21:25:54
#1501 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
Perhaps you should stop linking me stupid links that take me for a simpleton then.
At the risk of sounding like a petulant child I will point out that you started posting the stupid links.

Quote:
Because that is essentially a personal attack of it's own.
Considering some of your own comments this is very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Quote:
You should also stop calling what I post "an unproven postulate"
If you do not want your posts to be called unproven postulates, stop posting unproven postulates. There is an important difference between a clock that is permanently two minutes fast and a picture of a clock, although by your reckoning the picture is a more reliable timepiece because it is right twice a day.

The theories used by real scientists are 99.99% correct, the postulates you adhere to are 99.99% wrong. there is a difference between these positions, even though neither has achieved 100% status.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 1-Mar-2012 0:22:47
#1502 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

The theories used by real scientists are 99.99% correct, the postulates you adhere to are 99.99% wrong. there is a difference between these positions, even though neither has achieved 100% status.

That's a bold statement from someone who can't get past circuits...

By the last count, 'relativity' is only 4% correct when looking at how galaxies behave...

Last edited by Lou on 01-Mar-2012 at 12:31 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 1-Mar-2012 12:13:55
#1503 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
Perhaps you should stop linking me stupid links that take me for a simpleton then. Because that is essentially a personal attack of it's own.
You're right perhaps this is a personal attack. I assumed your arguement's statements confusing claims and conclusions, along with your arguement style of promoting fallacies as valid logic was due to your lack of understanding of those things. So, the links were meant for you to use to strengthen your understanding.

So, as you asserted, let's assume my identification of where the weakenesses in your argument's rationality has nothing to do with a lack of understanding logic and conclusions. If you're awesome at logic and don't need education then I must ask why you choose to make arguements that claims claims are conclusions and use faulty logic to come to conclusions.

Use of fallacies in your position is not one of strength. I'll ask you demonstrate your knowledge. In the same post I'm commenting on you made a logical fallacy. What is it and why is it fallacious thinking? And since you know this to be fallacious why did you choose a position of weakness as defense?

Quote:
Galaxies that are too far away to be attracted by gravity will repel each other via radiation pressure
Your initial premise 'Galaxy that are too far away to be attracted by gravity' is false. Gravity is an force that transverses infinite distances.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 1-Mar-2012 12:39:41
#1504 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Perhaps you should stop linking me stupid links that take me for a simpleton then. Because that is essentially a personal attack of it's own.
You're right perhaps this is a personal attack. I assumed your arguement's statements confusing claims and conclusions, along with your arguement style of promoting fallacies as valid logic was due to your lack of understanding of those things. So, the links were meant for you to use to strengthen your understanding.

So, as you asserted, let's assume my identification of where the weakenesses in your argument's rationality has nothing to do with a lack of understanding logic and conclusions. If you're awesome at logic and don't need education then I must ask why you choose to make arguements that claims claims are conclusions and use faulty logic to come to conclusions.

Use of fallacies in your position is not one of strength. I'll ask you demonstrate your knowledge. In the same post I'm commenting on you made a logical fallacy. What is it and why is it fallacious thinking? And since you know this to be fallacious why did you choose a position of weakness as defense?

Have you ever once looked in the mirror and said to yourself "self, you have a very closed mind!"

Quote:

Quote:
Galaxies that are too far away to be attracted by gravity will repel each other via radiation pressure
Your initial premise 'Galaxy that are too far away to be attracted by gravity' is false. Gravity is an force that transverses infinite distances.

Yes, it's (gravity) so strong that galaxies are moving farther apart at an accelerating rate...
Epic fail. It's amusing that you label me full of fallacies but fail to look in the mirror.

Look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
a quote:
Quote:
While rather small in comparison to chemical thrusters, the radiation pressure force is inexorable and requires no fuel mass. Thus over months-to-years, the net (integrated) amount of force is substantial, and is thought to be sufficient to speed interplanetary probes to velocities that could traverse the Earth-Pluto distance in 1/2 to 1/4 the time of a chemically accelerated vessel.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 1-Mar-2012 14:17:47
#1505 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
Have you ever once looked in the mirror and said to yourself "self, you have a very closed mind!"

Certainly. That's why I embrace a system that's open to all postulates, open to all proof, and follows the evidence prior to concluding. It's those with systems that start with the conclusion, eg EM is God, that are the one's truly closed minded.

