@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Funny, thats about the same margin of error in the age of the universe... So basically you are telling me that there is no difference between the sum total of all potential indirect measurement errors involved in a long and complicated sequence of calculations, and the inability of an individual to perform a simgle iteration of an arithmetical resolution of an equation. Once upon a time in the dim and distant past (Sept 2011) a group of people measured the time and distance of the journey of some neutrinos, and introduced an error of 0.0025%. The result of this error was that neutrinos appeared to be travelling in excess of the local speed limit. In science, as in engineering, accuracy is important, and errors are not casually swept under the carpet in the manner that you have just done so. You recently linked to an article about the effect of solar radiation pressure on an asteroid, but seem unaware that the accuracy required to detect the influence of 14g of pressure on an estimated mass of 68,000,000,000,000g. Harameins level of accuracy would have failed to find the asteroid, let alone notice the effect of radiation pressure on it. Having cited two examples of the importance of accuracy I will repeat the question that you are running away from. Would Harameins attempt at arithmetic pass SAT's (Y/N) Quote: Ok, then send me a picture of that area... The last time I linked to some pictures proving that one of your pet fantasies was so much CRAP, you called me a liar and with absolutely no evidence said that the pictures I showed were faked. I will no longer spoon feed you with evidence, I will simply tell you that it exists, and where it is, in a format that is free from any form of manipulation. If you are too fixated on your pet fantasy to open your eyes and see for yourself what is really there, that is not my problem. Quote: Again, I repeat (yet again), you did NOT watch the video (from 12/2011) where he answered all the questions from the original paper And again I repeat (yet again) Not only did Haramein fail to answer all of the questions from the original "paper", he totally failed to address even a single one of them. What he has tried to do is waffle his way through an illusion. I went back and watched the whole of his attempted obfuscation of the facts, including the first seventy minutes that you originally advised me to skip, and as a result I stand by my original response, only more strongly, with added Anglo-Saxon Quote: While I agree that there are other sources, one other source produced what looks like Nibiru. So until you can provide something else, that's what I have to go on. Hmmm. This reminds me of a post that BrianK put up about a couple of kids and a jigsaw puzzle. OK. Lou, there is still one piece of the puzzle missing so therefore it's a duck? You have to look at all of the sources, not just the ones that support your pet fantasy.

You have been shown on many occassion to not apply math properly and even denounce well know principles. Your critique of anything any scientist has done has the weight of a dust microbe.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Again, I repeat (yet again), you did NOT watch the video (from 12/2011) where he answered all the questions Question are you just using postulates to support postulates? If you have twice the proof to bring to the table. I'd perfer if you linked or let us know where to find the observational (experimentative) evidence that validated 2004. If that info he is in the 2011 video just type up the publication names for us. I'll get a copy of those to read before the video. And I'll use them for reference too. I figure I might as well do this right and have all the experiments available to reference as he makes his comments.

I posted SAID LINK circa January or early February of this very year, when you originally ignored it. But that is your rule: ignore or denounce evidence...and never EVER produce any real evidence yourself...

Quote:

Quote: So until you can provide something else, that's what I have to go on. Fair enough. Provide me the evidences Haramein is talking about. I want actual work not hyperbola. I'll go to my local college to get copies of the experiments. So all sources other than Google show nothing? And Google shows 'no data' in this area. What are the chances that Google just didn't/doesn't have the data? Fairly high. But, you can error check these yourself. So here's what I can provide you. In your own backyard is Harvard University. http://mo-www.cfa.harvard.edu/microobs/guestobserverportal/ provides a FREE to use telescope for amateurs - go have it take a picture for you.

Yep, always dodge the production of evidence and always throw it back on me.

Par for the course...

Last edited by Lou on 18-Jun-2012 at 05:33 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 18-Jun-2012 at 05:33 PM.

Oh look, the standard model is failing...again...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120618111823.htm


And in other news referencing my statement about being in a black hole jet...:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100406172648.htm

Oh look! The US is becoming the new China when it comes to internet censorship:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/us-leads-world-in-government-remova-requests/

Probably explains why that section of Google Sky view was taken down...

