@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou OK genius, so where is the shielding here. Answer, there in none and it doesn't matter because radiation pressure, while it does exist, is an insignificantly small force in the overall scheme of things.

Hey ROCKET SCIENTIST!

They shield each other from the energy behind them. It's called 'shadowing'.
Yes they still throw light at each other, but that is the balance that is radiation pressure AND shielding. It's pretty clear you don't understand the concept...and that was clear with the light ball-dark box and light box-dark ball examples I gave you months ago...

@physics noobs,

A certain nimrod will tell you light has no mass even though it has been proven to have energy (and energy=mass) and inertia.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120925142605.htm

Physics noobs will be physics noobs...

@Lou

Quote:

They shield each other from the energy behind them. It's called 'shadowing'.

The energy that is behind them is a long way behind them It is dissipated as a result of the inverse square law and is pathetically tiny in comparison with the light from the stars that are closer to each other than the Moon is to the Earth. This is the archetypical light balls - dark box scenario, and the light balls are not moving apart, because the radiation pressure is less than the gravitational attraction. The reason for this is that gravity is not produced by radiation pressure.

Quote:

A certain nimrod will tell you light has no mass even though it has been proven to have energy (and energy=mass) and inertia.

And once again you find it easier to lie than find a logical thought in the perfect vacuum that you store between your ears. At no point in any part of this thread have I claimed that light has no mass, Light is a form of energy, it is a very narrow band of the total EM spectrum, and all energy has a mass equivalence. The simplest equation for converting between energy and mass( but not the only one before you try to lie about that as well) is the famous E=MC2. You may also remember( but choose to ignore) comments of mine concerning gravitational lensing. Light does have mass, but your average photon has somewhat less than a billion, quadrillion tonnes of mass. The mass equivalence of a photons energy is in fact 4.2x10^-40 kG. It is this mass equivalence that gives light its radiation pressure since if it had zero mass, it would exert zero pressure, but the measured radiation pressure from the sun is 4.6 µPa (absorbed). and that from proxima centauri is so low that while it can be calculated, it is too small to be discerned from the background pressure. As I have frequently explained to you. I know that the force exists, and I also know its magnitude.

Would it be too much to ask that you stop lying, and stop the mindless name calling and abuse that you keep resorting to?
Actually it probably is, because without the mindless torrent of straw man arguments, lies, exaggerations, misrepresentations and abuse, you would have nothing at all to contribute to the world.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: They shield each other from the energy behind them. It's called 'shadowing'. The energy that is behind them is a long way behind them It is dissipated as a result of the inverse square law and is pathetically tiny in comparison with the light from the stars that are closer to each other than the Moon is to the Earth. This is the archetypical light balls - dark box scenario, and the light balls are not moving apart, because the radiation pressure is less than the gravitational attraction. The reason for this is that gravity is not produced by radiation pressure. Quote: A certain nimrod will tell you light has no mass even though it has been proven to have energy (and energy=mass) and inertia. And once again you find it easier to lie than find a logical thought in the perfect vacuum that you store between your ears. At no point in any part of this thread have I claimed that light has no mass, Light is a form of energy, it is a very narrow band of the total EM spectrum, and all energy has a mass equivalence. The simplest equation for converting between energy and mass( but not the only one before you try to lie about that as well) is the famous E=MC2. You may also remember( but choose to ignore) comments of mine concerning gravitational lensing. Light does have mass, but your average photon has somewhat less than a billion, quadrillion tonnes of mass. The mass equivalence of a photons energy is in fact 4.2x10^-40 kG. It is this mass equivalence that gives light its radiation pressure since if it had zero mass, it would exert zero pressure, but the measured radiation pressure from the sun is 4.6 µPa (absorbed). and that from proxima centauri is so low that while it can be calculated, it is too small to be discerned from the background pressure. As I have frequently explained to you. I know that the force exists, and I also know its magnitude.

Some pages back you were saying light has zero mass.
What's amusing is how you change your story just like you did when I referred to the minimum amount of photons hitting a surface at a distance of close to infinity...

