@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Oh look, another CRAP example... Sorry, I can't make excuses for the person that created the CRAP foundation which the example was built upon. You'll have to take that up with Lou. Quote: 3 threads and hundreds of pages of denying the facts that EM is the prevailing force and you don't think you are a troll? Madness... Ahh the Lou troll shows us his true colors. Change the question! We weren't asking the dominate force in the Universe but what force moves the planets. This is fairly easy to answer for our solar system. Measure the gravity and measure the EM on the planet and you find EM is incredibly small in comparsion. Majority of the force being gravity is said to be so because it actually measures that way. (Remember that little evil thing called evidence?) Quote: EM holds every molecule in your body together rather being ripped about by the feeble gravity. You seem to not understand that EM is so busy holding the body together there's no excess to magnetically attach you to the planet. Because that EM relationship isn't happening the 'feeble gravity' is allowed to dominate the relationship between your body and the earth. So while the relationship between gravity of your body and gravity of the planet is feeble it's hundreds of times stronger than the EM relationship between those two objects. EM might dominate the universe (not saying if it does or doesn't). Gravity is what is keeping your EM composed body on the planet Earth.

It is you, that depsite the scientific papers I have posted from both a physicist who worked for the federal government and others, doesn't understand that 'gravity' is not a separate and unique force but the result of pressure differences in the sea of EM pressure. It's the same principle that allows an airplane wing to produce lift and cherios to clump together. It's not "magic" which is essentially what your left with since there is no 'gravity wave' or 'gravity particle'. You are a troll who essentially believes in magic.

@BrianK

BrianK wrote:
@Nimrod
Quote:

Quote: Precisely, billions means multiples of 10^9. A billion and another billion is two billion not 1 x 10^38. even a billion times a billion is only 1 x 10^18, not 1 x 10^38. You claim that scale means nothing, but scale is the most important part of any mathematics. No matter how you try to evade the facts 14g of applied radiation pressure from the sun has a negligible effect on a mass of 68,000,000,000 kg travelling at hundreds of kilometres per hour. and your much vaunted zero point energy is even less available to apply force to anything. Very quickly these resources supporting Lou's view get their math facts wrong! It's almost as if they agree with the first 3 seconds of Barbie

Troll feeding a troll...

Last edited by Lou on 31-Jul-2012 at 02:51 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

It is you, that depsite the scientific papers I have posted from both a physicist who worked for the federal government and others, doesn't understand that 'gravity' is not a separate and unique force but the result of pressure differences in the sea of EM pressure.

It doesnt make the slightest difference who a person works for, if his mathematics doesn't balance, he is wrong. The US federal government may be able to pass national laws, they cannot alter the laws of physics.

Quote:

It's the same principle that allows an airplane wing to produce lift

Wrong! when an aircraft flies, it is because the thrust from the engines moves the wing through the air sufficiently quickly to produce a greater amount of lift than the total mass of the aircraft. Referring back to one of your examples, we have a 68 million ton "aircraft" that is being given up to an occasional maximum of 14 grammes of lift. That particular example won't fly.

Quote:

It's not "magic" which is essentially what your left with since there is no 'gravity wave' or 'gravity particle'.

It is true that we do not as yet know how gravity is propogated, but that does not mean that it isn't propogated, or "it's magic", or even "it has to be aliens" it merely means that we do not yet know how it is propogated. There is still a lot to be discovered and a lot left to learn, Throwing tantrums like a child and screaming "It's all EM" is not the way to advance the boundaries of scientific knowledge, and nor is accepting any and every bit of CRAP that can be dredged up.

Quote:

Troll feeding a troll...

If I remember correctly, it was neither BrianK nor myself that recently spent a fortnight sitting under a bridge while unable to post here. You can draw such implications from that as you see fit, I will stick to mathematics and demonstrable facts.

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

@Lou

Quote:

that depsite the scientific papers I have posted

Papers are postulates. What you don't seem to understand is we're talking about reality. To see if those papers apply to reality we need to conduct experiments to validate the evidence. You've Failed to provide such evidence. And when the evidence is provided to you, you make jokes about how you don't need to read about such experiments.

Quote:

both a physicist who worked for the federal government

.. Fallacy from Authority! Working for the government doesn't mean a thing when we're talking validity. EVIDENCE is the only thing that speaks volumes.

Quote:

It's the same principle that allows an airplane wing to produce lift

Nimrod precisely shot this false idea out of the sky.