@Lou

Quote:

I posted SAID LINK circa January or early February of this very year, when you originally ignored it. But that is your rule: ignore or denounce evidence...and never EVER produce any real evidence yourself...

Unfortunately not all scientific work is linkable so you can read it on the web. I provided you the location of the materials. You were gone a few days from posting. Here I assumed you were off utilizing the MIT and Harvard libraries and reading the scientific work. (Don't tell me I was wrong at the assumption you actually reviewed the evidence?)

Quote:

ep, always dodge the production of evidence and always throw it back on me.

If you make the claim you accept the burden of proof. We don't accept something as true because Lou said so. This ain't a religion nor are you a priest. No matter the strength of your faith, your faith doesn't dictate reality.

So, as I directed you to find the resources you need to understand the current state of science can you provide any direction to science that's validated to support Haramein?

Quote:

Par for the course

Par for the course is Lou's claim that everything we is wrong and this guy has the truth but then is unable and unwilling to demonstrate it. It must look like a duck huh?

Quote:

Oh look, the standard model is failing...

It's always exciting to find knowlege beyond what we have now and welcome.
**NOTE: just cuz a point is wrong doesn't promote your point to truth. You still have to demonstrate it as applicable to truth.

Quote:

And in other news referencing my statement about being in a black hole

Indeed interesting. Though again this is a postulate with insufficent, at best, evidence to accept as true. Also, such a structure does not preclude a 'Big Bang' type of event.

Thought you might like this
Black holes might be able to tie together quantum and realitivity

Last edited by BrianK on 18-Jun-2012 at 07:33 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

You have been shown on many occassion to not apply math properly and even denounce well know principles

When and where?
Either back up this blatant lie, or withdraw it.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: You have been shown on many occassion to not apply math properly and even denounce well know principles When and where? Either back up this blatant lie, or withdraw it.

For sake of arguement let's assume it's true.
* In that case what Lou is doing here is committing a huge fallacy! He argues that Lou once made a mistake in math and therefore we must reject all of Lou's math ever done. That's faulty reasoning. The reason we rejected various Haramein was due to his mistakes in those particular areas. We didn't reject Haramein in total because of 1 mistake.

Evein if the point that Nimrod made a mistake is true it just doesn't matter. Lou needs to withdraw his faulty reasoning. Instead Lou must provide the error within Lou's math on the specific question. (Some unreleated error elsewhere doesn't work.)

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: You have been shown on many occassion to not apply math properly and even denounce well know principles When and where? Either back up this blatant lie, or withdraw it.

Let's see:

1) you confuse the definition and use of mass (rest vs. inertial)
2) use simplified formulas when it's the more complicated forms that apply
3) referring to 1 and 2 you denounce that any particle can have more energy[/mass] if its frequency is higher regardless of the size of the particle in question (proton to planet)
4) failed at realizing what light is again using a simplification such as "luminance"
5) failed to come to terms with the fact that gravity is a indirect force resulting from a side-effect based of radiation pressure and shielding
6) can't fathom that a black hole can be as small as a plank length

Last edited by Lou on 19-Jun-2012 at 02:04 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

5) failed to come to terms with the fact that gravity is a indirect force resulting from a side-effect based of radiation pressure and shielding 6) can't fathom that a black hole can be as small as a plank length

5) is an unproven postulate. It's one you're trying to convince us of and lack the evidence.

6) Actually Nimrod and I both fathomed this. Turns out the mass predicted is much much greater then the measured mass.

Why not do this yourself and show us wrong?
Formula for Density of a blackhole is known. The Schwartzschild radius = 2Gm/c*c. You know Big G. You know c. And you provided the Scwartzschield radius. So you can do the math and tell us what the mass would need to be for your imaginary black hole to exist. Now compare your calculated postulate mass to reality. You'll find your calculated postulate is out of alignment with the evidence. WHY? Choices are either your postulate is wrong or reality is wrong. I bet on your postulate being wrong.