Regardless... You still don't get it. You refuse to read Brandenburg's book. I cited several other independent scientists and engineers who came to the same conclusion about gravity being the result of radiation pressure and shielding. You cite the pressure from 1 star when the universe contains an insanely high amount. It's like saying one drop of water in a lake is soley responsible for drowning someone. You still fail to recognize all the sources of this pressure. You just don't get it. Your examples are CRAP.

Quote:

Would it be too much to ask that you stop lying, and stop the mindless name calling and abuse that you keep resorting to? Actually it probably is, because without the mindless torrent of straw man arguments, lies, exaggerations, misrepresentations and abuse, you would have nothing at all to contribute to the world.

You initiated the belittling tone. Then declared my statements C.R.A.P... Ring a bell? Touche. You want it to end - stop posting. You reap what you sow.

@physics noobs

Boyd Bushman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=hf5DOpWtRfg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=wT0uMo_TmiU
http://www.patentgenius.com/inventedby/BushmanBoydBLewisvilleTX.html

@Lou

Hutchinson Hoax

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Hutchinson Hoax

In typical BrianK fashion you pick out 1 point to critique and throw what you can't away.

Skepdic.com has no credibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyd_Bushman

More info:
Quote:

Nick Cook writer for British Military Journal, Jane's Defense Weekly stated that when visiting Lockheed Martin Boyd Bushman showed him the Hutchison Effect film. Nick Cook was quoted," Normally I would've looked at this stuff and thought this was someone's idea of a practical joke, but the fact that it was being highlighted to me by somebody from Lockheed Martin, that this was something I should be paying attention to." Video footage of the Hutchison Effect. It is an anti-gravity & jellification/melting effects machine, that can lift any type of material. Discovered by John Hutchison, a Canadian in 1979. John Hutchison's work has been documented since the early 1980's on several mediums, which George Hathaway compiled in 1991 into a single 6-hour video featuring everything that he could find on the effect. The Hutchison effect was well documented by Col. John Alexander, who funded a 4-month exhaustive study of the effect through "Stanford Research Institute" and the Central Intelligence Agency in the 1980's. A team of four military scientists stayed with John to document his results, and found all of them (as witnessed in the 1980's footage) to be quite real & unexplainable by conventional physics. Two of the team members were physicists from Sandia National Labs.

So we have an inventor who works for military black projects with many patents dealing with magnetism and who is still a consultant for Lockheed Martin and then we have BrianK's Skepdic.com which of course features unverifiable discrediting by proclamation (science by proclamation).

Good one. I love the hypocrasy of "your links are good and mine are bad". As you say "where's the evidence?". FYI, the Hutchison Effect was a SMALL part of the videos I linked. Boyd Bushman has data and invention, skepdic has a website where they can proclaim whatever they want...and more importantly - what you want to hear.

@Lou

Quote:

Some pages back you were saying light has zero mass.

When and where? You keep making accusations of this nature but you never specify. Primarily because you have no evidence to support your lies. I have not said that light has zero mass, I have said that the mass , or combined radiation pressure is not sufficient to be significant. For example here I showed the 14 grammes of radiation pressure acting on a 68 million tonne asteroid. What I didn't belabour was that for most of the orbit of the asteroid it recieves far less push from radiation pressure. The force exists, it can be measured and the measurements show it to be minuscule.

Quote:

What's amusing is how you change your story just like you did when I referred to the minimum amount of photons hitting a surface at a distance of close to infinity...

The minimum amount of photons that can hit a surface is one. less than that and the surface has not been hit. This is why telescopes gather light from a large area and concentrate it to a small area. If they didn't, distant objects could not be seen. Another method of improving the visibility of distant objects is long exposure photograpy which allows more time for more photons to be "gathered" and recorded.

Quote:

I cited several other independent scientists and engineers who came to the same conclusion about gravity being the result of radiation pressure and shielding

You also cited others whose unsupported postulates directly contradict the unsupported postulates touted by your current favourite woo woo merchant. If I wanted to get into the numbers game I could cite the scientists who are working at Cern on proving the ideas of Higgs. Or the scientists who reviewed Higgs' work and judged it valid.

Quote:

You cite the pressure from 1 star when the universe contains an insanely high amount.

