@Lou

Quote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiU8VtfhI9Q

Interesting. Let's assume the video of the UFO is real. This video was created post the 1908 event. It's in no way evidence that the 1908 event I cited is a UFO.

So what do we need? We need a material (X) that can be dated to 1908. Doing such a thing will help explain what this event was. If the material (X) is found to be part of a UFO then we can claim aliens. If the material (X) is found to be meteroid material then we can claim aliens. Until either of these events happen we must fairly state that we have inadquate evidence to make a fair conclusion. Thus, the mystery is still in effect and the research should continue.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiU8VtfhI9Q Interesting. Let's assume the video of the UFO is real. This video was created post the 1908 event. It's in no way evidence that the 1908 event I cited is a UFO. So what do we need? We need a material (X) that can be dated to 1908. Doing such a thing will help explain what this event was. If the material (X) is found to be part of a UFO then we can claim aliens. If the material (X) is found to be meteroid material then we can claim aliens. Until either of these events happen we must fairly state that we have inadquate evidence to make a fair conclusion. Thus, the mystery is still in effect and the research should continue.

Can you explain to me what would cause a meteroite to explode in mid air?

@Lou

Quote:

Can you explain to me what would cause a meteroite to explode in mid air?

Explosions occur based on factors of chemical composition, pressure, temperature, and structural integrity. An explosion is a rapid increase in volume that violently releases the energy. If the structural integrity of an object cannot handle the changes in pressure, temperature, and chemical composition of an object entering the atmosphere it will explode. Feel free to search your favorite search engine for Meteor and Explosion. You'll find meteor explosions are documented. Some recent one's happened over the USA this year in Nevada and California, for example.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Can you explain to me what would cause a meteroite to explode in mid air? Explosions occur based on factors of chemical composition, pressure, temperature, and structural integrity. An explosion is a rapid increase in volume that violently releases the energy. If the structural integrity of an object cannot handle the changes in pressure, temperature, and chemical composition of an object entering the atmosphere it will explode. Feel free to search your favorite search engine for Meteor and Explosion. You'll find meteor explosions are documented. Some recent one's happened over the USA this year in Nevada and California, for example.

I understand that "most" meteroite burn up in the upper atmosphere due to the reasons you mention...but that's the difference here, this one was large and exploded with the power of a very large nuclear weapon. So it seems to me that if it was large, it wouldn't have simply "burned up" and should have hit the ground. 5 miles in the air is only ~26000 feet. Planes fly higher than that. If it made it that far down, the rest was child's play...

@Lou

Quote:

I understand that "most" meteroite burn up in the upper atmosphere due to the reasons you mention...but that's the difference here, this one was large and exploded with the power of a very large nuclear weapon. So it seems to me that if it was large, it wouldn't have simply "burned up" and should have hit the ground. 5 miles in the air is only ~26000 feet. Planes fly higher than that. If it made it that far down, the rest was child's play...

If you look back at the article I posted you can see one of the postulates was the explosion did not take place in the air but underground. So where the explosion happened may be something that needs proving out.

Either way it's all dictated by physical and chemical compositions, temperatures and pressures at play. Without that background information what you have is nothing more than a guess. Anyone can make those guesses.

Here's another one for you to consider - what if the construction was semi-insulating? The heat would get through, it'd take longer. What if the construction was slightly stronger? The pressure could build up, but again it'd take longer. In those cases the explosion would happen closer to ground level. (I think we have some clear evidence that construction and composition do play a role as not all meteors explode in the exact same area of the atmosphere.)

Though noteably my guess is the same as yours, a guess. To really figure out what happens we need definitive material from the event. It will have post explosive event residues that can be analyized to perhaps determine the forces at play. Which is, not too suprisingly, what the researchers have been trying to do and have yet to fully determine. THat's why this is still a mystery.

Last edited by BrianK on 17-May-2012 at 04:06 PM.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120515104634.htm
Wireless power transmission! Pretty soon you'll be able to get power anywhere just like GPS...

Ofcourse, this uses specific frequencies...there is a way to get it from a wider range as I have posted before.

@Lou

Quote:

ourse, this uses specific frequencies...there is a way to get it from a wider range as I have posted before.

Do note the annuals of history show wireless transmission of electricity is something Nikola Tesla demonstrated in the late 1800s. The bright (pun intended) idea of your presenter was about 80 years too late to the party.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: ourse, this uses specific frequencies...there is a way to get it from a wider range as I have posted before. Do note the annuals of history show wireless transmission of electricity is something Nikola Tesla demonstrated in the late 1800s. The bright (pun intended) idea of your presenter was about 80 years too late to the party.

