@Lou

Again, mistaking theory for hypothesis.

_________________
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.

What you fail to realize is that the black hole jet theory is the circle.
It would be one thing if there were holes like the theories you people worship as facts but the theories I have presented reproduce the observable part of your swiss cheese theories, but with out the holes.

Basically, you had a few scientists make a bunch of theories in the early part of the 20th century when scientists were few and you worship them despite the fact that other people have gone beyond them who have benefited from better tools and finer data. After all its only been within the last 20 years that we've been able to map space with other frequencies than visible light...

@Amiboy

Thanks AmiBoy. Great show!

@Lou

Quote:

It would be one thing if there were holes like the theories you people worship as facts but the theories I have presented reproduce the observable part of your swiss cheese theories, but with out the holes.

At best your theories move the holes about. They claim things aren't true such as atoms are really black holes and weights of atoms of hugely out of alignment with reality. Not only that but some of the maths have been fairly demonstrated by Nimrod to be highly questionable. In the end what the 'theories' you present do lack is they are more lacking on the preponderance of evidence. I think we've more then driven that point home as has your lack of presentation of the evidence.

Quote:

the fact that other people have gone beyond them who have benefited from better tools and finer data

You have greatly failed in demonstrating this benefit. For example we have nothing that uses endless energy as Haramein would have us believe. Until you can demonstrate actual tools and actual prodcuts being manufactured that provide us this benefit, 'of fact', your claim is fraudlent.

In short EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE - your restatements of postulates are not EVIDENCE you appear unable to grasp this concept.

Last edited by BrianK on 24-May-2012 at 03:53 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: It would be one thing if there were holes like the theories you people worship as facts but the theories I have presented reproduce the observable part of your swiss cheese theories, but with out the holes. At best your theories move the holes about. They claim things aren't true such as atoms are really black holes and weights of atoms of hugely out of alignment with reality. Not only that but some of the maths have been fairly demonstrated by Nimrod to be highly questionable. In the end what the 'theories' you present do lack is they are more lacking on the preponderance of evidence. I think we've more then driven that point home as has your lack of presentation of the evidence. Quote: the fact that other people have gone beyond them who have benefited from better tools and finer data You have greatly failed in demonstrating this benefit. For example we have nothing that uses endless energy as Haramein would have us believe. Until you can demonstrate actual tools and actual prodcuts being manufactured that provide us this benefit, 'of fact', your claim is fraudlent. In short EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE - your restatements of postulates are not EVIDENCE you appear unable to grasp this concept.

Hey, BrianK, can you show me how the Big Bang Theory can be tested?
I mean after all, we need EVIDENCE EVIDENCE EVIDENCE!

@Lou

Quote:

Hey, BrianK, can you show me how the Big Bang Theory can be tested? I mean after all, we need EVIDENCE EVIDENCE EVIDENCE!

Quite right Lou, we do need to test the theory. As a result, despite your claims to the contrary, there are many scientists who are looking for evidence to either prove or disprove aspects of this theory. The main problem is that the big bang theory is not as flawed as some other "theories" that have been expounded on these pages, and cannot be broken by a geriatric engineer using a pencil and a sheet of A4. Of course sooner or later more and more information will become available, and the facts (what ever they actually are) will be known, and the books will be updated.

It's called progress.

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

@Nimrod.

Good answer. Though in your final statement I'd like to add that progress is indeed science.

@Lou
How do we test the Big Bang Theory? Let's make it more general. How do we test any Theory? A Theory is composed of a set of both known elements and unknown elements. Scientists create and conduct experiments which continually check our known elements. Scientists also create and conduct experiments to continually work on those unknowns. It's through this continual testing of all elements within any theory that we continue our progress in knowledge. The results of this may be support of the current theory or even creation of a theory that's even better than what existed before.

