@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: perhaps you didn't realize that bigG is constant of proportionality and not an absolute value. This assumption, like all of its predecessors, is based on a false premise. Quote: the only scam going on here is you scamming your own mind of real information The only real information that is being ignored is the measured value of vacuum energy. It is 0.6J/kM3. This measured value does not match Brandenburgs assumed value that he uses to make his equations balance when "proving" that it is all Clearly RAdiation Pressure Fudging the maths doesn't work in this case, any better than it did when you tried to get away with using c=1.049 x 10^6. as opposed to its traditional value of 3 x 10^8 Please note:- figures used are rounded to reasonable levels of precision and are not intended as absolute final answers.

The only one talking crap here is you since you've blatantly said you haven't studied Brandenburg's work.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Nimrod did a good job of response of your duplicitous acceptance of Big G to prove you're right and rejection of Big G to prove you're right, I don't think I need to add more. Quote: That's Shoemaker hitting Jupiter. Considering Jupiter's atmosphere contains alot of ionized gas, I doubt any "measurements" have gone too deep into the atmosphere. Meanwhile, observations DO NOT match both theory or data. Here you are claiming that Jupiter has inadequate study. Fair enough if you want to claim that. Do note that 'not enough study' doesn't mean solid. 'Not enough study' means 'we don't know'. However bad our measures are it turns out that Jupiter is the most extensively studied out of all of the Gas Giants. Along with earth based observations we have Galileo, Cassini, and the Infrared Space Observatory. Which is where the ~10% at most rock comes from. And why it's thought to be mostly superfluid. Quote: Stop trying to back-track on general relativity. No one's back tracking on General Relativity. I've constantly said it's the best Theory we have to date and we know it's lacking. I've constantly said it's better than Newton but the quantum level still hasn't been fully overlaid. This is one large area in process. I wanted to be clear because you made it seem like there could be nothing else. There, can, of course be something else. However, that something else doesn't just get postulated and accepted. (As you do with Brandenburg.) That something else must be postulated and evidenced so we might understand if and how we can accept it. (Which we've asked for and you've failed to do.) Quote: I'm the one refining it into something better. It's not better. Why? There's no evidence to demonstrate it better -- for example Brandenburg has made any accurate predictions or forwarded us anywhere we weren't prior to his postulates. Along with which it does evidence (Haramein noteably) is wrong when overlaid to reality. Which means he does a worse job. Then some is just plain wrong, such as people hacking into government records which were so accurate they tell us 10 years ago that we'll have anti-gravity in 7 years. Again none of this, to date, has proven any better. But you can do this! All you need to do is provide us 1 area that was a direct result of Brandenburg. What evidence exists for his statement. (We'll skip over your claim he proved 'BigG' as you just told us 'BigG' was a blunder. So we'll take that Brandenburg replicated a blunder. That clearly wasn't better.) So back to again what you're missing... EVIDENCE?

All data about Jupiter has been theories based on the flawed general relativity model and with measurements of the extreme upper atmosphere. Until NASA does a landed Jupiter mission, no one really knows anything. Again, observation of MANY comets striking Jupiter show it to be quite solid even if it's atmosphere is thicker than earth's.

As for Brandenburg, his calculated value for G is a feat in of itself. You just fail to recognize this.

Recall Brandenburg also wrote a book about Mars. You can see him credited here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission

What we have here is you and what's his name trying to discredit a man whom is highly accredited. Instead of going by old ancient beliefs, perhaps you should open your eyes to new data and new theories derived from that data rather than playing the simple debunker role for the sake of a long-winded thread.

@Lou

Quote:

Until NASA does a landed Jupiter mission, no one really knows anything.

I disagree. But, none-the-less if this is your position in all fairness you cannot claim to any level of confidence that Jupiter is solid. If this is your claim of the state of knowledge we have today the best you can say is 'We don't know'.

Quote:

Again, observation of MANY comets striking Jupiter show it to be quite solid

Nope they don't. They show it to be a gas planet - as in gas/liquid mix. As the material ejected was not rock like but gas/liquid in composition.

Quote:

As for Brandenburg, his calculated value for G is a feat in of itself. You just fail to recognize this.

You told us Einstein's biggest blunder is Big G. If someone else users it, it doesn't mean it's validated. A blunder is a blunder no matter whose name is behind it. If Einstein can't use Big G because it's wrong neither can Brandenburg. Showing a calculation of a condition that's wrong is indeed a feat. It's a feat of continuing to make an error about reality. You fail to recognize this.

