@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote: @Lou Quote: Picture this stuff everywhere instead of 'dark matter' and look it carries EM, imagine that... OK, but then how do you explain the results from the charged particle colliders? Of coruse, you don't. You think protons are held together with superglue. But whatever, there's something else interesting here: Somebody's saying stuff you agree with, and lo! The big black cars haven't taken him away! Perhaps your conspiracy theories aren't quite entirely correct?

You are just an ignorant troll.
If protons are 2 quarks spinning up and one spinning down, why wouldn't they be attracted to 2 quarks spinning down and 1 spinning up aka neutrons...when there subparticles are polarized to attract to each other?
Regards, you have just been presented with evidence of actual (not dark) matter propagating EM that is normally not visible because it's considered a gas. None of this dark b.s...

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: That video was completely useless. Wow. Well, you can give a man an explaination but you certainly can't make him think.

You're explanation was simpleton theory. There was no substance to it.

Quote:

Quote: However it does expose the error that is 'gravity is the main force in the universe'. It does note that perhaps it's all wrong. Which I think you'll find the more scientific bent people here do agree with. They have asked you repeatively for evidence. Unfortunately what we get from you is conjectures that you're right and all of science is wrong. You never seem to understand what evidence means.

If you read my subsequent post you'd see some evidence of ACTUAL matter propagating EM despite the fact that you couldn't see it because it's a thin gas.

Last edited by Lou on 09-Oct-2011 at 02:12 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

You're explanation was simpleton theory. There was no substance to it.

Alas you apparently don't understand what the YouTube was. It was to explain to the layman how this works. It's clearly NOT the scientific dissertation. Once people understand the base concepts and how it works if they want to know more they can research deeper. And it does an excellent job at succeding at it's goal.

Quote:

If you read my subsequent post you'd see some evidence of ACTUAL matter propagating EM despite the fact that you couldn't see it because it's a thin gas.

Evidence isn't 'hey something exists'. Evidence is proving it exists in the manner you claim. Nothing here demonstrates your claim that Gravity doesn't exist. Your simpleton theory replicates the business plan of the Underpants Gnomes. Observer matter, ???, it's all EM.

@Lou

Quote:

See, now this makes more sense: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/10/astronomers-take-first-ever-image-of-turbulent-gas-between-the-stars.ars Picture this stuff everywhere instead of 'dark matter' and look it carries EM, imagine that..

Just to set your mind at rest, I will agree unconditionally that EM does actually exist! I have not ever actually denied the fact of its existence, and logically I would never be able to make such a ridiculous claim since I have spent my entire working life telling people how to fix electrically controlled and powered equipment. To claim that EM does not exist would make me a colossal fraud, however that does not mean that the claim that there is nothing but EM in the entire universe, is anything other than absolutely and totally ridiculous.
I have recently been re-reading some 1930's and 1940's science fiction novels that referred in passing to the density of the ISM and the existence of turbulent currents within the ISM, so the matter of ISM is not a sudden new discovery, but the whole reason behind the requirement for "dark matter" is that the amount of ISM is not sufficient to account for the shortfall in the required mass of the universe.

Quote:

You are just an ignorant troll.

Hmmm... I seem to remember a saying of my grandmothers. Something to do with pots and kettles, and the colour black.

Quote:

If you read my subsequent post you'd see some evidence of ACTUAL matter propagating EM despite the fact that you couldn't see it because it's a thin gas.

Yes Lou, we know that it is there, and we can also estimate how much of it there is. Just because we cannot "see" it, it doesn't mean that we cannot detect it. (by using EM measurements for example) As a result we know that it is a thin gas, too thin to fill in the empty spaces by several orders of magnitude.

The current numbers do not tally, which is why scientists are investigating, but you cannot reach the correct answer by replacing a set of numbers that give a reasonable approximation, with the output of a random number generator, or worse still, no numbers at all.

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

@Nimrod

Comet Elenin reaches it's closest point to earth on Oct 16. So, while the Doomsayers predictions for late Sept fell flat there's a bit of time before the Comet starts going away from us.

Those still worried about Elenin just remember Lou and MikeB's mass produce a larger gravitational impact on the earth than Elenin at it's closest point.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Nimrod Comet Elenin reaches it's closest point to earth on Oct 16. So, while the Doomsayers predictions for late Sept fell flat there's a bit of time before the Comet starts going away from us. Those still worried about Elenin just remember Lou and MikeB's mass produce a larger gravitational impact on the earth than Elenin at it's closest point.

1st, I said it would be a magnetic field interference if anything, 2nd, has anyone seen Comet Elenin since the supposed explosion?