The idea of my presenter is not unique, it's merely a more sophisticated and efficient method. Quasi-crystals weren't discovered until 1981 and not accepted until the middle of the last decade by "mainstream" science...

@Lou

Quote:

The idea of my presenter is not unique, it's merely a more sophisticated and efficient method. Quasi-crystals weren't discovered until 1981 and not accepted until the middle of the last decade by "mainstream" science...

Be a bit careful here on the presentation of 'acceptance by mainstream science'. The acceptance you refer to was the discovery in nature in 2008/2009. This was due a very exhaustive research to discover the naturally occurring quasi crystals. QuasiCrystals were indeed accepted by mainstream science before then. However until 08/09 they were not to have been found occurring in nature.

Quasi-Crystals do go back further. The mathematical understanding dates to the 60s. And from there it was postulated that structure could happen within a material. As you indicate material with this structure was discovered (or should say created) about 20 years later in the early 1980s.

Since the 1980s mainstream science has accepted quasi crystals. Again the period you refer to was their discovery in nature instead of being man-made materials.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: The idea of my presenter is not unique, it's merely a more sophisticated and efficient method. Quasi-crystals weren't discovered until 1981 and not accepted until the middle of the last decade by "mainstream" science... Be a bit careful here on the presentation of 'acceptance by mainstream science'. The acceptance you refer to was the discovery in nature in 2008/2009. This was due a very exhaustive research to discover the naturally occurring quasi crystals. QuasiCrystals were indeed accepted by mainstream science before then. However until 08/09 they were not to have been found occurring in nature. Quasi-Crystals do go back further. The mathematical understanding dates to the 60s. And from there it was postulated that structure could happen within a material. As you indicate material with this structure was discovered (or should say created) about 20 years later in the early 1980s. Since the 1980s mainstream science has accepted quasi crystals. Again the period you refer to was their discovery in nature instead of being man-made materials.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8808527/Nobel-Prize-for-Chemistry-awarded-to-quasicrystal-discovery.html

@Lou

Quote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8808527/Nobel-Prize-for-Chemistry-awarded-to-quasicrystal-discovery.html

. Thanks for the supporting document! As I said mainstream science has accepted these for well over a decade. As included in your article mainstream science has created a couple hundred different materials. Creating and using this certainly indicates mainstream acceptance. Also the article indicated 2 naturally occurring materials were foun in 2009 as I wrote too. Though they skimmed over it took those guys nearly a decade of research to find them. Talk about some mainstream dedicated scientists!

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8808527/Nobel-Prize-for-Chemistry-awarded-to-quasicrystal-discovery.html . Thanks for the supporting document! As I said mainstream science has accepted these for well over a decade. As included in your article mainstream science has created a couple hundred different materials. Creating and using this certainly indicates mainstream acceptance. Also the article indicated 2 naturally occurring materials were foun in 2009 as I wrote too. Though they skimmed over it took those guys nearly a decade of research to find them. Talk about some mainstream dedicated scientists!

My article says that in 1981 when that guy discovered them, "mainstream" rejected him and practically forced him out of science.

Par for the course...

@Lou

Quote:

My article says that in 1981 when that guy discovered them, "mainstream" rejected him and practically forced him out of science.

Yes Lou, science does not automatically fall on to its knees to worship every new idea that comes along simply because it is new. New ideas have to be proven to be better than the current ideas, not simply different. Also new ideas have to be new, not some regurgitated dross that was tried and rejected over a century ago. What you seem unable to comprehend is that Daniel Shechtman was able to do something that Haramein, Brandenburg, Sitchin et.al. have totally failed to do. Namely demonstrate that his concept had a fully functional relationship with the real world.

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

@Lou

Quote:

My article says that in 1981 when that guy discovered them, "mainstream" rejected him and practically forced him out of science.

Repeatedly you've tried to tell us science accepts all ideas as true until demonstrated false. It's been explained to you a number of times that your idea is completely wrong. I'm glad you've provided an example that your idea is indeed wrong.

Science is a highly skeptical endeavor. At all times with every thing we must hold a skepetical view. Indeed the 'mainstream' science has been built this way through the eons. Preponderance of evidence is the winner for the time until a greater preponderance of evidence exists. The result is science works better than any other single method humans have ever developed! That, my friend, is hugely important and is what has pushed humans exploratory nature far beyond your Country, your Continent, your planet, and your solar system.

