@MikeB

Quote:

Japanese universities discovered 10 Jupiter-like planets in 18 months, floating far away from nearby stars: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCouuQqfalU

Thanks for the valid evidence by using Gravity! (See my post 188)

@Nimrod

Thanks for the alternative name for 'Telephone'. Here's the Wiki page on the communication game. Various languages appear to have a version and they all, not surprisingly, demonstrate how easily corruptible a message is from it's original version.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Electromagnetic waves can bend light through an indirect, quantum effect—but to such a tiny degree that we cannot measure it. but to such a tiny degree that we cannot measure it. Have I ever used the term "Orders of magnitude" before.

This is the problem with computations involving gravity which summarizes a large celestial object into 1 point-mass vs. EM spacial effects.
That tiny bit adds up as it approachs a large body with an EM field and passes it.

You simply attribute it to "gravity". So gravity is a side-effect and light bending is a side-effect. This doesn't mean that gravity is what bends light because gravity's mythical wave has yet to be measured where as EM can be measured.

It's like leaving a tooth under your pillow for the tooth-fairy for a quarter or finding christmas presents under the tree. We know someone must have put them there hence Santa Claus must be real. This is science when it comes to talking about gravity. Yes it was a person that left the quarter under the pillow and presents under the tree, but that person was your dad, not some mythical person.

All "estimates" involving gravity are simply calculations of a side-effect which is proportional to another force. If that other force increases, so do it's side-effects.

Quote:

Quote: 1. Base your conclusions on the evidence. Not vice versa. 2. Measure objectively, not guess selectively. 3. Back up statements with evidence. Claiming something to be a fact does not make it a fact. 4. Use large sample numbers for statistical analysis. 5. Use blind sampling for tests 6. Tests must include control groups. 7. Cite your sources of information. 8. Sources must be reliable, verifiable, and backed with evidence. 9. Opinion is not fact 10. No false evidence.(don't cheat) Item 7 would help, then I can check the validity of item 8 Also "Norbert Dragon". Would that be the same Norbert Dragon who was an associate of Rubeus Hagrid?

But gravity has failed to be repeatable outside of this star system. Hence gravity doesn't meet this criteria. I told everyone from the beginning it's a special case scenerio and just an estimate at that with room for error. All deep space satellite have exhibitted error in their originally calculated tradjectories, some do have rockets to put them back on course. Solar System-based gravity calculations have failed to predict the orbits of other star systems without making up the difference with dark matter...which no one has ever seen.

You might as well call 'dark matter' Santa Claus. This is your science.

1) gravity is EPIC FAIL outside of the known constants in our star system
2) it can't be measured directly, that's another reason why it's epic fail
3) no one has found a gravity wave
4) pick any star system in the galaxy, do the math = epic fail hence dark matter is invented
5) repeat #4 for any other random star system same EPIC FAIL
6) plenty of scientists have done the math, it's still EPIC FAIL
7) too many to list
8) sources are your own acredited scientists
9) it's a fact, gravity is EPIC FAIL outside of this star system, this is not an opinion
10) it's your own evidence you just refuse to accept that it is epic fail

There you go, I followed the scientific method and I conclude that gravity is EPIC FAIL.

@Nimrod

Quote:

unqualified moron

He was the best qualified person on earth and a very thoughtful talented individual. Please, stop it.

Option 1 (with a wink from Mr Einstein): Universal gravity bending "space-time" and thus light?

Or option 2: The magnetic heliosphere bending electromagnetic waves (such as light)?

Lou and MikeB go for option 2 despite having been through taught control at school.

BrianK, Nimrod and T_J stick to what they were taught. Is this correct for all 3 of you or does anyone of you have a reservation that option 2 could possibly be true or at least closer to the truth?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Gravitational_lens-full.jpg

Last edited by MikeB on 23-May-2011 at 10:49 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

But gravity has failed to be repeatable outside of this star system.