Quote:

What we have here is you and what's his name trying to discredit a man whom is highly accredited.

What your statement does here is try to promote someone based upon credentials. It's a logical failure called appeal to authority. Credentials mean shit. What has meaning when we're talking about overlaying reality is the ability which the theories correctly predict and are workable. You've yet to provide this of Brandenburg. You claim we must be open to new data. We have been open to new data, you simply fail to provide valided data. But go ahead - Name one technology which has come about due to Brandenburg's postulates that previous work had not done already?

@Lou

Quote:

The only one talking crap here is you since you've blatantly said you haven't studied Brandenburg's work.

Information provided by Brandenburg such as this clearly make assumptions that do not match reality. There is also a nice reference to Brandenburg here, together with some good advice.

Last edited by Nimrod on 10-Nov-2012 at 03:31 PM.

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

@Nimrod

Nice summary video. Thanks. I liked the inclusion of Scotse.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: The only one talking crap here is you since you've blatantly said you haven't studied Brandenburg's work. Information provided by Brandenburg such as this clearly make assumptions that do match reality. There is also a nice reference to Brandenburg here, together with some good advice.

Ah good, now you can truely see how you failed the dark box-light sources and light box dark sources example!

FYI: when it comes to math, I'll take Brandenburg over you any day.

The funniest part about that video is that everything you've regurgitated to me is something you've heard from everyone else. Also "oxidation" in science is associated with "burning". You did miss the link about natural nuclear reactors where I showed Brandenburg credited at the end. You see, whether Mars harboured a natural nuclear reactor(s) (of which one was also found on earth) or it was hit with nuclear bombs, oxidation of the surface would be a result of that. It also explains why Mars "dried up" since there is plenty of evidence of water channels on Mars. This video, however is less about Brandenburg and more about your follies.

A final note is the voice in the video claims Brandeburg has no published papers then you list one published in the Journal of Cosmology. You should really read the stuff you link before you link it.

Last edited by Lou on 09-Nov-2012 at 01:54 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 09-Nov-2012 at 01:52 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Until NASA does a landed Jupiter mission, no one really knows anything. I disagree. But, none-the-less if this is your position in all fairness you cannot claim to any level of confidence that Jupiter is solid. If this is your claim of the state of knowledge we have today the best you can say is 'We don't know'. Quote: Again, observation of MANY comets striking Jupiter show it to be quite solid Nope they don't. They show it to be a gas planet - as in gas/liquid mix. As the material ejected was not rock like but gas/liquid in composition. Quote: As for Brandenburg, his calculated value for G is a feat in of itself. You just fail to recognize this. You told us Einstein's biggest blunder is Big G. If someone else users it, it doesn't mean it's validated. A blunder is a blunder no matter whose name is behind it. If Einstein can't use Big G because it's wrong neither can Brandenburg. Showing a calculation of a condition that's wrong is indeed a feat. It's a feat of continuing to make an error about reality. You fail to recognize this. Quote: What we have here is you and what's his name trying to discredit a man whom is highly accredited. What your statement does here is try to promote someone based upon credentials. It's a logical failure called appeal to authority. Credentials mean shit. What has meaning when we're talking about overlaying reality is the ability which the theories correctly predict and are workable. You've yet to provide this of Brandenburg. You claim we must be open to new data. We have been open to new data, you simply fail to provide valided data. But go ahead - Name one technology which has come about due to Brandenburg's postulates that previous work had not done already?

Brandeburg worked on the MET thruster, what have you or the nimrod done?

I love the quote at the beginning of this paper: http://www.marspapers.org/papers/Brandenburg_2002_3.pdf
"“Better is the enemy of good enough”
- old Russian proverb"

Last edited by Lou on 09-Nov-2012 at 02:40 PM.

@Niolator

Negative gravity is mentioned in the radiation pressure model here:
http://www.johnkharms.com/gravitation/

for more in dept details read the paper that someone who can't understand it found:
http://journalofcosmology.com/JoC17pdfs/brandenburg2.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lExzHXqjV2k

Brandenburg explains the hydrogen bomb, spacetime.

@Lou

Quote:

Brandeburg worked on the MET thruster

From the MET Thruster reading I don't see them relating to any sort of gravity is really EM work from Brandenburg. I wasn't asking for any old invention. I was asking for an invention that directly related to the EM is God truth you proclaim.

Quote:

what have you or the nimrod done?