Step back a couple of posts and reread that I did say be careful on how you present this. This article clearly demonstrated the idea of quasi-crystals is mainstream. And so importantly advanced science it garnered a Nobel. Wow!

Last edited by BrianK on 19-May-2012 at 03:50 AM.

@BrianK

Well, it's a common misunderstanding that a Nobel is awarded for "best work of the year", whereas it commonly is given many years after an important discovery simply because it might be more important than something that happened this year it was still less important than something that happened last year.

_________________
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.

@olegil

Quote:

Well, it's a common misunderstanding that a Nobel is awarded for "best work of the year", whereas it commonly is given many years after an important discovery simply because it might be more important than something that happened this year it was still less important than something that happened last year.

Thanks for the reply.
Not only does the Nobel team need time to compare they want to ensure the science is replicated, validated, and verifiable.

@Lou

I found a good graphic demonstrating how science works.
http://i.imgur.com/bktwQ.png

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: My article says that in 1981 when that guy discovered them, "mainstream" rejected him and practically forced him out of science. Repeatedly you've tried to tell us science accepts all ideas as true until demonstrated false. It's been explained to you a number of times that your idea is completely wrong. I'm glad you've provided an example that your idea is indeed wrong. Science is a highly skeptical endeavor. At all times with every thing we must hold a skepetical view. Indeed the 'mainstream' science has been built this way through the eons. Preponderance of evidence is the winner for the time until a greater preponderance of evidence exists. The result is science works better than any other single method humans have ever developed! That, my friend, is hugely important and is what has pushed humans exploratory nature far beyond your Country, your Continent, your planet, and your solar system. Step back a couple of posts and reread that I did say be careful on how you present this. This article clearly demonstrated the idea of quasi-crystals is mainstream. And so importantly advanced science it garnered a Nobel. Wow!

Actually BrianK, I've told you many times that you use the term 'science' to mean different things.

He was correct in 1981. As is the norm, when a radical discovery is made, it is rejected. And as I've always said, roughly 30 years later it is found to be true and accepted.

Perhaps it is you who needs a lesson in how "science" really works...

@Lou

Quote:

He was correct in 1981. As is the norm, when a radical discovery is made, it is rejected.

Yes his model was correct, but he had insufficient evidence at the time to gain universal acceptance. If the standard model for scientific acceptance was "Its absolutely true until proven beyond all logical doubt to be false" as you keep proposing, we would still be investigating the properties of phlogiston. It is for precisely this reason the assumption is "False until proven better than current". This way we do not spend an eternity chasing stupid ideas like those proposed by Haramein et. al.

We tried it the other way, and wound up with things like the Inquisition, enforcing the word of the prophets. Is that what you really want?

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

@Lou

Quote:

Actually BrianK, I've told you many times that you use the term 'science' to mean different things.

OK - how about explaining what different ways you believe it is being used that may be causing you confusion.

Quote:

He was correct in 1981. As is the norm, when a radical discovery is made, it is rejected.

Review this. http://i.imgur.com/bktwQ.png .. 1982 the discovery was the first image but a single dot. What science then does is verifies, replicates, duplicates, and conducts more experiments to verify the accuracy and correctness of that single dot. It does take time to do this. After a decade or two what resulted is something akin to the last picture. The idea then entered 'mainstream science' as scientists made a couple hundred quasi-crystals and did an extremely exhaustive search to find naturally occurring elements.

Quote:

And as I've always said, roughly 30 years later it is found to be true and accepted.

While acceptance was not immediate. Never should be by the way. It does happen over time. What occurred is the 1982 discovery stimulated researchers to attack this area of science. By the late 80s we see articles commenting on how quasi crystals complete the definition of a crystal. Then in 1992 "the International Union of Crystallography changed the official definition of the crystal to incorporate Shechtman's discovery". http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/38846/ . That was a 1 decade not three. And we see in 1998 the first consumer grade product was announced - a quasi-crystal non-stick frying pan. http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/mist131098.html . That was 2 decades, again not 3. Your timing is off.

One of the large problems I see in your belief system is you seem to think that being rejected automatically means those rejected are certainly right. You've certainly pushed lots of work of an unproven nature here claiming they've proven (as the book says) 'Life the Universe and Everything'. When at best they're barely a single dot. (http://i.imgur.com/bktwQ.png)

Last edited by BrianK on 21-May-2012 at 03:38 AM.
Last edited by BrianK on 21-May-2012 at 03:34 AM.