Quote:

It's not "magic" which is essentially what your left with since there is no 'gravity wave' or 'gravity particle'

You haven't proven it's something else. As for Gravity Particle did you happen to see the July 31st release of the Higgs? CERN on recent Higgs data .. The short version: a neutral boson, mass of 126GeV to 5.9 sigma corresponding to the Standard Model. The evidence refutes the spin-1 so that postulate is out. The statistical p value is 1.7 x 10^-9. Or since you're a Vegas gambler the odds against this not being Higgs is currently 1 out of 100 Million. (I'm sure someone can do better than my quick conversion.)

I agree more validation and more evidence is a postitive. However, since we currently have more evidence for the mass particle existing and much less evidence supporrting EM Radiative Hypothesis all I can say is; either way your team needs to get to work.

Quote:

You are a troll

Another ad hominem? If you haven't realized it yet, insults in no way support your "scientific" papers.

Last edited by BrianK on 01-Aug-2012 at 05:25 AM.
Last edited by BrianK on 01-Aug-2012 at 05:23 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: that depsite the scientific papers I have posted Papers are postulates. What you don't seem to understand is we're talking about reality. To see if those papers apply to reality we need to conduct experiments to validate the evidence. You've Failed to provide such evidence. And when the evidence is provided to you, you make jokes about how you don't need to read about such experiments. Quote: both a physicist who worked for the federal government .. Fallacy from Authority! Working for the government doesn't mean a thing when we're talking validity. EVIDENCE is the only thing that speaks volumes. Quote: It's the same principle that allows an airplane wing to produce lift Nimrod precisely shot this false idea out of the sky. Quote: It's not "magic" which is essentially what your left with since there is no 'gravity wave' or 'gravity particle' You haven't proven it's something else. As for Gravity Particle did you happen to see the July 31st release of the Higgs? CERN on recent Higgs data .. The short version: a neutral boson, mass of 126GeV to 5.9 sigma corresponding to the Standard Model. The evidence refutes the spin-1 so that postulate is out. The statistical p value is 1.7 x 10^-9. Or since you're a Vegas gambler the odds against this not being Higgs is currently 1 out of 100 Million. (I'm sure someone can do better than my quick conversion.) I agree more validation and more evidence is a postitive. However, since we currently have more evidence for the mass particle existing and much less evidence supporrting EM Radiative Hypothesis all I can say is; either way your team needs to get to work. Quote: You are a troll Another ad hominem? If you haven't realized it yet, insults in no way support your "scientific" papers.

'Gravity' is observably wrong on galactic and inter-galactic scales hence the need to 'dark ____' theories. Which means 'Higgs' is also wrong on those scales. Then there is the 'theoretical black hole' and the 'astrological black hole'. From the theoretical one, nothing escapes but in practice, they have emissions.

...so much for the 'theories' you cling to like a religion...

@Lou

Quote:

'Gravity' is observably wrong on galactic and inter-galactic scales hence the need to 'dark ____' theories. Which means 'Higgs' is also wrong on those scales

Certainly that's where the Dark Matter and Dark Energy postulates come from. Formally these are postulates as they are on paper and work really well mathematically. There's some observational data but something I'd say that definitely needs more confirming before it's accepted these exist.

But, we also have other postulates too - modified gravitational theory, for example, that also work very well on paper. They too need evidence before we can accept them.

And likewise you say EM is the answer. But, again we don't know it's 'the answer' until those papers you love are evidenced. EM is treated no differently than any other postulate. It needs to match the scientific criteria. The problem your arguement has (in short) - "Dark Matter hasn't been proven to exist therefore EM wins." Not how it works.

Be it Dark Matter or EM or modified gravitation each has the same requirement - EVIDENDCE.