Unrelated and spurious question. Neither Nimrod nor I am claiming to have this great new truth about the universe nor are we claiming it's fully vettted. That'd be you and your sources. We're asking you how do you know that and you're not doing a good job at demonstrating evidence. You typically post a postulate which results in the universe being turtles.

You also make claims that are completely unsupported, such as Jupiter being a solid planet. None of today's research shows that. You claim astroids do, which again the research shows they do not. You did finally confirm that the evidence overall is just 'bad'. However, that backed you off your own point and demonstrated why you can't possibly know what you claimed was the truth. (Do note I did disagree with you that we don't have good enough evidence. For example, in Physics today there are discussions around Uranus perhaps being not a Gas Giant but an Ice Giant. This stems from that condition of not knowing enough to be firm and needing more research.) In 2016, Juno will reach Jupiter. It'll research the planet with newer technologies and experimentation. This probe is duplication and expanding upon the data we have from Galileo and other observations. The more precise mapping of Gravity will give us even better data to a possible rocky core. Today's gravity data says the rocky core, if it exists, is a small 10% of the entire mass of the planet. Way smaller than you indicate. It'll be interesting to see if Juno finds anything radically different.

Quote:

FYI: when it comes to math, I'll take Brandenburg over you any day.

Concerning Nimrod VS Brandenburg math you are choosing one over the other for faith based reasons. How about YOU learn enough math to confirm one or the other is more mathematically correct. We've asked you many times to show your math. Again something you've failed to do.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Brandeburg worked on the MET thruster From the MET Thruster reading I don't see them relating to any sort of gravity is really EM work from Brandenburg. I wasn't asking for any old invention. I was asking for an invention that directly related to the EM is God truth you proclaim.

Actually, no - you asked what has he done in general. We were discussing credentials, afterall.

Quote:

Quote: what have you or the nimrod done? Unrelated and spurious question. Neither Nimrod nor I am claiming to have this great new truth about the universe nor are we claiming it's fully vettted. That'd be you and your sources. We're asking you how do you know that and you're not doing a good job at demonstrating evidence. You typically post a postulate which results in the universe being turtles. You also make claims that are completely unsupported, such as Jupiter being a solid planet. None of today's research shows that. You claim astroids do, which again the research shows they do not. You did finally confirm that the evidence overall is just 'bad'. However, that backed you off your own point and demonstrated why you can't possibly know what you claimed was the truth. (Do note I did disagree with you that we don't have good enough evidence. For example, in Physics today there are discussions around Uranus perhaps being not a Gas Giant but an Ice Giant. This stems from that condition of not knowing enough to be firm and needing more research.) In 2016, Juno will reach Jupiter. It'll research the planet with newer technologies and experimentation. This probe is duplication and expanding upon the data we have from Galileo and other observations. The more precise mapping of Gravity will give us even better data to a possible rocky core. Today's gravity data says the rocky core, if it exists, is a small 10% of the entire mass of the planet. Way smaller than you indicate. It'll be interesting to see if Juno finds anything radically different.

So in other words, you and the nimrod have done nothing and are nothing but internet skeptics. Got it, thanks.

Quote:

Quote: FYI: when it comes to math, I'll take Brandenburg over you any day. Concerning Nimrod VS Brandenburg math you are choosing one over the other for faith based reasons. How about YOU learn enough math to confirm one or the other is more mathematically correct. We've asked you many times to show your math. Again something you've failed to do.

You, as a couch-based internet skeptic, are really going to try to compare the math knowledge of an electrical engineer to a man with a doctorate in plasma physics?
Apparently it is you that has failed.

@Lou

Quote:

Also "oxidation" in science is associated with "burning" [/b] In your imagination it may well be but there are billions of bits of rust metal that have never been near a flame, or burned in any way, yet they are still oxidised. Leave an iron nail lying around and it will rust. It will rust quicker if you do this near the sea as the presence of salt accelerates the process of oxidation. [quote]Brandeburg worked on the MET thruster, what have you or the nimrod done?

Well I don't know about Brian, but I have compared the measured values for vacuum energy with the values that would be needed to make the crock of sh*t that you support actually work. It is called "investigating claims" and is something that you would never do. When I said that potholer54 had some good advice, that advice was "Check your sources, and then check your sources sources."

Quote:

"“Better is the enemy of good enough”

This is a perfectly valid statement, but what evidence do you have to support your claim that the assertion made by Brandenburg even works, let alone "is better"? Apart from your assertion that it is better, that is. Unsupported assertions in support of other unsupported assertions does not qualify as peer review, and neither does publishing an article in the Journal of Cosmology count as completion of a successful peer review process. Potholer54's statement about the lack of peer reviewed scientific publications was accurate.