No it hasn't. In fact Gravity Microlensing effects have been found to find non-luminous objects. MikeB made the post even indicating 10 jupiter sized objects have been found not in a solar system. This is a demonstration that Gravity was usable outside our star system and into the universe at large.

Quote:

All deep space satellite have exhibitted error in their originally calculated tradjectories

And as demonstrated the WHY there was minor trajectory issues has yet to be determined. In the case of Pioneer it appears unaccounted for thermal effects do an excellent job at accounting for the minor trajectory issue. For example, if this is shown true then gravity incorrectness can't be the answer.

You still don't seem to understand valid evidence is required for proof. While it's true deep space satellite have minute trajectory issues it is unproven that it's due to some inconsistent application of gravity. You're assuming a cause and claiming it's true.

Quote:

You might as well call 'dark matter' Santa Claus

You appear to not understand the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory. This is true not only in respect to Dark Matter but in your promotion of EM. I've given you other hypothesis that do not require Dark Matter. What we need is valid evidence to determine which hypothesis is correct. (Tell me you're surprised.)

BTW - one reason the HYPOTHESIS of Dark Matter is due to the relation of the mass based on visual objects at the time and the relation to the visual universe. The mass we knew of were luminous objects. Since the origination of the hypothesis we've found non-luminous objects as planets around luminous objects (as shown as a dark spot) and as stand alone planets (see MikeB's post of Gravity found Jupiter sized objects). So, some of the reason for Dark Matter may be decreased. Being as Dark Matter is not a necessary condition for the existence of Gravity if we find out a different hypothesis is correct it simply removes Dark Matter it doesn't break gravity.

@MikeB

Quote:

Quote: unqualified moron He was the best qualified person on earth and a very thoughtful talented individual. Please, stop it.

The key word here is WAS. Since that time he's been proven to be a poor science fiction author exploiting a dead society for his own ill-gotten gains.

Last edited by BrianK on 23-May-2011 at 10:33 PM.

@Lou
When you can show me how a magnet can move a sample of PVC without making physical contact, I will accept that you may have a clue as to what you are talking about.
As you have frequently been told. If you want to replace the current theories, give us a better theory. Demonstrate that your theory can produce better results.
The differences in field strengths between EM and gravity is like claiming that a fog bank is an effective physical barrier capable of blocking a battle tank. The key term is "Orders of Magnitude"

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

@MikeB

Quote:

Option 1 (with a wink from Mr Einstein): Universal gravity bending "space-time" and thus light? Or option 2: The magnetic heliosphere bending eltromagnetic waves (such as light)? Lou and MikeB go for option 2 despite having been through taught control at school

I think there's an experiment you can conduct with your image in mind. The sun has a magnetic field. The diagram you provided is clearly not the bend of a magnetic field. You've provided us the field lines for a dipole magnet they aren't perfectly circular all the way round. In doing the field lines they were done by the use of metal shavings. The shavings were attracted differently depending on proximity to the poles. At the poles they were closer together. At the center they were farther apart.

If light is attracted by a dipole magnetic sun we should therefore see the same sort of action. It's attracted differently at the median compared to a pole.

So I think this experiment would work for you. (See how we are we're so open to you being right we'll even help you build lines of evidence.) Get a satellite to get take a movie of the sun. Keep the satellite an equal distance away from the sun. Fly from North pole to South pole and fly around the equator. Now measure the light bending of various stars. Every time you get closer to the poles all the stars light should have a consistent and different effect than they do at the equator.

What you want to determine is the effect constant around the sun or does the bend react like field lines with more or less bends depending upon proximity to a pole. If the reaction is constant (as it is in the above diagram) then it cannot be dipole magnetic related.

Thoughts?

@Nimrod

Quote:

can move a sample of PVC without making physical contact

Do you agree that every atom contains electric charged particles which determines its electromagnetic force and interaction?

@MikeB

Zecharia Sitchin had as many relevant qualifications as a translator as I have. Precisely none. He also had zero talent. He is one of the few people on this earth who managed to write science fiction even worse than the works of L. Ron Hubbard. (Yes I have read Hubbard, and No I am not a follower of his cult)

Quote:

BrianK, Nimrod and T_J stick to what they were taught.

