@Lou

Quote:

Meanwhile, he is a published scientist and you, well, what are you called again?

I am called an electrical and electronic engineer. Not the sort of engineer that claims "I am correct because I am an engineer",but the sort of engineer that can spot an arithmetical error in an equation projected on a powerpoint display for a few seconds. If I could spot this error immediately, why couldn't your self styled scientist? He may have published, but that doesn't mean that he is correct, his publication has to pass something called peer review, and anybody who tries to plot density on a straight line against a single linear dimension is talking through the wrong orifice.

What we have here is a sloppy presentation using sloppy arithmetic to showcase sloppy mathematics. This idiot would struggle go pass SAT's, let alone peer review.

Edit: Add subtle hint (8.9x1.3)/13.2 ≠ 8.9

Last edited by Nimrod on 15-Apr-2012 at 08:46 AM.

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

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Meanwhile, he is a published scientist and you, well, what are you called again? Name that Fallacy! .. .. .. .. .. Bzzt Time's up it's - 'Argument from Authority'! ... Though it'd be nice if he had some actual evidence to establish Authority before you proclaim his authority.

Apparently you didn't follow the math... Funny that he solved the vacuum catastrophe...in fact he managed to explain to you what mass was when you take into account the whole universe.

I mean seriously, don't you find it co-incidental that his value for the Schwartzchild proton and the 'standard model' proton was off by thirty some odd orders of magnitude?
It's almost like you can pick what definition of mass you are using and fill in the blanks...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVRgSvsQnE0
AlienScientist critique of Nassim Haramein... Nimrod can skip to 8:30...

@Lou

Quote:

Apparently you didn't follow the math...

Remember the question here is not if Haramein can balance a checkbook. Importantly it's Haramein who claims he solved the answer of the universe. You cannot use the answer to prove itself true. You're using circular logic and it's invalid to do so. In short, Haramein solving a math problem is not proof that the universe complies with his answer. For confirmation one needs to evidence his postulate.

Take Einstein for example - we've worked for decades building experiments which evidence his maths. If my memory servers I believe you were the one that posted the Gravity Probe B experiments. They were building evidence to see if Einstein's maths were inaccurate or accurate about the universe. EVIDENCE! It's the same sort of stuff that Haramein must comply with before he's accepted as the God you wish him to be.

What we actually have is two postulates. We have Lou's disproof of Haramein's math and we have Haramein's math. What we can see is Lou's math better complies with the current state of evidence. If we have to pick one - Lou's has the evidence of support which Haramein does not. So we need to go back to the question we've asked and you've failed time and again -- please evidence your postulates. Don't claim them true without evidence. Unless you really want to switch the topic to faith.

Last edited by BrianK on 15-Apr-2012 at 02:25 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Apparently you didn't follow the math...

He may or may not have. You certainly didn't, but I did... and it was as sloppy and inept as his arithmetic.

Quote:

Funny that he solved the vacuum catastrophe...

Did he really? when and where? I heard the assertion, and the jokes, but there was the usual dearth of something called e v i d e n c e. Claiming an achievement and achieving a result are two entirely separate issues.

Quote:

I mean seriously, don't you find it co-incidental that his value for the Schwartzchild proton and the 'standard model' proton was off by thirty some odd orders of magnitude?

The number that you are looking for is thirty eight, and it is not entirely co-incidental that he is able to align his error with a balance of his own choosing considering he cherrypicks his evidence, and uses sloppy arithmetic to make his inept attempts at mathematics balance.

Quote:

It's almost like you can pick what definition of mass you are using and fill in the blanks...

But you can't... Despite the fact that Haramein is trying to do precisely that.

Quote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVRgSvsQnE0 AlienScientist critique of Nassim Haramein... Nimrod can skip to 8:30...

Thanks for the offer, but unlike some I am not in the habit of cherrypicking my evidence in order to "prove" an unsupported assertion. As a result I heard a ten minute recording of two inmates of the asylum assuring each other that they do not need to take the medication.

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

@Lou

Quote:

AlienScientist critique of Nassim Haramein... Nimrod can skip to 8:30...

Critique is the incorrect word to use. I watched the 10 minutes. A good summary is haramein and AS in a shirtless bromance washing each other's backs.

@BrianK & das Nimrod

Again, as AlienScientist said, you have laymen like you two calling him a charlatan just because you feel like it and you have no actual "evidence" or "science" to actually dispute his findings with. Ofcourse, that has been par for the course with you two so I should have expected nothing less...