Quote:

You, as a couch-based internet skeptic, are really going to try to compare the math knowledge of an electrical engineer to a man with a doctorate in plasma physics?

You just don't understand mathematics, do you? It doesn't matter if Brandenburg has degrees and doctorates by the bucketload, if the maths does not match the real world then either the universe is wrong, or the assertion is wrong. The measured value for vacuum energy is still 0.6J/kM3, and is still too low to achieve that which you claim to be the case.

If you want Brandenburgs BS to supersede all previous ideas then it is up to you and Brandenburg to prove that they are better, not for the rest of the scientific, engineering and educational establishment to prove you to be merely a deluded individual with a persecution complex.

From your reply to Niolator.Quote:

Negative gravity is mentioned in the radiation pressure model here: http://www.johnkharms.com/gravitation/

I followed the link and read the article by Harms and spotted the following paragraph.Quote:

Lebedev also noticed the similarity between gravity and radiation pressure. He noted that gravity was caused by mass, but radiation pressure was due to an object’s surface (Gillispie, 1973). As is predicted by this gravity model, it is surface area, and not mass, that is responsible for gravity. Mass is, therefore, not responsible for gravity. These important points are discussed subsequently.

I note that the observation of a similarity between radiation pressure in the Casimir experiments using close proximity, large surface area, parallel, conductive plates, suddenly becomes a statement that surface area and not mass is responsible for gravity. Where is the evidence to support this assertion?
Harms is just another in a long line of "something for nothing" perpetual motion free energy fantasists.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Also "oxidation" in science is associated with "burning" [/b] In your imagination it may well be but there are billions of bits of rust metal that have never been near a flame, or burned in any way, yet they are still oxidised. Leave an iron nail lying around and it will rust. It will rust quicker if you do this near the sea as the presence of salt accelerates the process of oxidation. And your sea salt theory has the weight of a paperclip. Quote: [quote]Brandeburg worked on the MET thruster, what have you or the nimrod done? Well I don't know about Brian, but I have compared the measured values for vacuum energy with the values that would be needed to make the crock of sh*t that you support actually work. It is called "investigating claims" and is something that you would never do. When I said that potholer54 had some good advice, that advice was "Check your sources, and then check your sources sources."

When are you going to understand that your tiny brain isn't comparing apples to apples? In the end, you have accomplished nothing and Brandenburg has accomplished much in his career.

Quote:

Quote: "“Better is the enemy of good enough” This is a perfectly valid statement, but what evidence do you have to support your claim that the assertion made by Brandenburg even works, let alone "is better"? Apart from your assertion that it is better, that is. Unsupported assertions in support of other unsupported assertions does not qualify as peer review, and neither does publishing an article in the Journal of Cosmology count as completion of a successful peer review process. Potholer54's statement about the lack of peer reviewed scientific publications was accurate.

Many pages ago, I listed a link to where Brandenburg was peer-review. Your source is crap. Your arguments are crap. You don't even truly understand General Relativity even though you pretend to, hence your knowledge is crap.

Quote:

Quote: You, as a couch-based internet skeptic, are really going to try to compare the math knowledge of an electrical engineer to a man with a doctorate in plasma physics? You just don't understand mathematics, do you? It doesn't matter if Brandenburg has degrees and doctorates by the bucketload, if the maths does not match the real world then either the universe is wrong, or the assertion is wrong. The measured value for vacuum energy is still 0.6J/kM3, and is still too low to achieve that which you claim to be the case.

Again, you are clueless. Do you know that big G has divisor units of mass times mass because Einstein used mass times mass in the other part of the equation?
Do you know mass in an arbitraty thing? So what in real life is mass times mass? He could have just as easily used length times width, which would give you area. For instance, the cross-sectional area of a planet... Hence 'gravity' can be computed just by comparing radii. You can then add a density ratio fudge factor to convert back to "mass".

Quote:

If you want Brandenburgs BS to supersede all previous ideas then it is up to you and Brandenburg to prove that they are better, not for the rest of the scientific, engineering and educational establishment to prove you to be merely a deluded individual with a persecution complex.

No. Brandenburg merely completed Einstein's work. The persecution complex is yours.