I predate the electronic calculator, the Programmable Logic Controller, the desktop computer, and the industrial robot. If I stuck to what I was supposed to at secondary school I would have been a priest. When I built my first computer I had to start by drilling and etching a copper coated srbp board. I am not a victim of thought control (or even taught control, hmm sounds vaguely Irish)I simply understand basic mathematical principles like magnitude. Yes EM exists but No it is not predominant.
James McCanney started this EM universe hogwash and lost his job as a result. Conspiracy theorists claim it's because "the establishment" is jealous of his genius, and cannot see that he lost his job because he had lost the plot.

Last edited by Nimrod on 23-May-2011 at 11:25 PM.

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

@BrianK

What happens when an electron and photon (light) come to close to each other?







http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ddqtkOiADuo/TGoXmi-bT0I/AAAAAAAAFqI/AvAaFZCUCT8/s1600/IBEX-ENA-Feature-FInal-Fig3.jpg

Last edited by MikeB on 23-May-2011 at 11:17 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 23-May-2011 at 11:11 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Do you agree that every atom contains electric charged particles which determines its electromagnetic force and interaction?

And do you understand that every molecule of PVC is a closed system in which all charges are cancelled out, leaving no spare charge carrying particles (electrons) making PVC an electrical insulating material. Despite being in close proximity to electromagnetic fields PVC does not become magnetised. The same applies to the rubber that used to be used as an electrical cable insulator in the good old days, and the ceramic insulators used on 400kV electrical distribution grids. Besides all you need to do is try.

Last edited by Nimrod on 23-May-2011 at 11:34 PM.

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

@Lou

Quote:

So the reality is as much as I can't be proven right, I can't be proven wrong.

So, you've finally come to see the real truth, then? You now accept that You created the Universe Last Thursday? You can't prove that wrong, either.

Quote:

ctromagnetic waves can bend light through an indirect, quantum effect—but to such a tiny degree that we cannot measure it. This quantum effect (called Delbrück scattering) "is a process where, for a short time, the photon disintegrates into an electron and positron pair," says Norbert Dragon, physicist at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Hanover, Germany. The charged pair interacts with an EM wave and then recombines into the photon with a changed direction. Thus, the EM wave bends the light.

What's that, another block of text lifted from CreationWiki?

No, I put it into google and found a chain of links to a scientific Q&A. Where I found the following gem:

Quote:

Electromagnetic (EM) waves cannot interact directly with light photons since photons have no charge. EM waves do not bend light, at least enough that we can measure. If radio waves, for example, bent light appreciably then a transmitting radio station would look blurry. But stations don’t go blurry.

So, sorry, EM does not affect light in a significant way. Certainly, its impact is many orders of magnitude less than the effect of gravity.

Therefore, gravitational lensing is the preferred hypothesis for why light bends due to the presence of mass and therefore your theory is rejected.

No thought control, no educational programming. Just a distinct lack of evidence for your hypothesis.

Last edited by T-J on 24-May-2011 at 12:30 AM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Like it or not, we live in a magnetically driven universe with repulsive (,neutral) and attractive forces. I can (as I have) present you a model of a working universe, modern science does not

But you haven't presented us with a model of the universe backed up by the evidence. You cannot escape from the fact that the directly observed effect of magnetism on light is orders of magnitude too small to explain what we see due to the planets and other stars or galaxies. And you still haven't presented us with any evidence that actually contradicts modern science in any way.


Quote:

Thor is a Germanic hearsay figure. It may be related to the Greek god Zeus. Zeus is the Greek version of the Sumerian "god" Anu, the (former) king of Nibiru. But Thor being Zeus is speculation.

Why is Thor a mere 'Germanic hearsay figure', while this 'Anu' fellow is somehow historic fact?

