@Lou

Quote:

You have no idea what you are talking about

Maybe not ... But, I posted various experimentations and evidence concerning gravity. I posted ways to get more. You've posted unproven postulates. Which may be right but you have nothing to demonstrate they are right. We keep asking and you keep jumping the shark.

@Lou

Wouldn't there be an easy way to put this radiation pressure to bed? Couldn't we measure the radition pressure on the sides of the Mars during the earth sheilding event (umbra)? The change in the radition pressure should relate to the movement of Mars. If radiation pressure is the significant event that equates to gravity as you claim there should be some huge changes in position to Mars when this shielding event happens.

We know radiation pressure exists. We measure the force of the poynting vector. It is significantly less than the gravitational force. If these are the same would not they not measure the same? Of course they would. And wouldn't they have the same properties? Since the earth shields the radition pressure from the sun from an object passing through it's Umbra it should also sheild the gravity from the sun. Strangely it does not. So not only are the forces inconsistent the properties of the interactions are inconsistent.

Last edited by BrianK on 29-Oct-2012 at 05:34 PM.

@BrianK

Apparently he's not talking about radiation pressure from the sun anymore, now vacuum seems to be the source of the radiation. Exactly what is radiating (could it be negative gravitons, maybe?) hasn't been mentioned as far as I can seen.

_________________
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.

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @BrianK Apparently he's not talking about radiation pressure from the sun anymore, now vacuum seems to be the source of the radiation. Exactly what is radiating (could it be negative gravitons, maybe?) hasn't been mentioned as far as I can seen.

Actually, it was physics noobs who tried limiting what I actually said because what I actually said was "radiation pressure and shadowing". Physics noobs, looked at the closest star's radiation emissions ONLY to pathetically attempt to prove that "pressure" from stars is too weak when it's the shadowing effect that is attractive and stronger. Yep, nimrods love contantly changing and limiting the parameters to support their archaic information. I keep saying "you don't believe in the vacuum pressure" so your argument is as weak as a nimrod's attempt to "do the math".

The fact of the matter is that there was a re-normalization with regards to vacuum energy done because many physicists couldn't come to terms with vacuum energy.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Wouldn't there be an easy way to put this radiation pressure to bed? Couldn't we measure the radition pressure on the sides of the Mars during the earth sheilding event (umbra)? The change in the radition pressure should relate to the movement of Mars. If radiation pressure is the significant event that equates to gravity as you claim there should be some huge changes in position to Mars when this shielding event happens. We know radiation pressure exists. We measure the force of the poynting vector. It is significantly less than the gravitational force. If these are the same would not they not measure the same? Of course they would. And wouldn't they have the same properties? Since the earth shields the radition pressure from the sun from an object passing through it's Umbra it should also sheild the gravity from the sun. Strangely it does not. So not only are the forces inconsistent the properties of the interactions are inconsistent.

Look BrianK, it's not my fault your view of 'gravity' is warped by the view presented to you in highschool. You need to actually understand what you are fighting for. Ypi also only mention radiation pressure which would mean you want to know what Mars is emitting. As much EM as the sun emits, it blocks even more behind it. Physics noobs, when talking about light always seem to limit their thoughts to visible light...which is actually weak than most of the non-visible frequencies... /fail

The reason gravity is so weak is because the area shielded gets smaller in a ratio to the distance. That area, get this, diminishes at an inverse squared rate - fascinating huh? ...boy that inversed-square thing sound familiar ... gee... duh...

For instance, when a tennis ball is held 1" from your eyes, it seems to fill the room. But as you move it away, the ball apparently gets smaller at an inverse-square ratio to the distance moved. So you see, physics doesn't have "magical" things, but physical things that defines reality.

@Lou

You answer was postering and added nothing to clarification. I asked about an experiment that might clear it up. Your comment was nothing about how it could or could not work. Alas pontificating doesn't help anyone and was pointless.