Indeed it does indeed contain a large number of stars, but they are all further away, and as such their pressure output has been dissipated as a result of something called the inverse square law. I did the maths for you and calculated the amount of radiation pressure coming from Proxima Centauri, and while it was not zero it was too small to be detected. It was simply part of the measured background radiation, and because we can measure the amount of radiation pressure that there is, we can clearly state that it is far less than the assumptions made by your high priest of woo.

Quote:

You initiated the belittling tone.

Wrong again. You were making idiotic assumptions and claiming them as facts before I even posted on this thread, or have you forgotten this little tirade.
From that posting Quote:

The facts are that Neptune and Saturn's orbits show signs of being affected by another large gravitational body

This is a lie, however I note that at this point you hadn't decided that gravity was a figment of the imagination. Quote:

The facts are something caused the asteroid belt.

That something is called Jupiter. Its gravity is enough to cause perturbations that prevented the asteroid belt from accreting to form a single planet. If a planet had been able to form, it would have been smaller than our moon. Quote:

The facts are there is a face on Mars and pyramid structures and other structures and are documented in the Sumerian texts.

Again, not facts, merely the product of an overactive imagination. The Sumerian texts made no mention of this and Sitchins fantasy has no basis in the Sumerian texts. Sitchin was an incompetent fantasist. Quote:

How did Atzecs or Mayans who couldn't fly build the figures on the Gaza strip?

The pre-Columbian South American civilizations never went to Palestine, Likewise there are no pyramids of any kind in Gaza. Not stepped ones, nor bent ones, not even great ones. Quote:

Why doesn't someone build a pyramid today using the same technology as the Sumerians?

For the same reason that I do not live in a hut made of wattle and daub. We have discovered better ways of doing the job.
And this was before I started posting on this subject. You then tried to claim authority from greater age and wisdom Quote:

I have seen several ufos over the course of my almost 40 years.

which might have worked except for the fact that you are about the same age as one of my sons, but with one major difference.

Quote:

Then declared my statements C.R.A.P..

There is a reason that I referred to your Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Proposals as Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Proposals, and that reason is that they are Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Proposals. And if you took the time to investigate some of the Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Proposals that you keep posting on this site you might even start to resemble a shining wit, instead of your current attitude of a whining... (never mind).

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

@Lou

Quote:

FYI, the Hutchison Effect was a SMALL part of the videos I linked

And therefore the criticism only applies to that small part. Logic seems to be difficult for you. I certainly didn't claim Hutchinson was the only thing discussed. It was one of many points. You simply conflated your own strawman. Fairly typical. Getting back to Hutchinson. It seems at most 2 people can get the effect to work. They lack repeatable duplicatable evidence. It's clear if it's real they have much more work to do. I can imagine a flying car that only Boyd can ride in and no one else.

Quote:

So we have an inventor who works for military black projects with many patents dealing with magnetism

Fallacy thinking my friend. This is called the Appeal to Authority Doesn't matter what anyone's cred is. They all must stand to repeatable verifiable, duplicatable evidence. At far as the Hutchinson effect is concerned that evidence does not exist.

Last edited by BrianK on 26-Sep-2012 at 09:47 PM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Lou wrote: Quote: The facts are there is a face on Mars and pyramid structures and other structures and are documented in the Sumerian texts. Again, not facts, merely the product of an overactive imagination. The Sumerian texts made no mention of this and Sitchins fantasy has no basis in the Sumerian texts. Sitchin was an incompetent fantasist

Face on Mars is a pareidolia effect. I think I posted this page before. Here's the Hi-Res Image clearly not a face nor made by aliens, but a natural mountain ragne.

@Lou
Quote:

I have seen several ufos over the course of my almost 40 years.

Yes Unidentified FOs. Meaning you don't have a clue what they are. Just because you don't have an explaination doesn't mean you can truthfully proclaim your belief as the truth. Nor does it mean someone else doesn't know what these are. Flash back to the Arizona Lights conversation. The reported UFO were the military having exercises and the citizens didn't know.

Last edited by BrianK on 26-Sep-2012 at 10:05 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

A certain nimrod will tell you light has no mass even though it has been proven to have energy (and energy=mass) and inertia. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120925142605.htm

Here is an interesting take on this idea. E=mc^2 that c is 'the speed of light'. Except that's really a term of convenience. More formally 'c' is the maximum speed within the universe. If the photon has mass it would never actually travel at (c) the speed of light. It'd travel close to the speed of light minus the smallest frequency possible. However, gravity, as it's a curvature of space/time itself, wouldn't be bounded in such a manner and would be able to travel at what we think of as 'c'. We'd need a very, very far distance but if we could toss a photon and track it across the universe we may be able to measure the gravitational effects arriving a nanoth of a nanosecond before the photon.