----
You've claimed it's EM that pushes the planets in our solar systems. We have measures of gravity and measures of EM. And since the forces of gravity are greater then what you are saying is not true. You say this is a religion? I guess the religious part is I believe evidence of reality is the best we have to validate reality. If you have something better than evidence let us know why. Unfortunately when you bring unproven papers, claim they're true, and bring no evidence you are clearly using a different religion - one that discards evidence as important.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: 'Gravity' is observably wrong on galactic and inter-galactic scales hence the need to 'dark ____' theories. Which means 'Higgs' is also wrong on those scales Certainly that's where the Dark Matter and Dark Energy postulates come from. Formally these are postulates as they are on paper and work really well mathematically. There's some observational data but something I'd say that definitely needs more confirming before it's accepted these exist. But, we also have other postulates too - modified gravitational theory, for example, that also work very well on paper. They too need evidence before we can accept them. And likewise you say EM is the answer. But, again we don't know it's 'the answer' until those papers you love are evidenced. EM is treated no differently than any other postulate. It needs to match the scientific criteria. The problem your arguement has (in short) - "Dark Matter hasn't been proven to exist therefore EM wins." Not how it works. Be it Dark Matter or EM or modified gravitation each has the same requirement - EVIDENDCE. ---- You've claimed it's EM that pushes the planets in our solar systems. We have measures of gravity and measures of EM. And since the forces of gravity are greater then what you are saying is not true. You say this is a religion? I guess the religious part is I believe evidence of reality is the best we have to validate reality. If you have something better than evidence let us know why. Unfortunately when you bring unproven papers, claim they're true, and bring no evidence you are clearly using a different religion - one that discards evidence as important.

This is why you are a troll. You ask for evidence, when NASA has given you evidence that heat/light/(EM) can push and I've also link articles where light can pull.

You are in denial of the evidence.

The dark 'theories' are not part of 'the theory of general relativity'. So your postulates are simply hacks. On an atomic scale, general relativity need not apply. On a galactic scale, general relativity need not apply. It's not a unique and individual force. Your thick troll-skull simply refuses to accept the elegant and yet simple explanation for the puny gravitational effect you mistakenly perceive as the primary force on your life.

When I hold my arm out across 90 degrees, my electrically controlled muscles are easily overcoming the torque generated by the force of gravity. What you call "chemical reations" are mislabelled because they are electrical reactions. Chemistry is about the flow of electrons between molecules causing bonds. Your whole body runs on EM yet you think gravity is the major player. Madness.

@Lou

Quote:

You ask for evidence, when NASA has given you evidence that heat/light/(EM) can push

Yes, we have seen the evidence and we have even accepted the evidence. We have also noted that the evidence includes a matter of scale. The pioneer probe is moved away from the sun by a distance of 3 million miles each day, and it is being pushed back a total of 300 inches as a result of the accumulated EM forces that you cited. We are not claiming that the 300 inches does not exist, we merely point out that it is very slightly less than 3 million miles. This is the same result as the ateroid that you linked to. The solar radiation pressure at its maximum when the asteroid is at its closest to the sun gives a grand total of 14 grammes of pressure. The gravitational forces on a 60 million ton asteroid are likewise somewhat greater than 14 grammes.

Just to reiterate so that you do not forget. We know that there is EM force, and we also know the scale of that force.

Quote:

When I hold my arm out across 90 degrees, my electrically controlled muscles are easily overcoming the torque generated by the force of gravity.

In that case, use the electrically controlled muscles of your left leg to lift your left foot off the ground. Now do the same with your right foot, but without putting your left foot down If electrically powered musculature is so all powerful, why are you not now flying, or at least hovering. Actually the reality of "Yogic flying is far less impressive than the still picture implies.
I would also add that if the EM forces that bind solid structures together had any significant long range effect, then the falling man would not have splattered at the bottom of the WTC as the result of being pulled downward by such a puny thing as gravity.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Just to reiterate so that you do not forget. We know that there is EM force, and we also know the scale of that force.

Good summary. We did accept the EM force. But we continue to compare the scales. Hopefully we won't see a scale means nothing claim again.

EDIT: Yogic Flying - Thanks I bust a gut at that video.

Last edited by BrianK on 03-Aug-2012 at 02:20 AM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou if the EM forces that bind solid structures together had any significant long range effect, then the falling man would not have splattered at the bottom of the WTC as the result of being pulled downward by such a puny thing as gravity.

Another retarded example...

@Lou

Quote:

Another retarded example...

I know it's so hard when the evidence contradicts your beliefs. Instead if you were open to following the evidence you wouldn't have this problem. It's that closed mindedness that 'EM is God' when you lack the proof but cling to it anyway. One plus of science is it welcomes and measures all comers by the same standard quality, validity, and repeatability of evidence.

Last edited by BrianK on 03-Aug-2012 at 06:54 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Another retarded example... I know it's so hard when the evidence contradicts your beliefs. Instead if you were open to following the evidence you wouldn't have this problem. It's that closed mindedness that 'EM is God' when you lack the proof but cling to it anyway. One plus of science is it welcomes and measures all comers by the same standard quality, validity, and repeatability of evidence.