I'll be waiting for your demonstration that you understand logical fallacies so again on post #1499 what was the logical fallacy you committed?

Quote:
Yes, it's (gravity) so strong that galaxies are moving farther apart at an accelerating rate...
Epic fail. It's amusing that you label me full of fallacies but fail to look in the mirror.
Your ability to make logical fallacies is indeed strong.

But, nothing I stated here was such a fallacy. Gravity is indeed a force that transverses infinite distances. And everything feels it's effect. Perhaps you're having a problem with overlaying the relationship between gravity and distance? The law is the same for EM. You should know this, you claim them to be one in the same. Therefore they must have the same properties. Both the current understanding of science and the EM_is_God conclusion operation on The inverse square law


Quote:
Look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
Didn't you at one time complain about how unreliable and unusable Wikipedia is?

You claim everything is due to Radiation Pressure. Can you show us your homework? 9.15 N/km^2 is the force on the earth due to Radiation Pressure.
What's the force from gravity? Please provide it in the same units of measure so we can easily compare and see which of the two forces is the predominate force on the system. Thank you

Last edited by BrianK on 01-Mar-2012 at 02:25 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 01-Mar-2012 at 02:25 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 1-Mar-2012 16:11:37
#1506 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Have you ever once looked in the mirror and said to yourself "self, you have a very closed mind!"

Certainly. That's why I embrace a system that's open to all postulates, open to all proof, and follows the evidence prior to concluding. It's those with systems that start with the conclusion, eg EM is God, that are the one's truly closed minded.

You claim to 'embrace' but in practice you are lying.

Quote:
I'll be waiting for your demonstration that you understand logical fallacies so again on post #1499 what was the logical fallacy you committed?

Hold your breadth.

Quote:

Quote:
Yes, it's (gravity) so strong that galaxies are moving farther apart at an accelerating rate...
Epic fail. It's amusing that you label me full of fallacies but fail to look in the mirror.
Your ability to make logical fallacies is indeed strong.

You ability to annoy is stonger.

Quote:

But, nothing I stated here was such a fallacy. Gravity is indeed a force that transverses infinite distances. And everything feels it's effect. Perhaps you're having a problem with overlaying the relationship between gravity and distance? The law is the same for EM. You should know this, you claim them to be one in the same. Therefore they must have the same properties. Both the current understanding of science and the EM_is_God conclusion operation on The inverse square law

"you claim" "you claim" "you claim"
YOU put alot of words in my mouth.
Everything you posted there is a twist of what I said.
Gravity transverses infite distances to become infinitely weak. The law may be the same for EM but EM is many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. Also, if you read the definition of radiation pressure, you realize that its force can be doubled. Now if the object feeling pressure is also emitting light, it too can exert counter-force, so now it can be more than double. It seems you have a problem with connecting dots.
I never said "EM IS GOD" only YOU have put those words in my mouth. I said all forces are based on EM. You're a typical debunker who transforms my statements into outlandish claims for the sole purpose of discrediting.
You are obviouse and ridiculous.

Quote:

Quote:
Look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
Didn't you at one time complain about how unreliable and unusable Wikipedia is?

I said it can be unreliable. Please, please, please put more words in my mouth like "unsuable". You are obvious and ridiculous.

Quote:
You claim everything is due to Radiation Pressure.

Wait! Did you just put MORE words in my mouth? Well, of course you did, it's just what you do...

Quote:
Can you show us your homework? 9.15 N/km^2 is the force on the earth due to Radiation Pressure.
What's the force from gravity? Please provide it in the same units of measure so we can easily compare and see which of the two forces is the predominate force on the system. Thank you

Irrelevant as most of your requests are. It has been proven that an orbiting probe can use radiation pressure to travel to the outer edges of our solar system, overcoming, wait for it, wait for it - GRAVITY - but you continue to ask irrelevant questions to distort the information. It's not logical falacy that you create, just logical trickery.

You are welcome.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 1-Mar-2012 17:40:19
#1507 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
Hold your breadth.
It appears you feel wronged because people are giving you the benefit of the doubt. You claim to possess knowledge of sound reasoning and logic. Perhaps you do. However, the arguements you make are serverly lacking. If you do know but can't use do you really know? And if you really know insults make you look worse why do you continue to use them? (BTW the questions are rehetorical)

Quote:
Gravity transverses infite distances to become infinitely weak
I'm glad you agree. That was established in the Inverse Square law I included. It explains on how it becomes infinitely weak. The same can be said for Radiative Pressure. If you read and understand the link you posted you will find by the time the RP gets to Jupiter one might as well say it's 0.