There's just as much documentary evidence supporting the existence of Thor as there is of 'Anu', if not more. So why not speculate about Thor, the (former) king of Midgard?

Do you not accept that the myths and stories of the Norse are equally (in)valid as the myths and stories of the Sumerians?

Quote:

He was the best qualified person on earth and a very thoughtful talented individual. Please, stop it.

He had no background in science and his translations were shown to be fake, repeatedly. His notable talent was in selling books to the gullible. Please, your attempting to defend Sitchin to us is like someone trying to defend Bernie Madoff or Charles Ponzi to the Financial Services Authority.

Quote:

BrianK, Nimrod and T_J stick to what they were taught. Is this correct for all 3 of you or does anyone of you have a reservation that option 2 could possibly be true or at least closer to the truth?

We have all looked at the evidence for your hypothesis. Option 2 simply doesn't have any evidence. It fails to provide a mathematical model that better describes the Universe than our current one. In fact, both you and Lou have failed to provide a single sum, equation or independent observation that serves to support your view.

Therefore, BrianK, Nimrod and I, as sane, rational users of the scientific method, have no option but to reject Option 2 and stick with Option 1. Until of course a better mathematical model comes along. You want a Nobel Prize? Formulate that model, demonstrate its superiority and you'll be dining out on it forever.


And I shall close with the by-now traditional request - could you please address the geological evidence presented against your hypothesis in post 172?

Last edited by T-J on 24-May-2011 at 12:36 AM.

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote: @Lou Quote: So the reality is as much as I can't be proven right, I can't be proven wrong. So, you've finally come to see the real truth, then? You now accept that You created the Universe Last Thursday? You can't prove that wrong, either. Quote: ctromagnetic waves can bend light through an indirect, quantum effect—but to such a tiny degree that we cannot measure it. This quantum effect (called Delbrück scattering) "is a process where, for a short time, the photon disintegrates into an electron and positron pair," says Norbert Dragon, physicist at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Hanover, Germany. The charged pair interacts with an EM wave and then recombines into the photon with a changed direction. Thus, the EM wave bends the light. What's that, another block of text lifted from CreationWiki? No, I put it into google and found a chain of links to a scientific Q&A. Where I found the following gem: Quote: Electromagnetic (EM) waves cannot interact directly with light photons since photons have no charge. EM waves do not bend light, at least enough that we can measure. If radio waves, for example, bent light appreciably then a transmitting radio station would look blurry. But stations don’t go blurry. So, sorry, EM does not affect light in a significant way. Certainly, its impact is many orders of magnitude less than the effect of gravity. Therefore, gravitational lensing is the preferred hypothesis for why light bends due to the presence of mass and therefore your theory is rejected.

Actually, until you can measure or emit a gravity wave with an instrument, you have offered no proof that it is gravity that bends light.

All you are doing is seeing an effect and attempting to put a theory behind it that is unproven.

All your math is on the assumption that gravity is a real force which then drives other mathematics.
EM is reproducable, gravity is not.
EM has been shown to split a photon temporarily enough to bend it's path, gravity has not. Light has been observed to bend around large celestial objects and the ASSUMPTION is gravity that caused it. There is no proof.

Two cars race in the quarter mile. They launch at the same time and finish at the same time. Which car produced/consumed more power getting there?

If I go to the beach and I see a nothing but sand and water then come back later and find an empty beer can in the sand. It's logical fallacy, as BrianK likes to call it, to assume the tide washed it in. It could have easily have been left there by another visitor to the beach. This is the assumption everyone takes with gravity. They see an effect, they assume the cause.

Last edited by Lou on 24-May-2011 at 01:10 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

EM is reproducable, gravity is not.

EM produces an imperceptibly small fraction of the total observed effect. It is orders of magnitude too weak to be the governing force. Your own sources state this. Independent experiment shows this. Why can you not accept this?

Therefore we reject your 'EM-only' hypothesis and build theories based on our observations to explain the behaviour of the universe, the effect of mass on light and so on.