Last edited by BrianK on 19-Jun-2012 at 02:38 PM.

@Lou

Thought you might like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
10^10^10^76.66 is a stastical repeat of the universe.
However, that's basically improbable as 10^10^120 is the final energy state of the universe.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: 5) failed to come to terms with the fact that gravity is a indirect force resulting from a side-effect based of radiation pressure and shielding 6) can't fathom that a black hole can be as small as a plank length 5) is an unproven postulate. It's one you're trying to convince us of and lack the evidence. 6) Actually Nimrod and I both fathomed this. Turns out the mass predicted is much much greater then the measured mass. Why not do this yourself and show us wrong? Formula for Density of a blackhole is known. The Schwartzschild radius = 2Gm/c*c. You know Big G. You know c. And you provided the Scwartzschield radius. So you can do the math and tell us what the mass would need to be for your imaginary black hole to exist. Now compare your calculated postulate mass to reality. You'll find your calculated postulate is out of alignment with the evidence. WHY? Choices are either your postulate is wrong or reality is wrong. I bet on your postulate being wrong.

For #5, you can search many scientists who've come to the same conclusion, only people who worship old printed text books have not come to grips with it, it also explains why gravity is stronger at the poles and weaker at the equator since the sitting at a pole of the planet, the bigger cross-section at the equator shields more pressure underneath you

for #6, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole

Last edited by Lou on 19-Jun-2012 at 05:30 PM.

@Lou

Finding alternative explanations when the current theory already explains the situation to a satisfactory degree doesn't help your cause.

Finding explanations where the current theory is lacking is what you should aim for.

We already have a perfectly plausible explanation for why gravity is stronger at the poles (earths spin is trying to fling us into space).

here's wikipedias list of things that the current theory doesn't fully explain:
Extra fast stars: Stars in galaxies follow a distribution of velocities where stars on the outskirts are moving faster than they should according to the observed distributions of normal matter. Galaxies within galaxy clusters show a similar pattern. Dark matter, which would interact gravitationally but not electromagnetically, would account for the discrepancy. Various modifications to Newtonian dynamics have also been proposed.
Flyby anomaly: Various spacecraft have experienced greater acceleration than expected during gravity assist maneuvers.
Accelerating expansion: The metric expansion of space seems to be speeding up. Dark energy has been proposed to explain this. A recent alternative explanation is that the geometry of space is not homogeneous (due to clusters of galaxies) and that when the data are reinterpreted to take this into account, the expansion is not speeding up after all,[20] however this conclusion is disputed.[21]
Anomalous increase of the astronomical unit: Recent measurements indicate that planetary orbits are widening faster than if this were solely through the sun losing mass by radiating energy.
Extra energetic photons: Photons travelling through galaxy clusters should gain energy and then lose it again on the way out. The accelerating expansion of the universe should stop the photons returning all the energy, but even taking this into account photons from the cosmic microwave background radiation gain twice as much energy as expected. This may indicate that gravity falls off faster than inverse-squared at certain distance scales.[22]
Dark flow: Surveys of galaxy motions have detected a mystery dark flow towards an unseen mass. Such a large mass is too large to have accumulated since the Big Bang using current models and may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales.[22]
Extra massive hydrogen clouds: The spectral lines of the Lyman-alpha forest suggest that hydrogen clouds are more clumped together at certain scales than expected and, like dark flow, may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales.[22]

Maybe start with that instead?

_________________
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:

For #5, you can search many scientists who've come to the same conclusion, only people who worship old printed text books have not come to grips with it,

There's never a complete agreement on anything in science. It's unrealistic to expect such a thing. It's also unrealistic to claim that a handful of people have it right. What is realistic is the point at where that handful of people have sufficent evidence that outweights the other evidence. Paradigm shifts do happen. Is the 'raditive pressure' there? Clearly not. It might be someday but there's lots more work to do.