Quote:
The law may be the same for EM but EM is many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity
You were asked to demonstrate that by showing us the comparision of the two foces. Claiming it again doesn't demonstrate truth. Nor is the question irrevalent. It's exactly what's being claimed by you - EM is larger. Show us the numbers on how you came to your conclusion. Due to your lack of evidence we can only take this as true based upon our faith in Lou.

I thought you might like this. Earth Radiation Pressure Model explains the reduction along the radial component. Sweet! We have some evidence on how this works and how to model it. We actually have an answer to contribution, similar to what you've been asked for and failed to provide. For a quick answer, in case people don't want to read the pdf - The reduction attributable to Radaition Pressure of earth to a satellite is ~1cm.

Quote:
I said it can be unreliable. Please, please, please put more words in my mouth like "unsuable". You are obvious and ridiculous.
Here's my memory, and it may be different than yours. I cited Wikipedia for a good starting point of information, not as the only point. You were the one talking about how Wikipedia shouldn't be used. And you did that by talking the whole not just the single article.

Quote:
I never said "EM IS GOD" only YOU have put those words in my mouth. I said all forces are based on EM.
Didn't we do this dance before? I fully admitted you never said the exact words that EM_IS_GOD. I also fully admitted it was my construct. I took your 'all forces are based on EM' and merged it with the 'everything is God' concept. BOTH of those statements are conclusions and equivalent. Afterall both say that science can just pack their bat and ball and go home, the game's over.

Quote:
Wait! Did you just put MORE words in my mouth?
Fair enough. What you claimed is that Quote:
Galaxies that are too far away to be attracted by gravity will repel each other via radiation pressure.
In this sentence you stated that no gravity works on the system and instead everything is radiation pressure. It appears that's not what you mean. So, can you please include an improvement on your original statement. For example, you named Radiation Pressure are there other items you left off that list that us readers should be including?

Quote:
It has been proven that an orbiting probe can use radiation pressure to travel to the outer edges of our solar system, overcoming, wait for it, wait for it - GRAVITY
Is there such a probe that exists? I know of problems that have used GRAVITY - Marnier 10, and both Voyagers for example.

You seem to be taking lots of personal offense about comments in a discussion so I want be OVERLY clear here and check my understanding of what you're trying to say. Please let me know if this is correct representation. Or if not correct take a friendly approach and give a reply that helps me build a more complete understanding of what you are trying to say. Your argument seems to say that if one force overtakes another force it's the same as the weaker force not existing?

Last edited by BrianK on 01-Mar-2012 at 06:00 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 1-Mar-2012 18:00:38
#1508 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Hold your breadth.
It appears you feel wronged because people are giving you the benefit of the doubt. You claim to possess knowledge of sound reasoning and logic. Perhaps you do. However, the arguements you make are serverly lacking. If you do know but can't use do you really know? And if you really know insults make you look worse why do you continue to use them? (BTW the questions are rehetorical)

Quote:
Gravity transverses infite distances to become infinitely weak
I'm glad you agree. That was established in the Inverse Square law I included. It explains on how it becomes infinitely weak. The same can be said for Radiative Pressure. If you read and understand the link you posted you will find by the time the RP gets to Jupiter one might as well say it's 0.

Quote:
The law may be the same for EM but EM is many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity
You were asked to demonstrate that by showing us the comparision of the two foces. Claiming it again doesn't demonstrate truth. Nor is the question irrevalent. It's exactly what's being claimed by you - EM is larger. Then show us by how much. (As typical you make a claim, we ask for evidence, and you declare why you don't have to show evidence. Are we simply to accept your view on the faith of Lou? of course not.)

Quote:
I said it can be unreliable. Please, please, please put more words in my mouth like "unsuable". You are obvious and ridiculous.
Here's my memory, and it may be different than yours. I cited Wikipedia for a good starting point of information, not as the only point. You were the one talking about how Wikipedia shouldn't be used. And you did that by talking the whole not just the single article.

