@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Which leads me to my statement: your guess is as good as mine. As Christopher Hitchens one said -"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. "

Oh? So we can dismiss dark matter and dark energy?

... and in light of being able to dimiss those 2 then gravity along with it?

@Lou

Quote:

@Nimrod http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life

In post
#342 you wrote
Quote:

@Nimrod LOL! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life As for why they left, read Sitchin.

And I answered in post#345 as follows
Quote:

@Lou Quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life Extract from your quoted article. Quote: For example, one can start with a single radioactive atom, wait its half-life, and measure whether or not it decays in that period of time. Perhaps it will and perhaps it will not. But if this experiment is repeated again and again, it will be seen that - on average - it decays within the half life 50% of the time. Yes Lou if the samples used for radioactive decay timing consisted of a single atom your LOL would be accurate. Although you will refuse to believe this the people carrying out the tests know how to do their jobs. They take multiple samples from the site to get a range of dates. The method of measuring the levels of radiation is not to simply waft a geiger counter near the sample, but to test a carefully weighed sample in a temperature controlled protected environment, over a long period of time. This then leads to the quote from the next paragraph in the article. Quote: In other cases, a very large number of identical radioactive atoms decay in the time-range measured. In this case, the law of large numbers ensures that the number of atoms that actually decay is essentially equal to the number of atoms that are expected to decay. In other words, with a large enough number of decaying atoms, the probabilistic aspects of the process can be ignored.

It may be that you are once again simply repeating some comforting mantra to protect your faith, however, if you have any particular point that you wish to make from this Wikipedia article, then please feel free to make it, but in the meantime I will quote one more point from the article that you seem to think is important
Quote:

Note the law of large numbers: With more atoms, the overall decay is less random.

This directly contradicts your statement in post #357 that radioactive decay was somehow exempt from the law of large numbers.

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

@Lou

Quote:

Quote: As Christopher Hitchens one said -"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. " Oh? So we can dismiss dark matter and dark energy?

In actuality at this time yes we can dismiss dark matter and dark energy from the Theory. They are hypotheses they are not a necessary condition for the Theory of Gravity to operate. There are other HYPOTHESIS which explain Gravity w/o the need to invoke dark matter or dark energy. If we find something else then that rightly takes the place of dark matter or dark energy. Perhaps one of the competing hypothesis, quantum gravity for example, may end up with the valid evidence. So, until we have actual valid evidence that these exist we need not include them.

Though note while this has been explained to you many times you appear to be beating a dead horse and don't realize why you're even beating it. Which leads me to...
Quote:

... and in light of being able to dimiss those 2 then gravity along with it?

I'd recommend strengthening your understanding and the difference of definitions of Scientific Hypotheses and Theories.

Last edited by BrianK on 06-Jun-2011 at 02:15 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Oh? So we can dismiss dark matter and dark energy? ... and in light of being able to dimiss those 2 then gravity along with it?

The current laws of gravity can accurately describe and predict the universe to large degree of accuracy.
Your EM codswallop cannot even be expressed in a functional relevant equation. At the best the EM power levels are less than one tenth of one percent of the levels needed to achieve the results that you claim, and more often than not, they totally contradict the observed data.

From my earlier post #292
Quote:

Dark matter, and Dark energy are not some mysterious "different" form of matter and energy, they are merely matter and energy that are, as yet, unidentified. Previous "candidates" have been monatomic Hydrogen, and Carbon in the form of Buckminster Fullerene. If it should turn out that the entirety of what is now called dark matter is later analysed as 30% Hydrogen, 30% Carbon, and 30% Paperclips& bellybutton fluff, It does not mean that 90% of dark matter has been transformed, it simply means that there is only 10% left to identify.

As equipment and methodology improve so more of the "missing" data will be filled in, and more answers will be found, and the correct answer will not be provided by Nancy LIEder and the voices in her head insisting that "It is ALL EM!!!!!"

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

@MikeB

From your post #224
Quote:

Antimatter does not exist.

I thought I would just update you with the following snippet of news

Last edited by Nimrod on 06-Jun-2011 at 07:04 PM.