To sum things up, he is being asked to give these lectures by other scientists and educators and getting funding for his research and you two are, well, just here acting like stubborn children.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Apparently you didn't follow the math... He may or may not have. You certainly didn't, but I did... and it was as sloppy and inept as his arithmetic. Quote: Funny that he solved the vacuum catastrophe... Did he really? when and where? I heard the assertion, and the jokes, but there was the usual dearth of something called e v i d e n c e. Claiming an achievement and achieving a result are two entirely separate issues. Quote: I mean seriously, don't you find it co-incidental that his value for the Schwartzchild proton and the 'standard model' proton was off by thirty some odd orders of magnitude? The number that you are looking for is thirty eight, and it is not entirely co-incidental that he is able to align his error with a balance of his own choosing considering he cherrypicks his evidence, and uses sloppy arithmetic to make his inept attempts at mathematics balance. Quote: It's almost like you can pick what definition of mass you are using and fill in the blanks... But you can't... Despite the fact that Haramein is trying to do precisely that. Quote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVRgSvsQnE0 AlienScientist critique of Nassim Haramein... Nimrod can skip to 8:30... Thanks for the offer, but unlike some I am not in the habit of cherrypicking my evidence in order to "prove" an unsupported assertion. As a result I heard a ten minute recording of two inmates of the asylum assuring each other that they do not need to take the medication.

Really? Because he blatantly states EXACT numbers in every equation. Par for the course. I mean, clearly the only way to get published is to use numbers pulled out of a hat...
I truly live for these assinine replies of yours. They speak for themselves and expose your goals here.

@Lou

Quote:

Really? Because he blatantly states EXACT numbers in every equation.

Yes Lou, these are indeed the first equations that you have linked to that put the numbers in to the relevant places. As a result of the numbers being there I was able to spot an arithmetical error at almost exactly the time frame you listed as being the moment that Haramein proved his point. If I had paid as much attention to the resst of his inane drivel how many other errors would I have been able to find? Any competent scientist would not have made such a basic error in his presentation and would certainly take steps to eradicate such errors prior to puublication.

Quote:

I mean, clearly the only way to get published is to use numbers pulled out of a hat..

The way to get published is to send a manuscript to a publisher. It is not the job of the publishers to proofread, correct, or amend documents sent to them. As a result the EXACT numbers that were inserted into the equation were calculated using the formula of the equation, and his answer was EXACTLY wrong, incorrect, and even erroneous.

Quote:

They speak for themselves and expose your goals here.

I simply use mathematics to assess the evidence. This is why I was able to spot the obvious flaws in this presentation and the subtitution of c in Znidarsics numerological sleight of hand concerning Plancks constant among other things. With your mention of goals you begin to sound like one of your sources

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

@Lou

Quote:

Again, as AlienScientist said, you have laymen like you two calling him a charlatan just because you feel like it and you have no actual "evidence" or "science" to actually dispute his findings with.

What your arguement is saying is we must accept his theories as true until he's proven not true. You again continue to miss the middle - evidence - step. We postulate, evidence, then conclude. You charge we must postulate, conclude as true then work on the evidence. Yah got it backasswards!

In order to accept accuracy to the universe Haramein's work must be demonstrated as accurate. That's done through evidencing. Typically experimentation. Now note I didn't reject Haramein, except in those cases where we do have rather excellent evidence to reject him. I clarified that you are jumping to conclusions and failing to evidence. Skipping this step as you do inserts FAITH as your reason for acceptance.

I presented the Einstein example before. We require evidence there. So why do you feel that we shouldn't require Haramein to evidence? Einstein's formulas were the postulates that proved accurate through evidence pressed into a Theory. Again why do we get to jump and claim Haramein's Theory is well above that when you haven't gotten off the ground in demonstrable truth. Haramein is NOT an exception to scientific inquiry. He must conform to the same rules as everyone else.

Quote:

he is being asked to give these lectures by other scientists and educators and getting funding for his research and you two are, well, just here acting like stubborn children

The state of inquiry is not the same thing as the state of acceptance. I find it unimpressive that his paper on physics was accepted in an obsecure meeting of computer scientists. The 'peer-review' in science doesn't mean read by random people. It means assessed by those with sufficent knowledge and background to conduct a fair critique. This was hardly a profound scientific acceptance you wish it were.

Last edited by BrianK on 15-Apr-2012 at 08:11 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 15-Apr-2012 at 08:07 PM.

@Lou

One of your old posts was about how this '2nd sun' was photographed. You go onto conclude that another sunsized object must actually exist. You were shown and described a number of visual effects which could cause visual trickery to the observer. (Observer error is why we demand collaborating evidence. We need to error check all instruments including our eyes.)

Recently Tupac showed up in concert. Yeah he's dead! No it wasn't a ghost but it was Pepper's Ghost. I thought you may find the use of such visual trickery interesting. Some more technical info

More confirmation of Sitchin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tp-WNrwQhk

Ancient gold mines in Africa...