Quote:
I never said "EM IS GOD" only YOU have put those words in my mouth. I said all forces are based on EM.
Didn't we do this dance before? I fully admitted you never said the exact words that EM_IS_GOD. I also fully admitted it was my construct. I took your 'all forces are based on EM' and merged it with the 'everything is God' concept. BOTH of those statements are conclusions and equivalent. Afterall both say that science can just pack their bat and ball and go home, the game's over.

Quote:
Wait! Did you just put MORE words in my mouth?
Fair enough. What you claimed is that Quote:
Galaxies that are too far away to be attracted by gravity will repel each other via radiation pressure.
In this sentence you stated that no gravity works on the system and instead everything is radiation pressure. It appears that's not what you mean. So, can you please include an improvement on your original statement. For example, you named Radiation Pressure are there other items you left off that list that us readers should be including?

Quote:
It has been proven that an orbiting probe can use radiation pressure to travel to the outer edges of our solar system, overcoming, wait for it, wait for it - GRAVITY
Is there such a probe that exists? I know of problems that have used GRAVITY - Marnier 10, and both Voyagers for example.

You seem to be taking lots of personal offense about comments in a discussion so I want be OVERLY clear here and check my understanding of what you're trying to say. Please let me know if this is correct representation. Or if not correct take a friendly approach and give a reply that helps me build a more complete understanding of what you are trying to say. Your argument seems to say that if one force overtakes another force it's the same as the weaker force not existing?

What I take personal offense to is your posting style of skewing what I post and then riduling the skewed remarks as if I posted them that way.

Fact: light from other galaxies reaches us
Unproved: other galaxies' gravity affect us in any significant way, but again that would depend on the distance between any two given galaxies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NanoSail-D2 This probe was not launched outside of earth's graviational effect field so it merely remained in orbit, but it did what it was designed to do despite the deployment hiccups.

PS,
Did you hear the US is abandonning MARS missions? *shocker*

PSS,
Did you hear Planck's constant isn't good enough? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110630111540.htm
Attention Nimrod: how does your 99% accurate science posted by you and BrianK look being off by 13 orders of magnitude?

Let's all sit and pray: All posted my BrianK & Nimrod is 99% accurate. All posted by Lou is 99% inaccurate. I suppose if you get on your knees and repeat it enough times, you'll believe it's 100% true.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 1-Mar-2012 18:06:53
#1509 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

Re: Solar Sails

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/smallsats/11-148.html

I quote:
Quote:
"The final rate of descent depended on the nature of solar activity, the density of the atmosphere surrounding NanoSail-D and the angle of the sail to the orbital track," said Dean Alhorn, principal investigator for NanoSail-D at Marshall Space Flight Center. "It is astounding to see how the satellite reacted to the sun's solar pressure. The recent solar flares increased the drag and brought the nanosatellite back home quickly."

So in this case it was used to accelerate its decent to earth rather than, for instance, explore and travel thru space.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 1-Mar-2012 18:18:34
#1510 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/03/99-percent-of-nasas-portable-devices-are-unencrypted.ars

Looks like Gary McKinnon was right!

Who would have thunk it?

NASA security a joke and most likely he did find what he says he did.

The underline above will be quoted by BrianK as an unproven posulate.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 1-Mar-2012 20:30:47
#1511 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
What I take personal offense to is your posting style of skewing what I post and then riduling the skewed remarks as if I posted them that way.
It certainly may be skewed communication. But that's about the message and has nothing to do with the personal of either messenger. I've said it before - you are not your message. I didn't attack you as a person.

Quote:
Fact: light from other galaxies reaches us
Unproved: other galaxies' gravity affect us in any significant way, but again that would depend on the distance between any two given galaxies

Certainly light does reach us from other galaxies. But, as you demand proof that gravity impacts us in significant ways we must demand the same proof of light.

For example: Complete the exercise where you demonstrate the force of gravity between the Sun and the planets being compared to the Radiative Pressures. What we find is that Gravitational forces are much larger. Because both forces propagate via the same relationship, inverse square law, then the larger force will always remain the larger force. .... What the dominate influence is then becomes a question of properties of the target object. Something that has no graviational property but an em property will be more influenced by em.

Which gets us to your claim that other galaxies gravity doesn't have any significant effect on us. I'd argue it certainly does have effect. Just as our planets revolve around the sun the solar system itself revolves around the blackhole at the center of the milkway galaxy. That's due to gravity not radiative pressures.


Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NanoSail-D2 This probe was not launched outside of earth's graviational effect field so it merely remained in orbit, ...
It has been proven that an orbiting probe can use radiation pressure to travel to the outer edges of our solar system, overcoming, wait for it, wait for it - GRAVITY
We have no actual probes that do this, though we might at some future date. The radiation pressures of our sun does have a limit. Though the probe wouldn't travel outside the solar system due to our sun.

There's a thing called a heliopause. It's the area where the suns influence is larger than the galaxy and universe's influence. Once the boundary is crossed the stellar winds from other stars dominate over our sun's. It'll then cross through the bow shock and into the Oort Cloud. The Oort Cloud is a group of asteroids held in place by the sun's graviational forces and is outside the radiative pressure.

Quote:
Did you hear the US is abandonning MARS missions? *shocker*
Budget cuts abound in NASA. As part of the defense budget it saddens me to see that part of defense cut. R&D is very important. But, hey lots of other nations to try their hand at it along with private enterprise right?

Quote:
Did you hear Planck's constant isn't good enough? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110630111540.htm
Attention Nimrod: how does your 99% accurate science posted by you and BrianK look being off by 13 orders of magnitude?

This appears to say that any graininess would exist beyond our ability to detect. But, what if there's 0 graininess? The answer is that the closer the 0 the closer to non-existence of quantum effects and at 0 we fall into a perfectly Classical Universe model. Not sure we could obervationally get to that point in knowlege to exclude the possiblities.

Quote:
I suppose if you get on your knees and repeat it enough times
You've expressed being overwhelmed by the vast openness and mutablity of science. Unfortunately we live in a world where all data isn't immediately available to us. We have to build the thoughts, build the experiments, record the obersations, duplicate, and continually ask how. We follow those roads that haven't been demonstrated to be dead ends. And we even double check the dead ends to see if something opened them back up. It is clearly the most perfect openness we can develop as humans. But, yes being so incredibly open can be terrifying to many without patience and demand THE answer now.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 1-Mar-2012 20:38:32
#1512 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
NASA security a joke and most likely he did find what he says he did.

The underline above will be quoted by BrianK as an unproven posulate.

Question on your statement. The message reads as if I get the power to declare unproven postulates? I want to make sure it's clear that unproven posulates are ones due to the properties of the claim.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 2-Mar-2012 4:53:10
#1513 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/envia-claims-breakthrough-in-lithium-ion-battery-cost-and-energy-density/

Oh look! Another DARPA 'funded' project has a breakthru.

And of course it's related to EM...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 2-Mar-2012 5:20:02
#1514 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
What I take personal offense to is your posting style of skewing what I post and then riduling the skewed remarks as if I posted them that way.
It certainly may be skewed communication. But that's about the message and has nothing to do with the personal of either messenger. I've said it before - you are not your message. I didn't attack you as a person.

Quote:
Fact: light from other galaxies reaches us
Unproved: other galaxies' gravity affect us in any significant way, but again that would depend on the distance between any two given galaxies

Certainly light does reach us from other galaxies. But, as you demand proof that gravity impacts us in significant ways we must demand the same proof of light.

For example: Complete the exercise where you demonstrate the force of gravity between the Sun and the planets being compared to the Radiative Pressures. What we find is that Gravitational forces are much larger. Because both forces propagate via the same relationship, inverse square law, then the larger force will always remain the larger force. .... What the dominate influence is then becomes a question of properties of the target object. Something that has no graviational property but an em property will be more influenced by em.

Which gets us to your claim that other galaxies gravity doesn't have any significant effect on us. I'd argue it certainly does have effect. Just as our planets revolve around the sun the solar system itself revolves around the blackhole at the center of the milkway galaxy. That's due to gravity not radiative pressures.

You seem to have issues connecting the dots.
Gravity has already been proven to NOT be the major player in the universe. Galaxies as a whole have been repelling each other.
No one has measured their radiation pressure before, but someone should. In fact no text book mentioned it when I went to school because it leads to atomic bombs and that was classified only until recent times.

Quote:

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NanoSail-D2 This probe was not launched outside of earth's graviational effect field so it merely remained in orbit, ...
It has been proven that an orbiting probe can use radiation pressure to travel to the outer edges of our solar system, overcoming, wait for it, wait for it - GRAVITY
We have no actual probes that do this, though we might at some future date. The radiation pressures of our sun does have a limit. Though the probe wouldn't travel outside the solar system due to our sun.