'only people' blah blah - simple posturing from you with baseless meaning.

Quote:

it also explains why gravity is stronger at the poles

Olegil's observation here is very astute. You seem to not understand that gravity itself isn't lacking in explaination here. You act like 'radiative pressure' fits some unmet need. When in reality the need is already met. Again we're back to you needing to build better evidence.

Quoting your claiming of an article and from that article:
Quote:

for #6, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole .... NONE HAVE BEEN FOUND SO FAR

As Darth Vader might say if he was a rationalist. 'Your lack of evidence betrays you.'.

Not so strangely your article has the same fomula R=2Gm/c^2 formula. Which again you can solve for and compare to masses. Though your evidence is answered is in your article 'none have been found so far'.

You made the charge that planck length blackholes weren't fathomed. They were. It seems what you didn't fanthom was comparing that to reality.

Last edited by BrianK on 19-Jun-2012 at 06:36 PM.

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @Lou Finding alternative explanations when the current theory already explains the situation to a satisfactory degree doesn't help your cause. Finding explanations where the current theory is lacking is what you should aim for. We already have a perfectly plausible explanation for why gravity is stronger at the poles (earths spin is trying to fling us into space). here's wikipedias list of things that the current theory doesn't fully explain: Extra fast stars: Stars in galaxies follow a distribution of velocities where stars on the outskirts are moving faster than they should according to the observed distributions of normal matter. Galaxies within galaxy clusters show a similar pattern. Dark matter, which would interact gravitationally but not electromagnetically, would account for the discrepancy. Various modifications to Newtonian dynamics have also been proposed. Flyby anomaly: Various spacecraft have experienced greater acceleration than expected during gravity assist maneuvers. Accelerating expansion: The metric expansion of space seems to be speeding up. Dark energy has been proposed to explain this. A recent alternative explanation is that the geometry of space is not homogeneous (due to clusters of galaxies) and that when the data are reinterpreted to take this into account, the expansion is not speeding up after all,[20] however this conclusion is disputed.[21] Anomalous increase of the astronomical unit: Recent measurements indicate that planetary orbits are widening faster than if this were solely through the sun losing mass by radiating energy. Extra energetic photons: Photons travelling through galaxy clusters should gain energy and then lose it again on the way out. The accelerating expansion of the universe should stop the photons returning all the energy, but even taking this into account photons from the cosmic microwave background radiation gain twice as much energy as expected. This may indicate that gravity falls off faster than inverse-squared at certain distance scales.[22] Dark flow: Surveys of galaxy motions have detected a mystery dark flow towards an unseen mass. Such a large mass is too large to have accumulated since the Big Bang using current models and may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales.[22] Extra massive hydrogen clouds: The spectral lines of the Lyman-alpha forest suggest that hydrogen clouds are more clumped together at certain scales than expected and, like dark flow, may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales.[22] Maybe start with that instead?

What you fail to realized is that these unexplained phenomenon are holes from broken theories that you, BrianK and Nimrod defend?

The theories I have linked don't have those holes.

Maybe you should rethink your position?

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: For #5, you can search many scientists who've come to the same conclusion, only people who worship old printed text books have not come to grips with it, There's never a complete agreement on anything in science. It's unrealistic to expect such a thing. It's also unrealistic to claim that a handful of people have it right. What is realistic is the point at where that handful of people have sufficent evidence that outweights the other evidence. Paradigm shifts do happen. Is the 'raditive pressure' there? Clearly not. It might be someday but there's lots more work to do. 'only people' blah blah - simple posturing from you with baseless meaning. Quote: it also explains why gravity is stronger at the poles Olegil's observation here is very astute. You seem to not understand that gravity itself isn't lacking in explaination here. You act like 'radiative pressure' fits some unmet need. When in reality the need is already met. Again we're back to you needing to build better evidence. Quoting your claiming of an article and from that article: Quote: for #6, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole .... NONE HAVE BEEN FOUND SO FAR As Darth Vader might say if he was a rationalist. 'Your lack of evidence betrays you.'. Not so strangely your article has the same fomula R=2Gm/c^2 formula. Which again you can solve for and compare to masses. Though your evidence is answered is in your article 'none have been found so far'. You made the charge that planck length blackholes weren't fathomed. They were. It seems what you didn't fanthom was comparing that to reality.