It's retarded, like all your examples because EM bonds between the steet's molecules that he fell on were much stronger than the ones holding his body together despited the additional acceleration provided by gravity, the street was just fine.

He, like you breaks the problem down to a small point that only makes sense to him, ignoring the blatantly obvious bigger picture.

@Lou

Quote:

It's retarded, like all your examples because EM bonds between the steet's molecules that he fell on were much stronger than the ones holding his body together despited the additional acceleration provided by gravity, the street was just fine.

Exactly!

The EM forces localized within the body were busy at work holding the body together. The EM forces localized within the planet were busy at work holding the planet together. Since those EM forces were tied up doing work they were not free to interact the body and the planet. That let the Gravitational forces take over in the relationship. EM between body and planet was < Gravity between body and planet.

The result is some of the EM forces were broken on the body. The force of impact from the acceleration due to gravity was larger than those EM forces. The body bounced up in the air. The earth moved away from the body. (Every action has an opposite and equal reaction.) EM of the earth may have been broken. It's all dependant upon how the accident hit. For example if the body hit a small outcropping that had less EM and gravitational force than the body - it likely sheared off.

Somehow you're able to get EM to do double duty. Potential energy becomes actual energy when it's working. The reason EM isn't at work is because it's being actualized leaving little to no Potential Energy. Gravity isn't being actualized so it's potential energy is much larger and dominates the relationship during the fall.

Seems to me you are ignoring the blatantly obvious bigger picture.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Seems to me you are ignoring the blatantly obvious bigger picture.

Keep telling yourself that...

Gee, what's old in science is new again:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120806171319.htm

@Lou

Quote:

Gee, what's old in science is new again: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120806171319.htm

Though note they've done something you haven't -- aka brought evidence! I've repeatedly said that science accepts all comers on the same conditions. Not so amazingly you've provided more evidence that the concept was spot on!

Last edited by BrianK on 07-Aug-2012 at 09:21 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 07-Aug-2012 at 09:20 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Gee, what's old in science is new again: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120806171319.htm Though note they've done something you haven't -- aka brought evidence! I've repeatedly said that science accepts all comers on the same conditions. Not so amazingly you've provided more evidence that the concept was spot on!

Oh? They also did something you do all the time, accept something for 50 years just because it seems easier.

@Lou

Quote:

Oh? They also did something you do all the time, accept something for 50 years just because it seems easier.

One does not accept something new until it provides as good if not better predictability and verifability. Science recognizes this and changes when the better evidence becomes available. That's what make it open.

And a sharp contrast to the 'EM is God' approach which presupposes the answer and refuses to accept anything that doesn't support your theory.

So complain about late. It's still a step better than no acceptance which is what results from your religious approach to EM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Oh? They also did something you do all the time, accept something for 50 years just because it seems easier. One does not accept something new until it provides as good if not better predictability and verifability. Science recognizes this and changes when the better evidence becomes available. That's what make it open. And a sharp contrast to the 'EM is God' approach which presupposes the answer and refuses to accept anything that doesn't support your theory. So complain about late. It's still a step better than no acceptance which is what results from your religious approach to EM.

Ah the irony of your words...
You have a Newton is God view of the universe. Einstein simply polished up Newton but then went on to say IT IS NOT CORRECT, just a simplification. He then persued unification but died before he could finish the job. Others picked up his work and the work of others and did finish the job. You are the one who holds science from the 1600's as a religion. I am open to the best solution, even if it is not the simplest.

@Lou

Quote:

You have a Newton is God view of the universe

Bahaha funny joke. Of course no one is the God of the universe. Newtonian gravity works but not for macro or micro events. Einsteinian works well for Newtonian + Macro events. Which is why it's even better and more accepted. When we get a proven micro event that may, or may not, be incorporated with Einstein's methods. It all depends on the EVIDENCE.

Quote:

He then persued unification

Grand Unification Theory combines 3 fundamental forces adding in Gravity will give us what is called TOE (Theory of Everything.) Science has clearly not decided on 1 single TOE. The quality and quantity of the evidence isn't available, to date. So science is open to all that can bring their EVIDENCE.

You've already staked out the answer EM=TOE and don't bring any worthwhile evidence. Science (and I) am open to this. But, again EVIDENCE is lacking ol' chap. Yous gots lots of work to do.

As much as a TOE is a great ideal the Universe itself lives by it's own rules. Not Lou's.