Now I suppose I could sit down and try to do the calculation of expected results. But, as there's no human way today to do such an experiment it's interesting but untestable. Though - it would be able to directly answer if gravity and EM are different effects (if times are different) or the same effect (if the times are exactly the same)

Last edited by BrianK on 27-Sep-2012 at 01:46 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: FYI, the Hutchison Effect was a SMALL part of the videos I linked And therefore the criticism only applies to that small part. Logic seems to be difficult for you. I certainly didn't claim Hutchinson was the only thing discussed. It was one of many points. You simply conflated your own strawman. Fairly typical. Getting back to Hutchinson. It seems at most 2 people can get the effect to work. They lack repeatable duplicatable evidence. It's clear if it's real they have much more work to do. I can imagine a flying car that only Boyd can ride in and no one else. Quote: So we have an inventor who works for military black projects with many patents dealing with magnetism Fallacy thinking my friend. This is called the Appeal to Authority Doesn't matter what anyone's cred is. They all must stand to repeatable verifiable, duplicatable evidence. At far as the Hutchinson effect is concerned that evidence does not exist.

Here's what fallacy is: you confusing the data of the Hutchison Effect with the claims of the Hutchison Effect, which the military has know about since the early 1940's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIqIT9avewU
Once again what you think you know isn't correct.

Here's a nice format to follow to start your own debunking website:
1) register a url
2) find a topic you want to debunk
3) call it CRAP on your site
4) repeat steps 2 and 3

Ofcourse, I see the same patterns in this thread.

@BrianK
Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: I have seen several ufos over the course of my almost 40 years. Yes Unidentified FOs. Meaning you don't have a clue what they are. Just because you don't have an explaination doesn't mean you can truthfully proclaim your belief as the truth. Nor does it mean someone else doesn't know what these are. Flash back to the Arizona Lights conversation. The reported UFO were the military having exercises and the citizens didn't know.

I have seen a isometric triangle-shaped UFO glide 100 feet or less over my head in total silence with a centrally located light source.

THIS WAS NOT THE PLANET JUPITER.

There-after, I discovered this particular UFO may indeed be man-made (TR-3B) and matches the same one seen in Europe around the same time (1990).

I love how you can tell me what I did and didn't see. Typical.

AND I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU RELATE THIS TO THE PHOENIX LIGHTS...
Fast-forward to the Phoenix lights and you have eye-witnesses saying (including its governor) one thing and several military branches saying various other things.

Last edited by Lou on 27-Sep-2012 at 05:21 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Here's what fallacy is: you confusing the data of the Hutchison Effect with the claims of the Hutchison Effect, which the military has know about since the early 1940's: Once again what you think you know isn't correct

Of course how silly of me asking for evidence. There's buttloads of course it's just all hidden away and marked classified so no one will ever review the evidence. Conspiracy thought at it's finest - it's all true and all a government cover up.

But, let's get back to reality and logic. Even if the government has such evidence this does not prevent others around the world repeating such experiments and building their own evidence. Presenting this another way the Men_In_Black can lock up evidence they can't lock up the universe. At every turn every scientist besides Hutchinson has been unable to do this. Clearly the government must have played with reality and classified the universe.

You commented on debunking. In order to debunk something the first criteria is a presentation of evidence tthat can be inquired. The problem is you provided no such evidence. You just cover up an unknown with another unknown. You made your elements of proof twice as hard on yourself. You not only have to prove the evidence exists you have to prove it's been classified and kept away from the world. Again neither of which have you done. So no, sorry nothing to debunk so no one can realistically begin anything.

Quote:

There-after, I discovered this particular UFO may indeed be man-made (TR-3B) and matches the same one seen in Europe around the same time (1990).

Wow you had the exact experience I described. The flying object was unidentified to you. It was not unidentified to others. You researched your lackings and learned there was no UFO in reality it was a plane. Some people don't bother to do that. Look up how Cargo Cults were started from such "UFO" events.