This initial experiment exceeded their expectations. Fact: solar sails worked.

Quote:

There's a thing called a heliopause. It's the area where the suns influence is larger than the galaxy and universe's influence. Once the boundary is crossed the stellar winds from other stars dominate over our sun's. It'll then cross through the bow shock and into the Oort Cloud. The Oort Cloud is a group of asteroids held in place by the sun's graviational forces and is outside the radiative pressure.

You are missing the big picture here. Solar sails can be used for propulsion to a point and possibly as energy scavengers. At some point, that stored energy could be applied to ion drives. Relying on chemical rockets won't get us far in space. Don't twist this into "solar sails are gods".

If light has momentum, which solar sails show it does, then it has mass.
Here is the mass-energy equivalence principle since you are either too lazy to recall it yourself, or conveniently ignoring it to keep asking me for more "proof"...because the world may end if BrianK admits Lou is right...
Regardless, this all started not about solar sails but as radiation pressure being a possible solution to the 'dark energy' problem 'your accepted science' has.

Quote:

Quote:
I suppose if you get on your knees and repeat it enough times
You've expressed being overwhelmed by the vast openness and mutablity of science. Unfortunately we live in a world where all data isn't immediately available to us. We have to build the thoughts, build the experiments, record the obersations, duplicate, and continually ask how. We follow those roads that haven't been demonstrated to be dead ends. And we even double check the dead ends to see if something opened them back up. It is clearly the most perfect openness we can develop as humans. But, yes being so incredibly open can be terrifying to many without patience and demand THE answer now.

I have expressed openness to new science where as you and Nimrod claim to champion science, but only the old relic of it and not its true mantra. You champion the scientific establishment that is being criticized for being another 'good old boys' club.

The theories I have shown you are not mine to prove. To ask me to is ridiculous. What I have done is shown how the old theories are flawed and where newer ones seem to fill in the holes. Recall the standard model is still just a theory...one with many holes.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
olegil 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 2-Mar-2012 9:20:12
#1515 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 22-Aug-2003
Posts: 5895
From: Work

@Lou

I like how you back up a statement about photons having mass by linking to a wikipedia article saying it doesn't.

Nice twist there.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
olegil 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 2-Mar-2012 9:43:57
#1516 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 22-Aug-2003
Posts: 5895
From: Work

@Lou

You also keep claiming that what is true for photons is also true for other particles. Why? What other particles can be created by just heating up a material?

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 2-Mar-2012 15:02:55
#1517 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
Gravity has already been proven to NOT be the major player in the universe.
So you claim and fail to prove.

Quote:
No one has measured their radiation pressure before, but someone should
The way I see it is this statement makes the claim that we don't know what the radiation pressure is. If that's truly the case you cannot fairly conclude it's the driving force. You simply don't know.

And again which is why you were asked to provide the numbers you believe are forces due to Radiation Pressure and those due to gravity. Until you can demonstrate the evidence thereby showing you to be right we have to assign this into 'Lou's Belief' bin.

Quote:
Fact: solar sails worked.
One set of ideas is the universe has four fundamental forces (weak, strong, EM, and gravity). Another set of ideas, by Lou, is that the universe only has 1 fundamental force, (EM). If you draw a quick Venn Diagram you can readily see that both ideas share EM as a commonality. Time and again you press the idea that proving the congruent structure of both systems (EM) does work somehow disproves the other 3 forces. Via simple logic it does not.

Instead we must ask about the other 3 forces and demonstrating they work. Is there a set of forces not in the EM_is_God concept that works? Well in actuality yes gravity is one. It's been demonstrated in many ways; including pushing satellites to the furthest away from earth humans have ever travelled.

Quote:
If light has momentum, which solar sails show it does, then it has mass.
Of course it doesn't. Momentum can be caused by EM fields, magnets repell for example. There's no transfer or collison of mass there. Oh and BTW if it's mass then it's, gravity. (Oops)

Quote:
Regardless, this all started not about solar sails but as radiation pressure being a possible solution to the 'dark energy' problem 'your accepted science' has.
Dark Energy solving about 73% of the universe's missing EM is indeed an interesting postulate. However, showing a small solar sail can be pushed by EM is insufficent data to prove your point. Within the galaxy you need to demonstrate that RP is larger than any other force at play. You've failed to answer this question. Within the universe you need to demonstrate that RP is sufficently large to replace the 73% of missing EM. You've also failed to do this. Again we're left with 'Lou's Belief Bin' as our only option. ....