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

http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Ancient_Aliens/70178604?trkid=496624#height1447

A good summary of evidence backed by re-engineering.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: In actuality at this time yes we can dismiss dark matter and dark energy from the Theory. They are hypotheses they are not a necessary condition for the Theory of Gravity to operate. There are other HYPOTHESIS which explain Gravity w/o the need to invoke dark matter or dark energy. If we find something else then that rightly takes the place of dark matter or dark energy. Perhaps one of the competing hypothesis, quantum gravity for example, may end up with the valid evidence. So, until we have actual valid evidence that these exist we need not include them. Though note while this has been explained to you many times you appear to be beating a dead horse and don't realize why you're even beating it. Which leads me to... I'd recommend strengthening your understanding and the difference of definitions of Scientific Hypotheses and Theories.

So you have a theory that only seems to work good enough (but not perfect) in this star (Solar) system but not outside it yet you still insist that it is valid?
Yes, the horse has been beaten and skinned.
You accept theories which have proven error simply because they are the best someone has mustered. The 'gravity' approached has hindered research in the true force because everybody accepted it as 'good enough'. I will not accept it just because everyone else does. The research has been done and the answer is simply 'good enough' for most people...

@Lou

Quote:

So you have a theory that only seems to work good enough (but not perfect) in this star (Solar) system but not outside it yet you still insist that it is valid?

Science works on the best evidence we have. Gravity works really well at the planetary scale and not so much at the quantum. As for the charge 'not outside' that's well simply false in so far as we have made predictions and found such planets lightyears away. Even MikeB posted the Jupiter sized planet discoveries by Gravitation.

Quote:

You accept theories which have proven error simply because they are the best someone has mustered

Yes I accept theories which have the smaller error with the greater evidence. Gravitation over EM. Again bring that evidence and show your guess has a smaller or non-existent error and I'll certainly accept it as better. Until then it's an unsupported guess. It may be right. But you simply have failed to demonstrate it truly is more right than Gravity.

Quote:

I will not accept it just because everyone else does.

You should not accept due to popularity. Afterall popularity is a logical fallacy. You should accept because it, because it is, the best evidenced explaination we have at the time. And be willing and accepting of other data when and if that should arrive. Science isn't over and I doubt it ever will be. Instead we continue to research and build experiments such as satellites and super colliders.

Again, rejecting an idea does not support belief in unevidenced answers. It instead demands you build that evidence and your own support for the explaintion.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/honolulu-kitv-18211460/mauna-kea-sees-snow-in-the-summer-25477501#video=25497048
Snow in Hawaii

Meanwhile we had a huge explosion on the Sun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hyi4hjG6kDM
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2011/06/07/Sun-unleashes-flare-storm-and-particles/UPI-35711307484246/?spt=mps&or=5

Meanwhile on http://elenin.org you can see that Mercury, Mars, Venus and Jupiter were almost aligned on that side with each other and Comet Elenin on the almost direct opposite side... Interestingly, Earth is between Elenin and Honda now...

What a co-inky-dink...

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: So you have a theory that only seems to work good enough (but not perfect) in this star (Solar) system but not outside it yet you still insist that it is valid? Science works on the best evidence we have. Gravity works really well at the planetary scale and not so much at the quantum. As for the charge 'not outside' that's well simply false in so far as we have made predictions and found such planets lightyears away. Even MikeB posted the Jupiter sized planet discoveries by Gravitation.

No, not gravitation but "gravitational" lensing which is not proven to be directly from gravity as gravity is yet to be proven to truly exist. As light has such a tiny mass, it has been known to be affected by EM and even created from EM.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-researchers-create-light-from-almost.html

Pretty soon we'll be able to convert heat into electricity because as we know heat bends light and induced EM and vice versa...
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-neutron-analysis-dynamics-thermoelectric-materials.html

On a side note...
A planet going the wrong way has been found!
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-planet-wrong.html
Who would have thunk that was possible??? Wait! Doesn't Nibiru do that?

It seems that 'science' is just a subset of what there is to know and that people need to stop pretending that until science catches up with reality that science is all there is to know and debate... The proper term is 'accepted science'. Recognize that accepted science is a subset of reality and not all of actuallity. So remember, just because you know what 'science' taught you doesn't mean you know everything.

@Lou

Quote:

Meanwhile on http://elenin.org you can see that Mercury, Mars, Venus and Jupiter were almost aligned on that side with each other and Comet Elenin on the almost direct opposite side... Interestingly, Earth is between Elenin and Honda now...

Would you please be so kind as to make up your mind as to exactly what Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Proposal you are touting today. In earlier posts you have given the holy word of the divine Sitchin that Nibiru would not be here for another 900 years, and now you are again pushing the line that this comet is in fact a brown dwarf called Nibiru. You even complained when we appeared to have ignored your divine revelation in part one, and I had to reassure you that I had read your comment, and was not ignoring you.