Some missing mass is found. Right under our noses floating around just outside the Milky Way . While dimensions and size need to be finalized it appears this mass is roughly the same amount as the Milky Way.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: [quote]What's amusing is how you change your story just like you did when I referred to the minimum amount of photons hitting a surface at a distance of close to infinity... The minimum amount of photons that can hit a surface is one. less than that and the surface has not been hit. This is why telescopes gather light from a large area and concentrate it to a small area. If they didn't, distant objects could not be seen. Another method of improving the visibility of distant objects is long exposure photograpy which allows more time for more photons to be "gathered" and recorded.

You are still incorrect. The point of origin was a sun (aka large surface area emitting photons) and another smaller surface has area hence the minimum is still defined by the amount of photons that can cover the surface area. As for photography, can you tell me how many megapixels are in a camera that can capture individual photons? I didn't think so. Perhaps you should look at how cameras work and why they need to extend the exposure in order to register anything on the camera at all...

Quote:

Quote: I cited several other independent scientists and engineers who came to the same conclusion about gravity being the result of radiation pressure and shielding You also cited others whose unsupported postulates directly contradict the unsupported postulates touted by your current favourite woo woo merchant. If I wanted to get into the numbers game I could cite the scientists who are working at Cern on proving the ideas of Higgs. Or the scientists who reviewed Higgs' work and judged it valid.

I have cited many instances of the standard model being incorrect, yet you live and die by it. The particle that the PRESS call 'Higgs' is still being reviewed, so I love your show of science by proclamation here...

Quote:

Quote: You cite the pressure from 1 star when the universe contains an insanely high amount. Indeed it does indeed contain a large number of stars, but they are all further away, and as such their pressure output has been dissipated as a result of something called the inverse square law. I did the maths for you and calculated the amount of radiation pressure coming from Proxima Centauri, and while it was not zero it was too small to be detected. It was simply part of the measured background radiation, and because we can measure the amount of radiation pressure that there is, we can clearly state that it is far less than the assumptions made by your high priest of woo.

Lets be perfectly clear here. You have "calculated" the "estimated" RP from a star. You did not measure it. In fact there are no "radiation pressure meters". What the theory I highlighted does is explain the gravitational effect under a new paradigm that matches the observations of the old paradigm WITHOUT the anomolies. It also explains why the universe is said to be expanding. You don't like it because I proposed it. If it were BrianK that proposed it, you'd have nothing to say about it.

Quote:

Quote: You initiated the belittling tone. Wrong again. You were making idiotic assumptions and claiming them as facts before I even posted on this thread, or have you forgotten this little tirade.

And I still stand by those statements. What does that 'tirade' as you put it have to do with the belittling tone you began?

Quote:

From that posting Quote: The facts are that Neptune and Saturn's orbits show signs of being affected by another large gravitational body This is a lie, however I note that at this point you hadn't decided that gravity was a figment of the imagination.

Actually you are lying. The NICE Group of France have come to the same conclusion.
And further more, when I mention 'gravitational' I NEVER mean your archaic version of the effect.

Quote:

Quote: The facts are something caused the asteroid belt. That something is called Jupiter. Its gravity is enough to cause perturbations that prevented the asteroid belt from accreting to form a single planet. If a planet had been able to form, it would have been smaller than our moon.

Yet Jupiter's own moons manage to hold their shape, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....
More CRAP from you it seems...

Quote:

Quote: The facts are there is a face on Mars and pyramid structures and other structures and are documented in the Sumerian texts. Again, not facts, merely the product of an overactive imagination. The Sumerian texts made no mention of this and Sitchins fantasy has no basis in the Sumerian texts. Sitchin was an incompetent fantasist.

As I've stated before, your opinion means nothing.

Quote:

Quote: How did Atzecs or Mayans who couldn't fly build the figures on the Gaza strip? The pre-Columbian South American civilizations never went to Palestine, Likewise there are no pyramids of any kind in Gaza. Not stepped ones, nor bent ones, not even great ones.

Why are you talking about pyramids when I am talking about gigantic figures drawn on the ground? Is that senility kicking in again?

Quote:

Quote: Why doesn't someone build a pyramid today using the same technology as the Sumerians? For the same reason that I do not live in a hut made of wattle and daub. We have discovered better ways of doing the job.