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou One of your old posts was about how this '2nd sun' was photographed. You go onto conclude that another sunsized object must actually exist. You were shown and described a number of visual effects which could cause visual trickery to the observer. (Observer error is why we demand collaborating evidence. We need to error check all instruments including our eyes.) Recently Tupac showed up in concert. Yeah he's dead! No it wasn't a ghost but it was Pepper's Ghost. I thought you may find the use of such visual trickery interesting. Some more technical info

It's amusing how you pick posts that spanned threads and many pages and pigeon-hole my conclusions for me...

@Lou

Quote:

More confirmation of Sitchin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tp-WNrwQhk Ancient gold mines in Africa...

This is what is called a non sequitur.
Yes there are indeed ancient gold mines in Africa at the locations described, but exactly how do you get to the phrase "confirmation of Sitchin"
Following your methodology I could claim that the fairy bridge is evidence of BrianK's fairies, and that since fairies live under bridges here is more evidence of fairies.
From your link:
0:01:32 "and....advanced technology that they probably had..."
0:12:51 "that had advanced technology..."
0:14:08 "we're dealing with technologies we don't understand today"
etc ad nauseam.

These statements are called assertions. They are claims made with absolutely no evidence to support them despite the fact that there is evidence to support the exact contrary viewpoint. The fact that you have been able to unearth a South African who has been obsessed with the insane ramblings of a fraudulent "translator" does not mean that Sitchin was anything other than a fantasist who made up a story and sold it as a translation of ancient texts. Sitchins writings have been discredited as thoroughly as the theories of Aristotle J.J.Becher and of course Charles Hapgood.

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

@Lou

Quote:

It's amusing how you pick posts that spanned threads and many pages and pigeon-hole my conclusions for me...

So after we presented evidence that the 2nd object was not proven to exist are you now concluding that the object really didn't exist and this was an optical illusion. Perhaps even one that Pepper's Ghost may explain?

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: More confirmation of Sitchin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tp-WNrwQhk Ancient gold mines in Africa...

More confirmation that Haramein is Haracrazy.
Another huge Solar Eruption And to date ZERO earth sized spaceships with ET have been captured diving into the sun to use the 'blackhole' in the middle.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: More confirmation of Sitchin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tp-WNrwQhk Ancient gold mines in Africa... More confirmation that Haramein is Haracrazy. Another huge Solar Eruption And to date ZERO earth sized spaceships with ET have been captured diving into the sun to use the 'blackhole' in the middle.

I fail to see your logic. But alas, you are the king of putting words in people's mouths...

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: More confirmation of Sitchin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tp-WNrwQhk Ancient gold mines in Africa... This is what is called a non sequitur. Yes there are indeed ancient gold mines in Africa at the locations described, but exactly how do you get to the phrase "confirmation of Sitchin" Following your methodology I could claim that the fairy bridge is evidence of BrianK's fairies, and that since fairies live under bridges here is more evidence of fairies. From your link: 0:01:32 "and....advanced technology that they probably had..." 0:12:51 "that had advanced technology..." 0:14:08 "we're dealing with technologies we don't understand today" etc ad nauseam. These statements are called assertions. They are claims made with absolutely no evidence to support them despite the fact that there is evidence to support the exact contrary viewpoint. The fact that you have been able to unearth a South African who has been obsessed with the insane ramblings of a fraudulent "translator" does not mean that Sitchin was anything other than a fantasist who made up a story and sold it as a translation of ancient texts. Sitchins writings have been discredited as thoroughly as the theories of Aristotle J.J.Becher and of course Charles Hapgood.

Nimrod! Have you ever heard of a tangent? That's where you're going here.

@Lou

Quote:

I fail to see your logic. But alas, you are the king of putting words in people's mouths...

you are the one that posted the William Shatner voiced video where Harameiny claimed earth sized alien spaceships are the cause of solar flares. His reasoning was that they are using the blackholes inside of the sun. Not so strangely our around the clock monitoring of the sun from all angles have shown the solarflares. NONE have evidenced aliens.

Why the insults instead of a rational explanation. So a question do you think the second sun videos from China were a real second object or an optical illusion?

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: I fail to see your logic. But alas, you are the king of putting words in people's mouths... you are the one that posted the William Shatner voiced video where Harameiny claimed earth sized alien spaceships are the cause of solar flares. His reasoning was that they are using the blackholes inside of the sun. Not so strangely our around the clock monitoring of the sun from all angles have shown the solarflares. NONE have evidenced aliens. Why the insults instead of a rational explanation. So a question do you think the second sun videos from China were a real second object or an optical illusion?

You insinuate that I said EVERY one is because of a UFO, Mr. Twist.

Last edited by Lou on 19-Apr-2012 at 04:11 AM.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120418111923.htm

Dark matter proven to exist ... but only in toilets!