'only people' blah blah - simple posturing from you with baseless meaning

@BrianK
Quote:

You were gone a few days from posting. Here I assumed you were off utilizing the MIT and Harvard libraries and reading the scientific work. (Don't tell me I was wrong at the assumption you actually reviewed the evidence?)

My time was better spent in Las Vegas, again, doing more research on 'the law of averages'.

Last edited by Lou on 20-Jun-2012 at 05:43 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 20-Jun-2012 at 05:42 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 20-Jun-2012 at 05:39 PM.

Interesting article on how "science" works...
http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-behaving-badly-berlin-patient-114200350.html

This is like announcing to the public you intend to pay taxes prior to announcing it to the IRS... I really don't see the issue, but it goes to show how there is a layer of "establishment" that I have been alluding to. As if what gets released to the public should be 'controlled'...

It is angst against this establishment that has led to the rise of self-publication...thanks to the internet.

@Lou
Quote:

1) you confuse the definition and use of mass (rest vs. inertial)

Again when and where? state the post number and show how my application of mass is incorrect.
Quote:

2) use simplified formulas when it's the more complicated forms that apply

Again when and where? state the post number and show how my application of of mathematical formulae is incorrect.
Quote:

3) referring to 1 and 2 you denounce that any particle can have more energy[/mass] if its frequency is higher regardless of the size of the particle in question (proton to planet)

This allegation is a blatant LIE I am aware that extra energy is added, and I am also aware how much energy is added. If you heat one gram of matter by 10 degrees celsius, you do not increase the total mass/energy of that sample by a factor of fifty million, billion, quadrillion. The equation is E=MC2, and C^2 is approximately 89401000000000000. this means that a very small amount of mass is the equivalent of a very large amount of energy.
Quote:

4) failed at realizing what light is again using a simplification such as "luminance"

Once again when and where? state the post number and show me using the word "luminance". Don't keep making up lies simply because you lack the ability to tell the difference between maximum and minimum.
Quote:

5) failed to come to terms with the fact that gravity is a indirect force resulting from a side-effect based of radiation pressure and shielding

When, where, and by whom was your CRAP about gravity established as a fact. Just because somebody makes a ridiculous assertion, it does not automatically become a fact.
Quote:

6) can't fathom that a black hole can be as small as a plank length

And once again you distort the facts. I have no difficulty with the concept of a black hole with a diameter of 1x10^-15m. I can even calculate the mass of a planck length black hole. I can even calculate the scwarzchild radius of a theoretical black hole that has the known and measured mass of a single proton, and it is this radius that I previously calculated to be vastly smaller than the planck length.

As I said before in response to
Quote:

You have been shown on many occassion to not apply math properly and even denounce well know principles

Either back up this blatant lie, or withdraw it.

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

@Nimrod

I think Lou says it best. When asked if he was actually trying to understand the research, the experiments, and the evidence his response was a flipant...
Quote:

My time was better spent in Las Vegas, again, doing more research on 'the law of averages'.

It says volumes about Lou - he'd rather play the odds than understand.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Nimrod I think Lou says it best. When asked if he was actually trying to understand the research, the experiments, and the evidence his response was a flipant... Quote: My time was better spent in Las Vegas, again, doing more research on 'the law of averages'. It says volumes about Lou - he'd rather play the odds than understand.

Or I accept that it is you and Nimrod that don't understand and my vacation is scheduled way in advance of your trivial and useless requests...


Incase you want all of Nassim Haramein's math explained to you since apparently watching a video is to overburdening:
http://vacuumsingularity.wordpress.com/2012/05/12/the-cosmological-constant-and-the-schwarzschild-proton/