Quote:

On a side note... A planet going the wrong way has been found! http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-planet-wrong.html Who would have thunk that was possible??? Wait! Doesn't Nibiru do that?

Firstly let us look at this from the Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Proposal of "EM rules all" If EM is so all important, why has the spinning magnetic field not corrected the retrograde orbit of this planet? Answer. EM is too weak. A possible hypothesis for this interesting discovery is a lonely planet of the type BrianK referred to in post #188 getting "adopted" by a solar system. As long as it does not hit too much oncoming traffic there should be no major extra problem to it establishing an orbit in a gravitational system. Yet another nail in the coffin of your EM dream.
As to "Who would have thunk that was possible???" There is a huge difference between "Possible" and "Probable" as my example in post #356 explains, and there is another equally large difference between "Probable" and "Absolute fact"
You have failed to provide any proof for your assertions,and the mountain of evidence against your ideas grows daily.

Quote:

It seems that 'science' is just a subset of what there is to know and that people need to stop pretending that until science catches up with reality that science is all there is to know and debate... The proper term is 'accepted science'. Recognize that accepted science is a subset of reality and not all of actuallity. So remember, just because you know what 'science' taught you doesn't mean you know everything.

You seem to be determined that only that which is "outside of the box" has any truth and validity, and seem unable to accept that it is possible to be so far outside of the box that you end up in a different box. (see post #341)

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

@Lou

Right, Lou, coronal mass ejections cause snow in Hawaii. Whatever. Your problem is partly that you don't understand the fact that correlation does not equal causation. But whatever. CMEs cause snow. Clearly, 'Winter' is nothing but an Illuminati coverup for a period of increased CME frequency that 'science' tells us is due to variations in the Earth's orbit, right? Clearly, we scientists have made them up to cover up the Truth of CMEs.

And, nice work finding that retrograde orbiting planet. With that one piece of evidence, you totally destroy your EM-only hypothesis. Thanks for doing our work for us, although I thought you said you weren't going to do that.

Quote:

So remember, just because you know what 'science' taught you doesn't mean you know everything.

A valid, if arrogantly expressed point. But for your information, no scientist ever forgets that they don't know everything. The whole point of science is to press the boundaries of what we know and improve our understanding of the world. Religious dogma is the stagnant force you should be opposing, if you want to fight people who think they know everything. Unfortunately, you've chosen the side of dogma and are projecting its flaws onto science in your attempt to discredit it..

I would also like to ask you to remember that just because you've decided to reject evidence and reason, doesn't mean you know anything. In fact, from a philosophical point of view it is difficult to see how you can *know* anything at all when operating from such a stunted intellectual base.

Last edited by T-J on 08-Jun-2011 at 11:25 AM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Meanwhile on http://elenin.org you can see that Mercury, Mars, Venus and Jupiter were almost aligned on that side with each other and Comet Elenin on the almost direct opposite side... Interestingly, Earth is between Elenin and Honda now... Would you please be so kind as to make up your mind as to exactly what Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Proposal you are touting today. In earlier posts you have given the holy word of the divine Sitchin that Nibiru would not be here for another 900 years, and now you are again pushing the line that this comet is in fact a brown dwarf called Nibiru. You even complained when we appeared to have ignored your divine revelation in part one, and I had to reassure you that I had read your comment, and was not ignoring you.

You are clearly taking a bunch of statements I made and assuming I saying they are all related. A classic case of putting words in my mouth. I'm merely pointing out co-incidences. The conclusions are in your own head.

Quote:

Quote: On a side note... A planet going the wrong way has been found! http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-planet-wrong.html Who would have thunk that was possible??? Wait! Doesn't Nibiru do that? Firstly let us look at this from the Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Proposal of "EM rules all" If EM is so all important, why has the spinning magnetic field not corrected the retrograde orbit of this planet? Answer. EM is too weak. A possible hypothesis for this interesting discovery is a lonely planet of the type BrianK referred to in post #188 getting "adopted" by a solar system. As long as it does not hit too much oncoming traffic there should be no major extra problem to it establishing an orbit in a gravitational system. Yet another nail in the coffin of your EM dream. As to "Who would have thunk that was possible???" There is a huge difference between "Possible" and "Probable" as my example in post #356 explains, and there is another equally large difference between "Probable" and "Absolute fact" You have failed to provide any proof for your assertions,and the mountain of evidence against your ideas grows daily.