@Lou

Quote:

You are just an ignorant troll. If protons are 2 quarks spinning up and one spinning down, why wouldn't they be attracted to 2 quarks spinning down and 1 spinning up aka neutrons...when there subparticles are polarized to attract to each other?

The subparticles of neutrons and protons are not 'polarised to attract each other'. Up quarks have a charge of 2/3, down quarks have a charge of -1/3. So, two downs and an up is a non-charged particle, ie a neutron. And two downs and an up is... why, its a particle with a charge of 1 - a proton. Neutrons don't interact due to electric charge.

The attraction of neutrons and protons is a property of 'colour charge', which is an arbitrary name that has nothing to do with the visual perception of colour. It was chosen because the property the name describes has three different aspects. Since there are three primary colours, those three aspects were named after them, red, blue and green. This colour charge causes the Strong Nuclear Interaction, mediated by gluons.

Last edited by T-J on 10-Oct-2011 at 04:46 PM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: See, now this makes more sense: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/10/astronomers-take-first-ever-image-of-turbulent-gas-between-the-stars.ars Picture this stuff everywhere instead of 'dark matter' and look it carries EM, imagine that.. Just to set your mind at rest, I will agree unconditionally that EM does actually exist! I have not ever actually denied the fact of its existence, and logically I would never be able to make such a ridiculous claim since I have spent my entire working life telling people how to fix electrically controlled and powered equipment. To claim that EM does not exist would make me a colossal fraud, however that does not mean that the claim that there is nothing but EM in the entire universe, is anything other than absolutely and totally ridiculous. I have recently been re-reading some 1930's and 1940's science fiction novels that referred in passing to the density of the ISM and the existence of turbulent currents within the ISM, so the matter of ISM is not a sudden new discovery, but the whole reason behind the requirement for "dark matter" is that the amount of ISM is not sufficient to account for the shortfall in the required mass of the universe.

ISM is the FIRST thing they've finally seen. Doesn't mean it's the only thing yet to be seen.

Quote:

Quote: You are just an ignorant troll. Hmmm... I seem to remember a saying of my grandmothers. Something to do with pots and kettles, and the colour black.

His post served no purpose other than to provoke.

Quote:

Yes Lou, we know that it is there, and we can also estimate how much of it there is. Just because we cannot "see" it, it doesn't mean that we cannot detect it. (by using EM measurements for example) As a result we know that it is a thin gas, too thin to fill in the empty spaces by several orders of magnitude. The current numbers do not tally, which is why scientists are investigating, but you cannot reach the correct answer by replacing a set of numbers that give a reasonable approximation, with the output of a random number generator, or worse still, no numbers at all.

A random number generator? You mean like they use for radioactive decay?
As I said, ISM is 1 source of EM propagation. Don't you find it odd that they found extremely thin gas in an extremely dense galaxy? I mean where was all the super-duper strong gravity making it form into something more dense? Once again gravity does an epic fail... /sigh

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote: @Lou Quote: You are just an ignorant troll. If protons are 2 quarks spinning up and one spinning down, why wouldn't they be attracted to 2 quarks spinning down and 1 spinning up aka neutrons...when there subparticles are polarized to attract to each other? The subparticles of neutrons and protons are not 'polarised to attract each other'. Up quarks have a charge of 2/3, down quarks have a charge of -1/3. So, two downs and an up is a non-charged particle, ie a neutron. And two downs and an up is... why, its a particle with a charge of 1 - a proton. Neutrons don't interact due to electric charge. The attraction of neutrons and protons is a property of 'colour charge', which is an arbitrary name that has nothing to do with the visual perception of colour. It was chosen because the property the name describes has three different aspects. Since there are three primary colours, those three aspects were named after them, red, blue and green. This colour charge causes the Strong Nuclear Interaction, mediated by gluons.

The charges are two out of 3 parts(quarks) positive and 1 out of 3 negative, not +2/3 and -1/3 like you missunderstood it when you took that symbology literally.

@Lou
Quote:

1st, I said it would be a magnetic field interference if anything, 2nd, has anyone seen Comet Elenin since the supposed explosion?

Said schmed. What's true is the 'if anything' - as the evidence indicates there was and is no impact on earth from Elenin entering our solar system. Really this isn't too different from the impact I experience in the USA from someone in Europe crashing their car and exploding their battery releasing all that EM force.

As for the the question about seen the comet. On Sept 10th it was to be it's closest distance from the Sun. Solar and Heliosphere telescopes (SOHO) were unable to find the object. Though I expect some conspiracy buff will soon tell us NASA is lying to protect us from the impending and certain doom.


@Thread
Worth a view: The Quark Song

@Lou

Quote:

The charges are two out of 3 parts(quarks) positive and 1 out of 3 negative, not +2/3 and -1/3 like you missunderstood it when you took that symbology literally.

..?