Here's a couple of Big Bang Theory examples which have been tested".
* The Universe was once postulated to be a steady state element. At the same time an expanding universe was postulated to exist from a singularity. When we did experiments to measure elements in space with more than just our eyes (as you indicated) what we found is a universe that was not static but expanding. That particular construct helped to discard the steady state model because the evidence was against that particular Theory.
* Another item that was an untested postulate for the Big Bang Theory was that such an event would leave a certain quotent of background radiation. When we built the microwave technology that was sensitive enough in this nature it turned out the predictions aligned with the Evidence. When such a thing happens we consider the predictions are more then likely accurate, as they aligned with reality.
..As it turns out the Big Bang Model aligns very nicely from about 10^-32 seconds after the event until today. That's an iota short of 100% of all time and scientists know this and continue to work on those elements in hopes we can get to 100%. As you mentioned there's selfishness in science. And it works to good, too, as these selfish people desire to be the first to know and get their names in the annuals of history. We call them scientists!


I think you can note we did similar things to Haramein's Theories. We took his postulate that Atoms are really black holes and when reality is examined his postulates are out of alignment with reality. We took his postulates on elemental weights and weighed such elements. Again his postulates were out of alignment with reality. And heck even Haramein knew he was out of alignment with reality and promised us some future paper to solve it all. We're waiting with baited breath and will, test this too. Why? EVIDENCE is King.

Last edited by BrianK on 24-May-2012 at 09:55 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Nimrod. Good answer. Though in your final statement I'd like to add that progress is indeed science. @Lou How do we test the Big Bang Theory? Let's make it more general. How do we test any Theory? A Theory is composed of a set of both known elements and unknown elements. Scientists create and conduct experiments which continually check our known elements. Scientists also create and conduct experiments to continually work on those unknowns. It's through this continual testing of all elements within any theory that we continue our progress in knowledge. The results of this may be support of the current theory or even creation of a theory that's even better than what existed before. Here's a couple of Big Bang Theory examples which have been tested". * The Universe was once postulated to be a steady state element. At the same time an expanding universe was postulated to exist from a singularity. When we did experiments to measure elements in space with more than just our eyes (as you indicated) what we found is a universe that was not static but expanding. That particular construct helped to discard the steady state model because the evidence was against that particular Theory. * Another item that was an untested postulate for the Big Bang Theory was that such an event would leave a certain quotent of background radiation. When we built the microwave technology that was sensitive enough in this nature it turned out the predictions aligned with the Evidence. When such a thing happens we consider the predictions are more then likely accurate, as they aligned with reality. ..As it turns out the Big Bang Model aligns very nicely from about 10^-32 seconds after the event until today. That's an iota short of 100% of all time and scientists know this and continue to work on those elements in hopes we can get to 100%. As you mentioned there's selfishness in science. And it works to good, too, as these selfish people desire to be the first to know and get their names in the annuals of history. We call them scientists! I think you can note we did similar things to Haramein's Theories. We took his postulate that Atoms are really black holes and when reality is examined his postulates are out of alignment with reality. We took his postulates on elemental weights and weighed such elements. Again his postulates were out of alignment with reality. And heck even Haramein knew he was out of alignment with reality and promised us some future paper to solve it all. We're waiting with baited breath and will, test this too. Why? EVIDENCE is King.

And in your mostly empty answer, everything there can also apply to the black hole jet theory proposed by more modern scientist who have better understanding of what a black hole is. Recall, when the big bang theory was concockted, black holes were believed to emit nothing...

Last edited by Lou on 25-May-2012 at 06:01 AM.
Last edited by Lou on 25-May-2012 at 05:59 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

And in your mostly empty answer, everything there can also apply to the black hole jet theory proposed by more modern scientist who have better understanding of what a black hole is. Recall, when the big bang theory was concockted, black holes were believed to emit nothing...

What will happen is if the Black Hole Theory has the preponderance of evidence it'll topple the Big Bang Theory. At present, building the better mousetrap is underconstruction. Don't forget there are other multiverse theories which need evidencing too.

There may be even something bigger at work here. Co-existence of both theories. What if there's a singularity (Big Bang) which creates the prefect conditions in the universe to create a multiverse (Black Hole)? Great postulate and needs to be evidenced.

As always I'm open to new postulates and evidencing them against reality to understand how they speak to truth.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120524215341.htm

Who was it that said light/EM doesn't push?