It seems once again you are putting words in my mouth.
Everyone thought Sitchin was a bit crazy when he said Nibiru orbits THIS star in a retrograde orbit, but here is an example of it happening elsewhere. Any other conclusions you attempted to dream up that I am coming to are part of your own delusions...

Quote:

Quote: It seems that 'science' is just a subset of what there is to know and that people need to stop pretending that until science catches up with reality that science is all there is to know and debate... The proper term is 'accepted science'. Recognize that accepted science is a subset of reality and not all of actuallity. So remember, just because you know what 'science' taught you doesn't mean you know everything. You seem to be determined that only that which is "outside of the box" has any truth and validity, and seem unable to accept that it is possible to be so far outside of the box that you end up in a different box. (see post #341)

Here is where you are delusional again. I said that by you only learning what you are taught, you stay in your box and as stated earlier many scientific discoveries came about accidentally. If people always do what they've been doing, they'll always find what they've been finding.

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote: @Lou Right, Lou, coronal mass ejections cause snow in Hawaii. Whatever. Your problem is partly that you don't understand the fact that correlation does not equal causation. But whatever. CMEs cause snow. Clearly, 'Winter' is nothing but an Illuminati coverup for a period of increased CME frequency that 'science' tells us is due to variations in the Earth's orbit, right? Clearly, we scientists have made them up to cover up the Truth of CMEs.

Another rocket-scientist putting words in my mouth. Who would have thunk it...?

Quote:

And, nice work finding that retrograde orbiting planet. With that one piece of evidence, you totally destroy your EM-only hypothesis. Thanks for doing our work for us, although I thought you said you weren't going to do that.

What does a retrograde orbit have to do with EM vs. gravity? Another rocket-scientist putting words in my mouth. Who would have thunk it...?


Quote:

Quote: So remember, just because you know what 'science' taught you doesn't mean you know everything. A valid, if arrogantly expressed point. But for your information, no scientist ever forgets that they don't know everything. The whole point of science is to press the boundaries of what we know and improve our understanding of the world. Religious dogma is the stagnant force you should be opposing, if you want to fight people who think they know everything. Unfortunately, you've chosen the side of dogma and are projecting its flaws onto science in your attempt to discredit it.. I would also like to ask you to remember that just because you've decided to reject evidence and reason, doesn't mean you know anything. In fact, from a philosophical point of view it is difficult to see how you can *know* anything at all when operating from such a stunted intellectual base.

I don't reject evidence. Actually, I find your statement applies to people like you and Nimrod. There is evidence that gravity is bogus...yet you two reject that.

All I do is I don't limit myself to the subset of possibilities that 'accepted science' has taught you. It's really that simple. Just because something hasn't been discovered or proven yet doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or isn't real. I have seen things you would not believe (ufos, plural). So I know there are more possibilities than what is accepted. It is a matter of fact to me and a matter of theory to you.

Besides I'm not the one who is arrogant enough to believe assumed averages based on probability about radioactive decay are set in stone...

Last edited by Lou on 08-Jun-2011 at 12:20 PM.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/196147-Ancient-Human-Metropolis-Found-in-Africa
Who would have thunk people were around 150,000 years ago?

Guesses, anyone?

@Lou

Quote:

Snow in Hawaii

Yeah snow where I skiied in the mid-90s. Certainly must be an undiscovered brown dwarf as the cause. Go Pineapple Powder!

Quote:

Meanwhile on http://elenin.org you can see that Mercury, Mars, Venus and Jupiter were almost aligned on that side with each other and Comet Elenin on the almost direct opposite side... Interestingly, Earth is between Elenin and Honda now...

How much weight does this coincidence really hold? (NOTE: I'm taking your word for this. When I fact checked your previous 'on alignment' claims they turned out to not be true.)

Quote:

As light has such a tiny mass, it has been known to be affected by EM and even created from EM.

arXiv is interesting as people put their wild assed papers out there for consideration. Some are simply flat our wrong. A small handful have been replicated and validated. Existence of a experiment is interesting. There is quite a bit of work to be done to verify there wasn't some mistake and ensure consistency.

Quote:

Who would have thunk that was possible???

Everything doesn't have to travel in the same direction. What if a wandering planet was caught by a different starsystem? It could throw things off and things would have to readjust.

Quote:

Wait! Doesn't Nibiru do that?