An up quark has a charge equal to 1/3 of an elementary charge unit. An elementary charge unit is 1.602^-19 coulombs and quarks hold electric charge in multiples of 1/3e. Hence the neutron is neutral and the proton has a total charge of 1 elemental charge positive.

@Lou

Quote:

ISM is the FIRST thing they've finally seen.

Well I suppose that you could say that.
At least you could if you ignored things like exoplanets, rogue planets, a couple of planets in this solar system found by using gravity calculations, a wide variety of subatomic particles, possible FTL neutrinos, etc. etc.

Quote:

His post served no purpose other than to provoke.

And this is something that you would never do. Quote:

Basically, I do a 5 second google search, scan for something that looks closely related, then watch you analyze it for way too much time and come back with an analasis.

, Quote:

Opinions are like armpits. You have two and they both stink

, Quote:

Your feet stink too

But let's move on.

Quote:

A random number generator? You mean like they use for radioactive decay?

And I see that you still haven't worked out the difference between chaotic and random. They might seem the same to you, but they are two completely different concepts

Quote:

As I said, ISM is 1 source of EM propagation

No form of EM, light being an example, requires a medium of propogation.


Imprecise use of the English language edited at the request of Lou

Last edited by Nimrod on 11-Oct-2011 at 07:37 PM.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: As I said, ISM is 1 source of EM propagation EM, like light, does not require a medium for propogation.

EM is light.

@Lou

EM is not light. Light is the visual part of EM the eye can preceive. Light is a special case, one might say subset, of EM not the other way around as your statement claims.

@Lou

Quote:

EM is light.

Correction. Light is a form of EM, but not the only form of EM. No form of EM, light being an example, requires a medium of propogation.


Horses have four legs.
This table has four legs.
This table is not a horse.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: EM is light. Correction. Light is a form of EM, but not the only form of EM. No form of EM, light being an example, requires a medium of propogation. Horses have four legs. This table has four legs. This table is not a horse.

This from the guy who said:

Quote:

EM, like light

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou EM is not light. Light is the visual part of EM the eye can preceive. Light is a special case, one might say subset, of EM not the other way around as your statement claims.

Light is not limited to that, 'visible light' is.


New catchphrase: EM - it's bigger than you think!

http://news.yahoo.com/vindicated-ridiculed-israeli-scientist-wins-nobel-183256852.html
So he was right in 1982...but ridiculed by mainstream science. Who would have thunk it? I mean that NEVER HAPPENS!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2GqU6fdjeQ
The video above will show you exactly how the 'scientific establishment' works...

Quote:

"A good scientist is a humble and listening scientist and not one that is sure 100 percent in what he read in the textbooks," Shechtman said.

For info on quasicrystals and their applications see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_VSpBI5EGM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvSALm7Ps2k

@Lou

Quote:

So he was right in 1982...but ridiculed by mainstream science. Who would have thunk it? I mean that NEVER HAPPENS!!!

So what happened here. The guy said X in 1982. And the people ridiculed him. Certainly politics plays a role in all human endeavors, science is another. But in the end he was vindicated how? Not by saying 'I'm right you're wrong' of the Lou theory. He ignored the duck claims and built the puzzel, aka he embraced science and built the preponderance of evidence on his side. Again no suprise here this is how science works. We now have a better theory that explains more than the last theory did. WOW! That's progress and science.

And not too surprisingly we've been repeatedly asking you for the evidence. And well it's been weak at best.

The cause (a genius idea) is effect (laughed at). Your logical error here is flipping cause and effect. You believe that laughing at an idea means it's genius. That's clearly not true.

Why is science better?! Carl Sagan said it best, and your example demonstrates this truth..
"In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again... . I cannot recall the last time something like that has happened in politics or religion."

@Lou

Quote:

http://news.yahoo.com/vindicated-ridiculed-israeli-scientist-wins-nobel-183256852.html So he was right in 1982...but ridiculed by mainstream science. Who would have thunk it? I mean that NEVER HAPPENS!!!

A very interesting read, with the key point made here
Quote:

In 1987, friends in France and Japan succeeded in growing crystals large enough for X-rays to verify what he had discovered with the electron microscope. "The moment I presented that, the community said, 'OK, Danny, now you are talking. Now we understand you. Now we accept what you have found,'" Shechtman told reporters.

It was when he produced something called evidence that he was able to demonstrate that his theory was correct. This is the way that it normally happens, and should you ever be able to produce some actual evidence to support the continual stream of Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Proposals that you insist on dredging up, you too might just collect $1.5M for meeting the conditions set down in post #449

Last edited by Nimrod on 11-Oct-2011 at 07:15 PM.
Last edited by Nimrod on 11-Oct-2011 at 07:15 PM.

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