Plenty of people still live in huts... Weak sauce.

Quote:

And this was before I started posting on this subject. You then tried to claim authority from greater age and wisdom Quote: I have seen several ufos over the course of my almost 40 years. which might have worked except for the fact that you are about the same age as one of my sons, but with one major difference.

The major difference being that my father isn't a senile old man, perhaps?

Quote:

Quote: Then declared my statements C.R.A.P.. There is a reason that I referred to your Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Proposals as Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Proposals, and that reason is that they are Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Proposals. And if you took the time to investigate some of the Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Proposals that you keep posting on this site you might even start to resemble a shining wit, instead of your current attitude of a whining... (never mind).

I hear a violin playing. Care for some cheese?
I see alot of your opinion posted above. You know what they say about those...

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Here's what fallacy is: you confusing the data of the Hutchison Effect with the claims of the Hutchison Effect, which the military has know about since the early 1940's: Once again what you think you know isn't correct Of course how silly of me asking for evidence. There's buttloads of course it's just all hidden away and marked classified so no one will ever review the evidence. Conspiracy thought at it's finest - it's all true and all a government cover up. But, let's get back to reality and logic. Even if the government has such evidence this does not prevent others around the world repeating such experiments and building their own evidence. Presenting this another way the Men_In_Black can lock up evidence they can't lock up the universe. At every turn every scientist besides Hutchinson has been unable to do this. Clearly the government must have played with reality and classified the universe. You commented on debunking. In order to debunk something the first criteria is a presentation of evidence tthat can be inquired. The problem is you provided no such evidence. You just cover up an unknown with another unknown. You made your elements of proof twice as hard on yourself. You not only have to prove the evidence exists you have to prove it's been classified and kept away from the world. Again neither of which have you done. So no, sorry nothing to debunk so no one can realistically begin anything.

BrianK, are you blind or an A-hole?
The 'evidence' is presented by Hutchinson and reproduced by others. The evidence was recorded with a video camera. The explanation of it was in the subsoquent video that I linked. As for the Philadelphia Experiment, you can do your own research there.
Your monkey "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" attitude is disturbing.

Quote:

Quote: There-after, I discovered this particular UFO may indeed be man-made (TR-3B) and matches the same one seen in Europe around the same time (1990). Wow you had the exact experience I described. The flying object was unidentified to you. It was not unidentified to others. You researched your lackings and learned there was no UFO in reality it was a plane. Some people don't bother to do that. Look up how Cargo Cults were started from such "UFO" events.

AND IT'S STILL UNIDENTIFIED!
I'm beginning to think the answer to the question above is the latter...
Perhaps you should look up what the TR-3B is and how it came to be that I came to this 'possibility'... This is another instance where you fail to follow thru on the subject in question, like you do with the links that you yourself post.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: Some missing mass is found. Right under our noses floating around just outside the Milky Way . While dimensions and size need to be finalized it appears this mass is roughly the same amount as the Milky Way.

Yes, this fills in more 'dark matter'.

@Lou

Quote:

Quote: BrianK wrote: Some missing mass is found. Right under our noses floating around just outside the Milky Way . While dimensions and size need to be finalized it appears this mass is roughly the same amount as the Milky Way. Yes, this fills in more 'dark matter'.

According to the article it fills in some of the missing bayronic matter.

@Lou

Quote:

The 'evidence' is presented by Hutchinson and reproduced by others.

Hutchinson claims to have produced this effect. No other scientist has proven capable. Nor have you provided any evidence that others produce this effect. When asked you gave an excuse on why you cannot provide proof. No evidence to audit then no accepte. Once you can produce something then we have something to audit and discuss.

I believe I did this dance before either with you or MikeB on the first thread concerning the complete CRAP that Hutchinson has. I'd recommend you reading up on that. If you don't have anything new to review in the last ~year. I think this topic is DOA.

Quote:

The evidence was recorded with a video camera

You're right. Photographic evidence is unmanipulatable. In fact there is even more pictures and videos of fairies than the Hutchinson Effect. So it must be true that fairies are real. (Just using your logic old chap.)

Last edited by BrianK on 27-Sep-2012 at 07:19 PM.