Quote:

From your reply to Niolator.Quote: Negative gravity is mentioned in the radiation pressure model here: http://www.johnkharms.com/gravitation/ I followed the link and read the article by Harms and spotted the following paragraph.Quote: Lebedev also noticed the similarity between gravity and radiation pressure. He noted that gravity was caused by mass, but radiation pressure was due to an object’s surface (Gillispie, 1973). As is predicted by this gravity model, it is surface area, and not mass, that is responsible for gravity. Mass is, therefore, not responsible for gravity. These important points are discussed subsequently. I note that the observation of a similarity between radiation pressure in the Casimir experiments using close proximity, large surface area, parallel, conductive plates, suddenly becomes a statement that surface area and not mass is responsible for gravity. Where is the evidence to support this assertion? Harms is just another in a long line of "something for nothing" perpetual motion free energy fantasists.

It's funny, I find that light is given perpetual motion in physics... So much for the that excuse of perpetual motion not existing... I like how you immediately try your typical "discredit the source" debunking 101 tactic. You can't argue the math or theory so it's better to just brand him a 'fanatic'. Good job.

@Lou

Quote:

Actually, no - you asked what has he done in general

I don't believe I was unclear but let me rephrase for clarity. Show me 1 thing that Brandenburg's EM is God postulates has brought to us that didn't exist prior.

Quote:

We were discussing credentials, afterall

No rephrasing needed my response was straight forward - 'Credentials mean shit!' End of discussion.

Quote:

You, as a couch-based internet skeptic, are really going to try to compare the math knowledge of an electrical engineer to a man with a doctorate in plasma physics?

This harkens back to credentials mean shit. Mathemathics are either valid or they are invalid. If a valid mistake can be demonstrated then a valid mistake exists. And when conclusions of the postulate are incongruent with reality, as some of Brandenburg's appear to be off by a factor of 1000, the problem is clearly not because reality doesn't have a degree in plasma physics.

@Lou

Quote:

Many pages ago, I listed a link to where Brandenburg was peer-review.

When and where? You keep claiming to have posted irrefutible evidence, but somehow nobody else can ever find it. A simple post number will suffice.

Quote:

Do you know mass in an arbitraty thing?

Yes, I do know that the units of mass measurement are an arbitrary figure devised by the French revolutionary Assemblée Constituante which introduced five standardised measurements on 18 Germinal, Year III. (7 April 1795).

Quote:

So what in real life is mass times mass?

That is a very good question, now let me ask one. What in real life is speed times speed? As in e=mc^2. In normal "real life" both are meaningless terms, but in mathematics they are both valuable and necessary mathematical constructs. The fact that you cannot wrap your tiny little mind around abstract concepts such as infinitesimals, or imaginary numbers i, j, and k as used in quaternions, doesn't mean that they are not valid. The square root of minus one is a number that cannot actually exist in real terms, but we still manage to use it in many situations.

Quote:

Hence 'gravity' can be computed just by comparing radii. You can then add a density ratio fudge factor to convert back to "mass".

Why bother with fudging the maths when you can simply calculate gravity by using mass in the first place. The problem with adding a "dense fudge" is that you would need different "dense fudges" for different situations. Did you know that the density of a micro black hole is greater than that of a supermassive black hole such as is found at the centre of galaxies? This is part of the reason that I was so unimpressed by Harameins straight line graph plotting to "prove" that his schwartzchild proton was the real one and our one with a mass of 1.673x10^-27 kG was an impostor

Quote:

It's funny, I find that light is given perpetual motion in physics...

Indeed, but every so often somebody tries to convince me that if you shine a light emitting diode at a photovoltaic cell, you will generate enough electricity to light the led and a bit more besides. It is the "something for nothing, free energy aspect that is so laughable. For example Harms thinks that energy can be extracted from the zero point state. The entire premise of zero point energy is that it is energy that is left after all possible energy has been extracted, and as such is not available to be extracted, and this moron wants to use it as an inexhaustible energy supply.

Last edited by Nimrod on 10-Nov-2012 at 03:32 PM.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

It's funny, I find that light is given perpetual motion in physics... Indeed, but every so often somebody tries to convince me that if you shine a light emitting diode at a photovoltaic cell, you will generate enough electricity to light the led and a bit more besides. It is the "something for nothing, free energy aspect that is so laughable. For example Harms thinks that energy can be extracted from the zero point state. The entire premise of zero point energy is that it is energy that is left after all possible energy has been extracted, and as such is not available to be extracted, and this moron wants to use it as an inexhaustible energy supply.

Indeed this is something that trips up Haramein and therefore Lou as well.