Don't know you don't have any evidence of Nibiru actually existing. It possibly might do that with a hat on and singing covers of the Andrew sisters. Can I now invoke my guess is good as yours excuse you tried?

Quote:

Recognize that accepted science is a subset of reality and not all of actuallity. So remember, just because you know what 'science' taught you doesn't mean you know everything

Did you miss my repeated posts where I've said exactly this? Science accepts X is the best model because it has the best evidence and the best predictivity at this time. It may be Y as you claim but you need to bring better evidence and better predicitivity. I've even said EM exists and plays a role in the universe, as one of the 4 forces. It's you discounting the other 3 forces and have yet to provide adequate evidence or usable predictability. In fact your guess is worse because it's unfalsible. Early on I asked you to go read history about scientific paradigm shifts. This is the time when Y is accepted over X. It's clear you had not understood that I fully accept science doesn't know everything and must continue it's journey.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/229705-Five-Injured-in-5-3-Magnitude-Earthquake-in-China-s-Xinjiang
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/229703-US-Small-3-9-Magnitude-Quake-Hits-St-Louis-Region

@Lou

Quote:

Who would have thunk people were around 150,000 years ago?

I'd have to say science. Genetic lines of evidence lead us to Sapiens split roughly 2 million years ago. Homo Sapien Sapiens being a bit more than 200,000 years old. We're thought to have originated from southern South Africa. -- Did they perhaps use this information to look for where it'd make the most sense that some sort of ruins of structures might exist?

Of course it could be greys who planted it there 10K years ago and zapped it with an EM ray to fake our dating methods into thinking it is 150K years old.

@Lou

Lou, I'm not a rocket scientist. I actually prefer the space-plane concept of constructing a reusable orbiter.

Secondly, I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm using an example of applying your logical process through which you have 'disproved' gravity to asnother widely-accepted concept, in the process highlighting the fundamental flaws in that logic.

Thirdly, your 150,000 year old city? Where's the evidence that its that old? I read that article. It started out by trying to use Carbon-14 to establish an age of 200,000 years. If you or that author knew anything about C-14 dating, you'd know why that's stupid.

C-14's halflife is too short. After 200,000 years, there's not enough left to detect. Our dating curves only go back about 60,000 years. Beyond that, the mathematical model simply returns a maximum age. And it doesn't matter if you don't accept radioactive decay. What matters is that if there were a sample with no C-14 in it, we would say it is at least 60,000 years old. We would make no guesses beyond that, it would just be >60000. In short, I'm telling you your author is lying. Of course, you believe in Sitchin, so that's not a problem for you, is it?

The only other evidence the author saw fit to propose was a 'patina' on the rocks, and the rate of erosion of dolerite in the area. Which, frankly, is bunk.

He then repeated the same old tired out rubbish from Sitchin. Which is a pack of lies. You can't present a pack of lies as evidence for the age of an archaeological site. That's fraud.



And fourthly, two minor earthquakes happening? So what? Its not evidence in favour of your favourite myth, be it Nibiru or some Hopi drug-induced hallucination. Its just tectonics behaving normally.

The only arrogance here is your assertion that the standards of proof and evidence need not apply to anything you happen to believe in, while everything else must hold itself to a gold-standard for your convenience.

@Lou

Quote:

There is evidence that gravity is bogus.

All that you have to do is produce the evidence for your Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Proposal and we will all fall into line.
The reason that you keep on whining is because you have no evidence
Lack of evidence against the veracity of your opium dream is not evidence for it'
The sales pitch of a convicted fraudster is not reliable evidence.
Narrative causality is not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence.
Personal abuse is not evidence.

Quote:

Everyone thought Sitchin was a bit crazy

Correction, Sitchin was not crazy, he was an incompetent, plagiarising,talentless, second rate sci-fi scribbler who lied about his ability to translate documents in order to try to improve his book sales. As were his fellow travellers Velikovsky and Von Daniken.
The latest addition to the parade of the incompetent is Nancy LIEder who is pushing this claptrap about the universe running on EM "because the voices in my head said so". They are all con-artists trying to part the gullible from their money.

Quote:

What does a retrograde orbit have to do with EM vs. gravity

Look at your own story. The magnetic field of this sun is spinning in the same direction as the sun itself. If EM had the power that you claim it does it would have reversed the orbital direction of the planet. The reason that it did not is because It could not

Remember your story about the roulette wheel, well your ability to get it right has not improved.

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