They can pull too:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120524134527.htm

Quote:

Based on pioneering work by Albert Einstein and Max Planck more than a hundred years ago, it is known that light carries momentum that pushes objects away.

Last edited by Lou on 25-May-2012 at 05:31 PM.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120523101843.htm
ZOMG! Quadrillions of Niburus!

+1 in weight to the theory of an invader planet(s) passing thru our star system at some point and wreaking havok on tilts, etc..

@Lou

Quote:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120524215341.htm Who was it that said light/EM doesn't push?

Despite your protestations to the contrary, nobody has made that claim.
Now look at the maths to find out how hard light can push. It has taken twelve years for the power of light to divert this object 300 metres from the location it would have otherwise occupied. The following quote from the article that you linked to sums it up nicely. Quote:

The Yarkovsky force on 1999 RQ36 at its peak, when the asteroid is nearest the sun, is only about a half ounce -- about the weight of three grapes on Earth. Meanwhile, the mass of the asteroid is estimated to be about 68 million tons. You need extremely precise measurements over a fairly long time span to see something so slight acting on something so huge.

Half an ounce equals 0.0141747616kg which equals 0.00000000002% of the mass of the asteroid, and that is the maximum value. Feel free to compare that level of precision with the error of 1.5% introduced by Haramein in a single equation during his presentation that supposedly solves all of the problems in the universe. Actually the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything is 42.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120524215341.htm Who was it that said light/EM doesn't push? Despite your protestations to the contrary, nobody has made that claim. Now look at the maths to find out how hard light can push. It has taken twelve years for the power of light to divert this object 300 metres from the location it would have otherwise occupied. The following quote from the article that you linked to sums it up nicely. Quote: The Yarkovsky force on 1999 RQ36 at its peak, when the asteroid is nearest the sun, is only about a half ounce -- about the weight of three grapes on Earth. Meanwhile, the mass of the asteroid is estimated to be about 68 million tons. You need extremely precise measurements over a fairly long time span to see something so slight acting on something so huge. Half an ounce equals 0.0141747616kg which equals 0.00000000002% of the mass of the asteroid, and that is the maximum value. Feel free to compare that level of precision with the error of 1.5% introduced by Haramein in a single equation during his presentation that supposedly solves all of the problems in the universe. Actually the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything is 42.

See, this is you talking out your hind-side again.
It was claimed by you that light didn't have mass, but magically has energy...which is impossible since they are the same.

Secondly, you are throwing in an unrelated topic to make you seem smart, so just stop it. Where did I mention Nassim Haramein in my original post?

What this alludes to is why galaxies that are too far apart to significantly be affected by the "gravity" can still push themselves apart by throwing light at each other as I tried to explain to you 10's of pages ago when I first introduced the conecept of radiation pressure as an explanation for gravity...

Furthermore, I'm glad you are such a math scholar...now do some math:
despite the fact that
Quote:

the asteroid is estimated to be about 68 million tons

Quote:

the asteroid has deviated from its gravity-ruled orbit by roughly 100 miles, or 160 kilometers, in the last 12 years

...now instead of 12 years, take into account 13.7 billion years...
Gee...from only 1 source of light, things can move pretty far apart, eh?

@Lou

Quote:

It was claimed by you that light didn't have mass, but magically has energy...which is impossible since they are the same.

You keep making the mistake of assuming that the mass/energy equivalence is 1 Joule of energy = 1 tonne of mass. The equation that converts mass to energy, or vice versa is the one that Albert made famous. Remember the good old E=MC2, where c = 2.99 x 10^8. (not 1.049 x 10^6)
Despite your lies to the contrary I am also aware that even light cannot escape from inside the event horizon of a black hole. Add to that the fact that I have frequently referreed to the fact of gravitational lensing, and it can be seen that I am aware of the fact that the energy of light has a mass equivalence, but unlike some, I am also aware of what that equivalence is.