Quote:

As much EM as the sun emits, it blocks even more behind it. Physics noobs, when talking about light always seem to limit their thoughts to visible light...which is actually weak than most of the non-visible frequencies... /fail

Wow and these physics noobs talked about taking these readings with electromagentic meters which measure non-visible as well as visible frequencies. Perhaps some 'noobs' do but do note the 'noobs here' had not.

Last edited by BrianK on 31-Oct-2012 at 01:46 PM.

@Lou

You're the only one here who has had a hard time accepting the inverse square law, so you might think again about how you just came across.

_________________
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:

As much EM as the sun emits, it blocks even more behind it.

As yo may or may not be aware, the Voyager space probes are in the process of leaving the solar system. What this means is that in all of the time since their launch, the main source of measured EM has been from the sun, and that is not limited to the narrow slot that can be detected by the human eye. What this means is that the incoming energy and pressure is less than that radiating outward from the sun.
The figure of 0.6J/kM3 is not some theoretical assumption required to bolster some pet theory, it is the result of carefully taken measurement. Feel free to compare that figure with the output of the average white dwarf star. Then work out the energy density and radiation pressure between two such dwarf stars orbiting each other at a distance approximately 1/3 that of the Earth and its moon. And explain where the "shade" is between them.

Quote:

So you see, physics doesn't have "magical" things, but physical things that defines reality.

This is what we have been trying to explain to you for the entirety of this thread, but you persist in ignoring physical evidence of human endeavour in favour of your "magical" alien intervention, or "magical" planets that ignore all of the known laws of physics. The only reason that you persist in attempting to redefine the laws of physics is because they disprove the fiction spewed out by Sitchin.

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

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @Lou You're the only one here who has had a hard time accepting the inverse square law, so you might think again about how you just came across.

I know exactly how I came across.
You should ask how you come across.

I understand the mechanical reason behind the inverse square law and don't simply accept it because some text book said so.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: As much EM as the sun emits, it blocks even more behind it. As yo may or may not be aware, the Voyager space probes are in the process of leaving the solar system. What this means is that in all of the time since their launch, the main source of measured EM has been from the sun, and that is not limited to the narrow slot that can be detected by the human eye. What this means is that the incoming energy and pressure is less than that radiating outward from the sun. The figure of 0.6J/kM3 is not some theoretical assumption required to bolster some pet theory, it is the result of carefully taken measurement. Feel free to compare that figure with the output of the average white dwarf star. Then work out the energy density and radiation pressure between two such dwarf stars orbiting each other at a distance approximately 1/3 that of the Earth and its moon. And explain where the "shade" is between them. Quote: So you see, physics doesn't have "magical" things, but physical things that defines reality. This is what we have been trying to explain to you for the entirety of this thread, but you persist in ignoring physical evidence of human endeavour in favour of your "magical" alien intervention, or "magical" planets that ignore all of the known laws of physics. The only reason that you persist in attempting to redefine the laws of physics is because they disprove the fiction spewed out by Sitchin.

What you have been trying to explain is 'magic' the magic of the graviton. There is no separate force of gravity. 'Gravity' is just an effect of differences in energy density as even Einstein said so, but he didn't understand how it directly related to EM ... and this is what Brandenburg solved. Brandenburg came up with a calculated value for G by solving for the attractive force between the proton and electron in the hydrogen atom ... which if you bothered to read, we wouldn't STILL be having this conversation.

You keep talking about output ... you realize output is small compared to what is shadowed? If you don't then I can still see why your username hasn't changed.

The only thing I'm redifining is the THEORIES that you treat as laws.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou You answer was postering and added nothing to clarification. I asked about an experiment that might clear it up. Your comment was nothing about how it could or could not work. Alas pontificating doesn't help anyone and was pointless. Quote: As much EM as the sun emits, it blocks even more behind it. Physics noobs, when talking about light always seem to limit their thoughts to visible light...which is actually weak than most of the non-visible frequencies... /fail Wow and these physics noobs talked about taking these readings with electromagentic meters which measure non-visible as well as visible frequencies. Perhaps some 'noobs' do but do note the 'noobs here' had not.