Now this isn't saying you might be right. You may be. However, you can't demonstrate you're right which means you've made a conclusion not on proof but a leap of faith.

Quote:
You champion the scientific establishment that is being criticized for being another 'good old boys' club.
I agree Science isn't as swift as I'd like it to be. A large part is indeed evidence based. Another part is simple problems of being human. However, science IS the only thing that has morphed it's views when new and better data becomes available. Science is a way of thinking not a body of knowledge acceptable by a vote of PHDs. You seem to think it's only the later.

Quote:
The theories I have shown you are not mine to prove. To ask me to is ridiculous.
If you really KNOW that they are true they should be easily demonstratable by you to be true. If you want to educate me or Nimrod or anyone saying something is true without showing us how and why is true again leaves us only with Lou's Belief Bin. ... This gets to the heart at why and how incredibly accurate my translation of your faith into EM_is_God truly is.

Quote:
What I have done is shown how the old theories are flawed and where newer ones seem to fill in the holes
Very often you've claimed flawed due not to the theory but your lack of understanding. The newer one's you then fail to demonstrate which means faith fills your holes. Science is better! It recognizes there are holes. The first step in solving any problem is first recognizing it. Your Lou Belief Bin is your own special version of the God of the Gaps

Quote:
Recall the standard model is still just a theory...one with many holes
It indeed has holes. But, it is also the best theory we have available today. Meaning the one with the least amount of holes and highest predictive success. Again science is completely open to being wrong and in the future something better may come along. This vast openness appears difficult for you to accept. It's hard to recongize that need to move the God of the Gaps out of the way. True knowledge won't come with a preconceived and ill supported belief getting in the way.




 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 2-Mar-2012 17:25:41
#1518 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote:
@Lou

I like how you back up a statement about photons having mass by linking to a wikipedia article saying it doesn't.

Nice twist there.

/facepalm

Relative to an atom, it is small, so usually discounted. However, let's address your next post...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 2-Mar-2012 17:29:48
#1519 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote:
@Lou

You also keep claiming that what is true for photons is also true for other particles. Why? What other particles can be created by just heating up a material?

So why don't you start by defining "heating up"...

I define it as adding "energy" to "something".
This is done by heat (aka light) hitting an object. Since light has momentum and travels oh, I don't know, at the speed of light...it slams into atoms and increases their momentum slightly over time.

Sometimes that light is absorbed and sometimes other light is emitted and you start to see a color change.

And if you do it just right, you can even make stuff invisible

It's all rocket science really...

ps,
Make sure you read the side-bar in that link. Mmmmk.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 2-Mar-2012 17:56:12
#1520 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Gravity has already been proven to NOT be the major player in the universe.
So you claim and fail to prove.

You love spinning wheels, don't you?
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html
4.6% vs. 95.4% = NOT A MAJOR PLAYER IN THE UNIVERSE
It's silly, annoying, wheel spinning posts like this that make me want to link you that video again...

Quote:

Quote:
No one has measured their radiation pressure before, but someone should
The way I see it is this statement makes the claim that we don't know what the radiation pressure is. If that's truly the case you cannot fairly conclude it's the driving force. You simply don't know.

And again which is why you were asked to provide the numbers you believe are forces due to Radiation Pressure and those due to gravity. Until you can demonstrate the evidence thereby showing you to be right we have to assign this into 'Lou's Belief' bin.

I ain't going to demonstrate anything. Just stop and ask yourself when the first time you heard about radiation pressure was? It's been know to physicists since forever but not published to the general public because then any country could build an atomic bomb. Until recently that is. So since you went to school about 20 years ago, clearly this is not in 'BrianK's Belief Bin'.

Quote:

Quote:
Fact: solar sails worked.
One set of ideas is the universe has four fundamental forces (weak, strong, EM, and gravity). Another set of ideas, by Lou, is that the universe only has 1 fundamental force, (EM). If you draw a quick Venn Diagram you can readily see that both ideas share EM as a commonality. Time and again you press the idea that proving the congruent structure of both systems (EM) does work somehow disproves the other 3 forces. Via simple logic it does not.

blah blah blah, yes master BrianK, blah blah blah anything you say lord BrianK...