You think that 300 metres in 12 years is a lot do you know how far the planet Earth has travelled in the same time? due to gravity

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

@lou

Quote:

What this alludes to is why galaxies that are too far apart to significantly be affected by the "gravity" can still push themselves apart by throwing light at each other as I tried to explain to you 10's of pages ago when I first introduced the conecept of radiation pressure as an explanation for gravity...

Because both forces radiate by the same relationship, the inverse square law, this would only be true for those objects whose initial EM force is > initial Gravational force. Our Sun, for example, would be an exception to your statement because it's gravitational force is greater than it's EM force.

Last edited by BrianK on 26-May-2012 at 03:22 AM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: It was claimed by you that light didn't have mass, but magically has energy...which is impossible since they are the same. You keep making the mistake of assuming that the mass/energy equivalence is 1 Joule of energy = 1 tonne of mass. The equation that converts mass to energy, or vice versa is the one that Albert made famous. Remember the good old E=MC2, where c = 2.99 x 10^8. (not 1.049 x 10^6) Despite your lies to the contrary I am also aware that even light cannot escape from inside the event horizon of a black hole. Add to that the fact that I have frequently referreed to the fact of gravitational lensing, and it can be seen that I am aware of the fact that the energy of light has a mass equivalence, but unlike some, I am also aware of what that equivalence is. You think that 300 metres in 12 years is a lot do you know how far the planet Earth has travelled in the same time? due to gravity

Nimrod, show me where I equated 1 Joule to anything.

While your at it, since said asteroid is in orbit, what is the force of gravity on it from the sun?

@BrianK

If light propagates thru space without slowing down, why would its momentum change with distance?

You are wrong. At this close distance, it doesn't radiate enough to overcome the shadowing or radiation pressure[/graviational effect] behind it.

@Lou

Quote:

If light propagates thru space without slowing down, why would its momentum change with distance?

Well. Duh. You can sum up momentum over many photons but trying to sum up the velocity of a large number of photons won't do you much good.

_________________
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.

@Lou

Quote:

If light propagates thru space without slowing down, why would its momentum change with distance?

Here's a simple experiment - turn on the light next to you and you clearly will observe the strength of light decreases by the ratio of 1/ distance squared.

Think of the waves of your light emitting source. They are released at the same direction all at once. If we could take a static image, like a picture, the wave would form a sphere around the emitting source. The wave expands equidistantly in all directions. Sometime later we take a second static image. The second image's sphere is larger than the first images because the wave has expanded during it's travel. Initally we had force X from a point. As it grew into a sphere we then had the same force, X, over the area of a sphere (4*pi*radius*radius is the formula for area of the sphere). So if the 2nd sphere is twice the distance the force per surface area is reduced by 1/radius*radius or 1/2*2 or 1/4. So the inverse square law dictates how the power is reduced as the energy travels.

But, if you really believe the inverse square law to be wrong then so is every single astronomical distance we've ever measured. As the inverse square law figures prominently on how we calculate distances.

Last edited by BrianK on 27-May-2012 at 12:07 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

Nimrod, show me where I equated 1 Joule to anything.

I can't because you have never had either the intellectual integrity, or the mathematical ability to do anything other than make ridiculous unsupported assertions. What you have done in every single one of your baseless assertions is assume that because a force exists, it absolutely must be the dominant force because Lou says so. What I have tried to let you know is that I am aware of not only the existence of these forces, but also their magnitude.

Quote:

While your at it, since said asteroid is in orbit, what is the force of gravity on it from the sun?

At any point in its orbit the gravitational attraction can be calculated using the rule of thumb formula devised by Newton. You do remember F=G((m1 x m2)/r^2) don't you? I am aware that Newton's law has since been superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity. Relativity is required only when there is a need for extreme precision, or when dealing with gravitation for extremely massive and dense objects. Relativity was used to perform the calculations because the radiation pressure force they were measuring was so minuscule. On the subject of precision, and in response to an earlier question of yours "Where did I mention Nassim Haramein in my original post?" I do not require your permission to point out the differences in accuracy and precision between one of your heroes and real scientists, and Harameins "nearly right" is just another way of saying wrong.

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