Your asking for experiments that have already been done: casimir effect, Gravity Probe B.
If your still asking for experiments, the term noob holds true.

Last edited by Lou on 31-Oct-2012 at 10:23 PM.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121031151609.htm
Oh look, light can be bent with synthetic magnetism...who would have thunk it?

@Lou

Quote:

Your asking for experiments that have already been done: casimir effect, Gravity Probe B. If your still asking for experiments, the term noob holds true.

Your thinking that a experiment answers all questions and there should be no more shows that science noobs are far in advance of you.

@Lou

Sorry to break your bubble but Lochness Monster pics were faked.

New observational evidence of Star Formation

@Lou

Quote:

You keep talking about output ... you realize output is small compared to what is shadowed? If you don't then I can still see why your username hasn't changed.

And are you aware that the measured output of energy and radiation pressure from the sun at a distance of 16.9 light hours is still slightly greater than the incoming energy and radiation pressure. This means that there is no weight to your "gravity=radiation pressure" fantasy.

Quote:

Your asking for experiments that have already been done: casimir effect, Gravity Probe B.

Casimir effect produces insufficient force, over too short a range to be the mechanism that you are attempting to portray. That doesn't mean that I am claiming that it doesn't exist, merely that it is limited.
Gravity Probe B measured the gravitational frame dragging effect using gyroscopes contained in an enclosure that excluded external EM influences Although you find this difficult to believe but the engineers that built this technology actually knew how to do their jobs.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: You keep talking about output ... you realize output is small compared to what is shadowed? If you don't then I can still see why your username hasn't changed. And are you aware that the measured output of energy and radiation pressure from the sun at a distance of 16.9 light hours is still slightly greater than the incoming energy and radiation pressure. This means that there is no weight to your "gravity=radiation pressure" fantasy. Quote: Your asking for experiments that have already been done: casimir effect, Gravity Probe B. Casimir effect produces insufficient force, over too short a range to be the mechanism that you are attempting to portray. That doesn't mean that I am claiming that it doesn't exist, merely that it is limited. Gravity Probe B measured the gravitational frame dragging effect using gyroscopes contained in an enclosure that excluded external EM influences Although you find this difficult to believe but the engineers that built this technology actually knew how to do their jobs.

You still have no idea what you are talking about and always changing parameters.

Gravity Probe B confirmed frame-dragging. Once you understand what that means then come back to me.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Sorry to break your bubble but Lochness Monster pics were faked.

Wow my bubble just exploded all over the place!

@Lou

Quote:

You still have no idea what you are talking about and always changing parameters.

The accusation of changing parameters coming from somebody who claims to believe two mutually contradictory postulates is quite frankly ridiculous. The only one who persistently moves the goalposts while either refusing to attempt to produce evidence, or dishonestly claiming to have produced evidence is the same deluded individual who is proud of his unwillingness to ever investigate a claim, preferring to simply parrot any and every conspiracy nutjob and snake oil salesman that has a book to sell. This is evidenced by your original claim of "evidence of giants" that turned out to be an entry to a photoshop competition, and all of the "photograpic evidence" of Nibiru's impending arrival that turned out to be lens flare or reflections off windows. To make matters worse you then celebrated a decision to teach religious gogma in science classes as "progress".

Quote:

Gravity Probe B confirmed frame-dragging. Once you understand what that means then come back to me.

There is a clue to what Gravity Probe B was measuring in the name of the probe, but it is probably too complex for you to understand. Just as it is too complex for you to realise that "analogous to magnetism", and "magnetic attraction" are not the same thing

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

@Nimrod

Lou is also trying to make it sound like confirming frame-dragging negates the work of Einstein, while in fact Einsteins theory of general relativity predicts it in the first place.

_________________
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.