Zero-point energy cannot be harvested. This breaks the definition. If one's harvesting energy the system is therefore not at it's Zero-Point. LINK

Here's an example to how ZPE works to banking ---
Many banks have a minimum balance to keep a Savings Account. (For this example let's say it's $100). Several banks automatically close your account when your minimum balance falls below the established level. ($99.99 = no more account). This isn't unlike zero point energy. The zero point energy is that minimum amount of balance that one must have inorder to have a system. If any more energy is extracted the system no longer exists. What Lou (via Haramein) conceives happen is once they reach $100 is not that the account goes away. Instead they contend the bank allows them to make infinite $99 withdrawls.

Now this isn't to say perhaps something does allow infinite energy to be extracted from the background of the universe. However, doing so means, by definition, that the system is not at the zero-point energy. ... One example I could think of would be that our universe is like an ocean. Perhaps many rivers (energies from other universes) fall into it. So it could be true we could get 'infinite' energy from the background. However, what is also true is this energy is not at the zero-point.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Actually, no - you asked what has he done in general I don't believe I was unclear but let me rephrase for clarity. Show me 1 thing that Brandenburg's EM is God postulates has brought to us that didn't exist prior. Quote: We were discussing credentials, afterall No rephrasing needed my response was straight forward - 'Credentials mean shit!' End of discussion. Quote: You, as a couch-based internet skeptic, are really going to try to compare the math knowledge of an electrical engineer to a man with a doctorate in plasma physics? This harkens back to credentials mean shit. Mathemathics are either valid or they are invalid. If a valid mistake can be demonstrated then a valid mistake exists. And when conclusions of the postulate are incongruent with reality, as some of Brandenburg's appear to be off by a factor of 1000, the problem is clearly not because reality doesn't have a degree in plasma physics.

Yes, people with no credentials often make such statements...

@Lou

Quote:

Yes, people with no credentials often make such statements...

Does having credentials preclude one from being able to make mistakes?

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@Lou

Quote:

Yes, people with no credentials often make such statements.

Do you want to do this dance again?!

An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Its akin to science creating Bishops of unquestionable authority. Instead science cares not about credentials.

When describing reality (no matter your credentials) your work must stand up against the universe. Your work must be able to make accurate predictions about the universe. Your work must be backed up by replicable, verifiable, and validated observational data.

A great example is the Nobel Chemist winning Linus Pauling. He made some claims that were able to stand up to the test of time. It earned him a Nobel prize. He, also, made some claims about the nature of Vitamin C being a curative for Cancer. Which has not been able to stand up to evidence and left him disgraced. Just because this Nobel winning Dr. said X doesn't mean X is true. In fact, science uses reality to validate if the Nobel Dr. was right.

So likewise I ask you what work has Dr. Brandenburg's EM_is_God postulates demonstrate that was not done before?

If you want to argue I have no credentials. I'll agree that's true. But, it doesn't mean we get to let the good Dr. Brandenburg make claims and must accept them on faith. They still must be fact checked against reality.


Which this all harkens back to my statements that I can make some really pretty maths which logically follow from themselves. However, there is no dictate that reality must abide to my (or anyone else's) pretty mathemathics. I also recently provided how someone else recently showed my statement to be true Rlyeh math is pretty and not found in reality

@Lou

Quote:

Yes, people with no credentials often make such statements...

When I say "Check your sources" I did not mean look up their qualifications and credentials" I meant check the validity of their statements. As Karlos points out, credentials do not preclude the possibility of error.
I am told that Thomas Edison was quite well endowed with credentials when he stated that "It is apparent to me that the possibilities of the aeroplane, which two or three years ago were thought to hold the solution to the [flying machine] problem, have been exhausted, and that we must turn elsewhere. " He got proved wrong by a pair of bicycle repair men. And then there was the Boeing engineer who said "There will never be a bigger aircraft built" when describing a twin engined plane capable of carrying 10 people.
On the other hand there was the promise that nuclear power would provide energy"too cheap to bother metering", or the old reliable "flying cars" that have been due "any time now" since the invention of the horseless carriage.

Experts get things wrong, and when things go wrong, people like me find the faults. Sometimes the faults cannot be fixed.

The only thing that I will say about people with no credentials is that some of them get overly impressed by the credentials that they do not have. This is as much of a fallacy as those with credentials who believe that the letters after their name render them infallible.

While I am only an engineer, and not a scientist, I have worked with and for scientists for long enough to ensure that any statement I make is evidence based, and not ego based, and the existence of evidence overrules any and all credentials.

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