Your requirement for proof of a gravity wave before you'll accept gravity makes no difference to the fact that electromagnetism can't explain anything.

You think it can? OK. Prove it. Give us a walkthrough of *your* maths that you understand the universe with.

Last edited by T-J on 24-May-2011 at 01:48 AM.
Last edited by T-J on 24-May-2011 at 01:39 AM.

@MikeB

Quote:

What happens when an electron and photon (light) come to close to each other?

I'm assuming this is a response to my question about how to test if EM from a massive body, like the sun, can bend light? Do you contend the Sun is a big electron and photons will therefore react the same way? (Sorry guessing what you're trying to say here it's unclear.)

Your picture of the earth as a dipole is fairly good for my question. Instead it's the sun, same dipole effect should bend light in different way.

The answer to when a photon hits an electron depends upon the energy in an electron it might just vibrate more, or it could jump a level, or the electron might be freed. For example an atom of higher atomic value needs more energy transmitted from the photon to free an electron than an atom of lower atomic value. So the answer here is really, it depends.

@Lou

Quote:

Actually, until you can measure or emit a gravity wave with an instrument, you have offered no proof that it is gravity that bends light.

Mass tells spacetime how to curve. Spacetime tells mass how to move. This is gravity. A moving mass should, as hypothesised, transmit a gravity wave.

Gravity wave formulas predict the interactions of binary systems. And they do it to a very high level of certainity. At this time there is no formula that does the job better. Therefore there is indirect observational evidence that gravity waves may exist. Doesn't mean a better one can't come along and we've welcomed you and Mike to bring a formula for any part of your swag but alas you've not produced one testable hypothesis.

Again Tu Quoque doesn't work. If you want to disprove gravity that's all cool. Though doing so does not immediately promote EM to the answer . Ya still gotta Do the Math.

Quote:

All your math is on the assumption that gravity is a real force which then drives other mathematics.

And the great thing about formulas is if they're wrong they will produce incorrect results. OMFSM say it isn't so. This is why Einstein's Gravity is accepted over Newton. Einstein can produce more accurate results more frequently. The big planet sized hole in gravity, aka Vulcan, doesn't exist in Einstein. Though there's some problems here on the quantum level. Again without a testable hypothesis we can't even get your EM guess off the ground. (Pun not intended but hey it was good so I'll leave it in..)

Quote:

EM is reproducable, gravity is not.

F=ma when a is g it's 9.8m/s/s and when we accelerate a spaceship to 9.8 m/s/s we get the same forces measured as it would be on earth. So yeah we can induce gravity. Oh and of course when we accelerate more than 9.8 m/s/s it's pretty cool as it put a man on the moon. There was no EM change of the Atlas Rocket so valid observational evidence is against EM.And not so amazingly a highly magnetic object and an non-magnetic object fall at the same rate. There's no discernable difference due to charge.

Last edited by BrianK on 24-May-2011 at 02:55 AM.
Last edited by BrianK on 24-May-2011 at 02:53 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: EM is reproducable, gravity is not. F=ma when a is g it's 9.8m/s/s and when we accelerate a spaceship to 9.8 m/s/s we get the same forces measured as it would be on earth. So yeah we can induce gravity. Oh and of course when we accelerate more than 9.8 m/s/s it's pretty cool as it put a man on the moon. There was no EM change of the Atlas Rocket so valid observational evidence is against EM.And not so amazingly a highly magnetic object and an non-magnetic object fall at the same rate. There's no discernable difference due to charge.

Actually you are completely wrong.
Chemical rockets got us to the moon. Chemical reactions are induced by heat. Chemical reactions involve the flow of electrons. Heat can affect EM fields and vice-versa. So it's more correct to say that EM powered rockets into space not gravity.
Extreme heat induced a reaction that caused a great force.

What do you suppose causes spark plugs to fire in a car engine, is it gravity?

Can you see how your views are ignorant about how powerful EM can be?

PS,
You noticed heat bends light, right?

Last edited by Lou on 24-May-2011 at 04:17 AM.