Quote:
Instead we must ask about the other 3 forces and demonstrating they work. Is there a set of forces not in the EM_is_God concept that works? Well in actuality yes gravity is one. It's been demonstrated in many ways; including pushing satellites to the furthest away from earth humans have ever travelled.

Here is your fallacy about gravity... Brandenburg explain it quite well in his book, but because his book wasn't around when BrianK went to school its not in BrianK's Bin-O-Beliefs...

Quote:

Quote:
If light has momentum, which solar sails show it does, then it has mass.
Of course it doesn't. Momentum can be caused by EM fields, magnets repell for example. There's no transfer or collison of mass there. Oh and BTW if it's mass then it's, gravity. (Oops)

Gravity's been unified in GEM theory by Brandenburg, oops!

Quote:

Quote:
Regardless, this all started not about solar sails but as radiation pressure being a possible solution to the 'dark energy' problem 'your accepted science' has.
Dark Energy solving about 73% of the universe's missing EM is indeed an interesting postulate. However, showing a small solar sail can be pushed by EM is insufficent data to prove your point. Within the galaxy you need to demonstrate that RP is larger than any other force at play. You've failed to answer this question. Within the universe you need to demonstrate that RP is sufficently large to replace the 73% of missing EM. You've also failed to do this. Again we're left with 'Lou's Belief Bin' as our only option. ....

Here is your fallacy. You claim I have failed, when it is indeed SCIENCE who has failed to answer the mystery that is dark energy. Apparently BrianK's Bin-O-Beliefs has a theorem that says Lou is responsible of all of science's shortcomings...

Quote:
Now this isn't saying you might be right. You may be. However, you can't demonstrate you're right which means you've made a conclusion not on proof but a leap of faith.

Funny, that sounds alot like all scientific theories to me...

Quote:

Quote:
You champion the scientific establishment that is being criticized for being another 'good old boys' club.
I agree Science isn't as swift as I'd like it to be. A large part is indeed evidence based. Another part is simple problems of being human. However, science IS the only thing that has morphed it's views when new and better data becomes available. Science is a way of thinking not a body of knowledge acceptable by a vote of PHDs. You seem to think it's only the later.

I have linked plenty of articles where scientists complain about the system in place. To deny that is to live with rose-colored glasses on, but apparently, rose-colored glasses are standard fare for BrianK's Bin-O-Beliefs....

Quote:

Quote:
The theories I have shown you are not mine to prove. To ask me to is ridiculous.
If you really KNOW that they are true they should be easily demonstratable by you to be true. If you want to educate me or Nimrod or anyone saying something is true without showing us how and why is true again leaves us only with Lou's Belief Bin. ... This gets to the heart at why and how incredibly accurate my translation of your faith into EM_is_God truly is.

There you go with outrageous word twisting again. I don't personally care what you or Nimrod or the new rocket scientist on the block believe. I do not feel the need to prove anything to any of you especially when none of you have proven what I believe to be wrong and only put the onus on me. Clearly, the onus on you will always leave you short-handed. That must be debunker's rule #5, don't do any work, make the other person do it all.

Quote:

Quote:
What I have done is shown how the old theories are flawed and where newer ones seem to fill in the holes
Very often you've claimed flawed due not to the theory but your lack of understanding. The newer one's you then fail to demonstrate which means faith fills your holes. Science is better! It recognizes there are holes. The first step in solving any problem is first recognizing it. Your Lou Belief Bin is your own special version of the God of the Gaps

Science recognized these problems but BrianK's Bin-O-Beliefs accepts the theories like they are fact simply because "it's the best we have...as of when BrianK went to school."

Quote:

Quote:
Recall the standard model is still just a theory...one with many holes
It indeed has holes. But, it is also the best theory we have available today. Meaning the one with the least amount of holes and highest predictive success. Again science is completely open to being wrong and in the future something better may come along. This vast openness appears difficult for you to accept. It's hard to recongize that need to move the God of the Gaps out of the way. True knowledge won't come with a preconceived and ill supported belief getting in the way.

Ah yes, the old 'best we have' complacency issue.
As far as relativity goes, GEM theory is the new 'best we have' but because BrianK didn't learn it 20 years ago, BrianK does not accept it. Hence in BrianK's Bin-O-Beliefs, it is not 'true knowledge'.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle