@Nimrod & BrianK

I think you two are missing the point here.
Go back to what I said about books being wrong today.

Science is wrong for a very long time before it is right...and even that correction may only be temporary.

So this guys was wrong in 1982 and not right until 1987. /fail

A lack of evidence is not a lack of truth. A textbook is not 100% truth. Its people like you that ridiculed and denounced him in 1982. So when you hear this guy's story, look at yourselves as the people who ridiculed him. You read a book and think you are right. You are not.

@Lou

Quote:

A lack of evidence is not a lack of truth. A textbook is not 100% truth. Its people like you that ridiculed and denounced him in 1982. So when you hear this guy's story, look at yourselves as the people who ridiculed him. You read a book and think you are right. You are not.

A lack of evidence is not evidence of truth. A pop-pseudoscience book is not 100% truth. Its people like you that believe any bunkum some crank has to sell that open the doors to ridicule for new ideas. So when you dredge up these stories and criticise others, look to yourself and think. You read a book and think you are right. You are not.

And you haven't come back about quarks, I see. Chosen to stick to nice, easy semantics around visible light as part of the electromagnetic spectrum, eh?

@Lou

Science is evidenced based skepticism. The guy may have been right in 1982 but he failed to have sufficent evidence to demonstrate the correctness of his ideas. There's no clear way to ascertain certainity within a second of an idea. That's simply reality. The best way to ascertain reality is how the particular theory jives with the evidence and how well it's able to make accurate predictions on future experiments or events.

Quote:

A of lack of evidence is not a lack of truth

I'd agree with this. Though I'd disagree where the discussion lays. The discussion lays in epistemology. To explain a bit more how do you know what you claim to know? In science this is built with the interplay of skepticism, evidence, and predictability.

The rest of your statement is still a logical error. Just because 1 idea was more correct and laughed at doesn't give any correctness to a laughed at idea. Again this guy's idea 'won' because it explained more evidence and made better predictions than the alternative.

Saying it's all EM may be the truth. The problem you have is how do you prove to others that it's the truth? And especially if you want to throw out science, what's the better model you'll use to prove the truth to others?

@Lou

Quote:

A textbook is not 100% truth.

I checked up on this and found that you are absolutely correct. My old grammar school maths book states "For the benefit of worked examples in this book, the value of pi=22/7 is to be used." Since pi does not actually equal 3.142857142857 then you would have me believe that the statement, from another section of the book, "In a right triangle, he square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides" is equally a falsehood, a lie, and a vile calumny foisted on me to suppress the real truth.
You are right when you state that we do not know it all, and many aspects of normal everyday life today exceed the wildest dreams of sci-fi writers from my childhood, but all of these advances have been made because of the use of scientific scepticism, not despite it. If we go over to accepting all statements as true until proven beyond any possible doubt to be false, we would very quickly revert to using little old ladies as kindling "because they are witches"

Quote:

You read a book and think you are right. You are not.

An impressive line. Now please read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest it, understand it, commit it to memory, then apply it to the CRAP put out by Sitchin et al.

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

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote: @Lou Quote: A lack of evidence is not a lack of truth. A textbook is not 100% truth. Its people like you that ridiculed and denounced him in 1982. So when you hear this guy's story, look at yourselves as the people who ridiculed him. You read a book and think you are right. You are not. A lack of evidence is not evidence of truth. A pop-pseudoscience book is not 100% truth. Its people like you that believe any bunkum some crank has to sell that open the doors to ridicule for new ideas. So when you dredge up these stories and criticise others, look to yourself and think. You read a book and think you are right. You are not. And you haven't come back about quarks, I see. Chosen to stick to nice, easy semantics around visible light as part of the electromagnetic spectrum, eh?

The discussion of subatomic particles is more theory than anything else. As those particles that make up protons and neutrons are closer together, it could be EM that holds them together more so thanks to the inverse square of the distance, to label it a separate force (strong) is pure theory...and not worth arguing over. Blasting a particle at another particle and hoping to measure some radiation(EM) somewhere in a sea of noise is more like a crap shoot. Feel free to fight that fight, just with someone else.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Science is evidenced based skepticism. The guy may have been right in 1982 but he failed to have sufficent evidence to demonstrate the correctness of his ideas. There's no clear way to ascertain certainity within a second of an idea. That's simply reality. The best way to ascertain reality is how the particular theory jives with the evidence and how well it's able to make accurate predictions on future experiments or events. Quote: A of lack of evidence is not a lack of truth I'd agree with this. Though I'd disagree where the discussion lays. The discussion lays in epistemology. To explain a bit more how do you know what you claim to know? In science this is built with the interplay of skepticism, evidence, and predictability. The rest of your statement is still a logical error. Just because 1 idea was more correct and laughed at doesn't give any correctness to a laughed at idea. Again this guy's idea 'won' because it explained more evidence and made better predictions than the alternative. Saying it's all EM may be the truth. The problem you have is how do you prove to others that it's the truth? And especially if you want to throw out science, what's the better model you'll use to prove the truth to others?

It's simple. The model isn't here yet. However it will not arrive sooner if they keep accepting the current models and trying to hack on modifications to make it fit (aka dark CRAP).

@Nimrod

Yea, when science finally shovels their dark CRAP then I'll forget about Sitchin.

@Lou

Quote:

It's simple. The model isn't here yet. However it will not arrive sooner if they keep accepting the current models and trying to hack on modifications to make it fit (aka dark CRAP).

Simple to say perhaps not simple to accept.

You have two LARGE tasks ahead of you. First, replace science itself with something that provides a better outcome and result. Clearly not a small task in any means of the imagination. I'm all open to this better epistemological system let me know when you have one to discuss. Second, then postulate a new theory under the new system. Can't really tell you how much work this might be without that new system being built.

Though there's a fallacy in your thinking here. It's called 'Tu Quoquo', or literally you too. It says that because you don't have a good system your claim that another system is bad (science). It's then thought that from this result we must therefore accept any system. Of course this is a fallacy.system is better you don't have one to begin starting to prove. One just can't claim an imaginary epistemological system is better than a current system. One must prove that. The problem is not only can you not prove your system is better you don't have one to even begin.

Quote:

However it will not arrive sooner if they keep accepting the current models and trying to hack on modifications to make it fit

Science is not limited to hacking the current system. Science is indeed, also, working on systems that'd throw out the current system. M-Space for example. So, science is indeed doing what you claim it is not.

Humanity needs ways to make sense of the world today. Science has sent us to the moon, created the computer you are using, along with the vehicle you take to see your Mum. Science has clearly progressed. Whenever this new system that beats Science is ready let us know. You've clearly acknowledged it's not available today. And if it is available in the future is anyone's, including yours, guess. Until then you have a non-existent CRAP epistemology supporting a CRAP theory within itself. It's incredibly worthless to anything we're doing today. When it's ready let us know.

Last edited by BrianK on 12-Oct-2011 at 02:29 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: It's simple. The model isn't here yet. However it will not arrive sooner if they keep accepting the current models and trying to hack on modifications to make it fit (aka dark CRAP). Simple to say perhaps not simple to accept. You have two LARGE tasks ahead of you. First, replace science itself with something that provides a better outcome and result. Clearly not a small task in any means of the imagination. I'm all open to this better epistemological system let me know when you have one to discuss. Second, then postulate a new theory under the new system. Can't really tell you how much work this might be without that new system being built. Though there's a fallacy in your thinking here. It's called 'Tu Quoquo', or literally you too. It says that because you don't have a good system your claim that another system is bad (science). It's then thought that from this result we must therefore accept any system. Of course this is a fallacy.system is better you don't have one to begin starting to prove. One just can't claim an imaginary epistemological system is better than a current system. One must prove that. The problem is not only can you not prove your system is better you don't have one to even begin. Quote: However it will not arrive sooner if they keep accepting the current models and trying to hack on modifications to make it fit Science is not limited to hacking the current system. Science is indeed, also, working on systems that'd throw out the current system. M-Space for example. So, science is indeed doing what you claim it is not. Humanity needs ways to make sense of the world today. Science has sent us to the moon, created the computer you are using, along with the vehicle you take to see your Mum. Science has clearly progressed. Whenever this new system that beats Science is ready let us know. You've clearly acknowledged it's not available today. And if it is available in the future is anyone's, including yours, guess. Until then you have a non-existent CRAP epistemology supporting a CRAP theory within itself. It's incredibly worthless to anything we're doing today. When it's ready let us know.

Once again the point goes over your head.
Science has spent trillions on useless endeavors such as Gravity Probes A & B.
Then they hack in 'dark' CRAP.

If they simply put their money to more practical things that EM gives them such as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J9aUQSK_QE then the future could have been yesterday.

More applications: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/10/perfect-absorber-makes-a-great-detector.ars
What's totally amusing about this application is the first line of the article:
Quote:

One of the key ingredients to every scientific discipline is the ability to detect stuff.

I wish someone had passed this memo to the gravity whores...

@Lou

Quote:

The discussion of subatomic particles is more theory than anything else. As those particles that make up protons and neutrons are closer together, it could be EM that holds them together more so thanks to the inverse square of the distance, to label it a separate force (strong) is pure theory...and not worth arguing over.

What?

You don't believe in subatomic particles now?

The Electromagnetic Force has been described mathematically and it is not capable of sticking protons or neutrons together.

The Strong Nuclear Force has been described mathematically, and is about 100x stronger than EM, although with a rate of attenuation far greater than that of EM. Hence, at close distances like subatomic scales, its stronger, but at large distances like centimetres, it is negligible.

The real kick is that the Strong Force even has its own gauge boson - the gluon. Analogous to the photon in EM, and with similar solid grounding in evidence.

If you deny the Strong Nuclear Force and its gauge boson, you simultaneously invalidate your own 'theory', leaving no scientific grounds to base your EM force on. Short of committing a massive logical fallacy and condemning EM theory to the level of mere religion, of course.

Quote:

Feel free to fight that fight, just with someone else.

So, its something you don't understand, therefore you're going to stick your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist? Such a closed mind.

@Lou

Quote:

As those particles that make up protons and neutrons are closer together, it could be EM that holds them together more so thanks to the inverse square of the distance

This statement shows a complete disregard for even the basic principles of EM. Protons have a positive charge, and like charges repel, which means that at a subatomic level it could not be EM that holds them together. It would need a force that is strong enough to overcome this EM repulsion to hold it all together. Lets just call it a strong force.
It could be sexual attraction that holds it all together, but I doubt it. It could also be wishful thinking, but I doubt that too. The whole ethos of science is to look at the possibilities that could be, and then devise experiments for proving which possibility is correct. If the experiment confirms your idea, all well and good. If it disproves your idea, it is not, as you would have us believe, money wasted. It simply diverts the mind away from erroneous thinking and towards another new discovery.

Quote:

I wish someone had passed this memo to the gravity whores...

I notice that you still have not been able to produce an equation that uses EM to explain why I am not currently floating off into space. The only equations that do that are based on gravity. I am not saying that EM doesn't exist, I am merely pointing out that there is more to life than EM.

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

@Lou

Quote:

Once again the point goes over your head. Science has spent trillions on useless endeavors such as Gravity Probes A & B.

Science continues to test and question. Failure is also a good thing in science. It's through failure that we can learn.

But what do you provid us? Well you claimed EM-only is the truth. You've told us science is bunk and a new framework must be built. You then pulled the rug out from under yourself as you admitted this new framework does not exist. So, not only can you not provide us EM-only workings you can't provide us a mechanism to judge them against other postulates. You've sunk yourself here at convincing anyone that EM-only is the truth. I go back to the 'Underpants Gnomes' and add 1 more in. Set frame work to ??, claim EM-only, ??, assume true. WOW! Problems here and unworkable for humanity in it's present form.

You may have the truth - no way to know if you do or don't and no way for humanity to leverage the truth for a better world. Where your thoughts are today are probably less useful than if you were wrong. Seems you've promoted Stichin to an infallible bible under some unknown system of validity.

Last edited by BrianK on 12-Oct-2011 at 04:29 PM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

I notice that you still have not been able to produce an equation that uses EM to explain why I am not currently floating off into space. The only equations that do that are based on gravity. I am not saying that EM doesn't exist, I am merely pointing out that there is more to life than EM.

Unfortunately his problem is even larger. Not only do equations exist he claims that a more valid system than science must be used here. And he doesn't know what that is. It very well could be that E!=MC^2 because his new framework doesn't work with the #2. Alas we're left with nothing more than a guess of a system within a guess of a framework and no way to validate statements truthfulness. Unworkable at best.

Last edited by BrianK on 12-Oct-2011 at 04:34 PM.

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote: @Lou Quote: The discussion of subatomic particles is more theory than anything else. As those particles that make up protons and neutrons are closer together, it could be EM that holds them together more so thanks to the inverse square of the distance, to label it a separate force (strong) is pure theory...and not worth arguing over. What? You don't believe in subatomic particles now? The Electromagnetic Force has been described mathematically and it is not capable of sticking protons or neutrons together. The Strong Nuclear Force has been described mathematically, and is about 100x stronger than EM, although with a rate of attenuation far greater than that of EM. Hence, at close distances like subatomic scales, its stronger, but at large distances like centimetres, it is negligible. The real kick is that the Strong Force even has its own gauge boson - the gluon. Analogous to the photon in EM, and with similar solid grounding in evidence. If you deny the Strong Nuclear Force and its gauge boson, you simultaneously invalidate your own 'theory', leaving no scientific grounds to base your EM force on. Short of committing a massive logical fallacy and condemning EM theory to the level of mere religion, of course. Quote: Feel free to fight that fight, just with someone else. So, its something you don't understand, therefore you're going to stick your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist? Such a closed mind.

I'm saying that whatever makes up protons and neutrons is too small to see so their existence is merely inferred.
Each proton (or neutron) is made of three quarks - but the individual masses of these quarks only add up to about 1% of the proton's mass. So what accounts for the rest of it? Strong force is what accounts for the rest of it. Does strong force start to sound like dark energy yet?
All you are trying to do is support the current paradigm.
So perhaps the unification theory will solve all our problems. Accepting the current theory isn't going anywhere...
Quote:

Feel free to fight that fight, just with someone else.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Nimrod Quote: I notice that you still have not been able to produce an equation that uses EM to explain why I am not currently floating off into space. The only equations that do that are based on gravity. I am not saying that EM doesn't exist, I am merely pointing out that there is more to life than EM. Unfortunately his problem is even larger. Not only do equations exist he claims that a more valid system than science must be used here. And he doesn't know what that is. It very well could be that E!=MC^2 because his new framework doesn't work with the #2. Alas we're left with nothing more than a guess of a system within a guess of a framework and no way to validate statements truthfulness. Unworkable at best.

http://eproceedings.worldscinet.com/9789812701992/9789812701992_0013.html

@Lou

Quote:

http://eproceedings.worldscinet.com/9789812701992/9789812701992_0013.html

What framework is this built in? What do you want me to use to judge validity?

Last edited by BrianK on 12-Oct-2011 at 04:52 PM.

@BrianK

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzkPlCzu1WU

Last edited by Lou on 12-Oct-2011 at 05:23 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

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

Your links indicate we should use Maxwell and Einstein's field equations. Not a bad idea. Though developed under the failure that is science. As you suggested I should throw out the science as a type of validity check. Einstein's all wrong so using his field equations is equally bad. What replacement to the framework of evidence and skepticism am I using to judge these? .

Last edited by BrianK on 12-Oct-2011 at 05:52 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism Your links indicate we should use Maxwell and Einstein's field equations. Not a bad idea. Though developed under the failure that is science. As you suggested I should throw out the science as a type of validity check. Einstein's all wrong so using his field equations is equally bad. What replacement to the framework of evidence and skepticism am I using to judge these? .

You need to listen to (and towards the end also watch) this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzkPlCzu1WU

Brandenburg manages to define/unify GEM using 1 extra dimension. Interestingly he says his next project is going to be STRONG force.

Perhaps then he'll use a 6th dimension like in the Heim Theory...

Just before his death Einstein was attempting to unify the forces...Brandenburg finished his work.

As for 'science', I told you it was wrong alot before it was right, I told you what you (people) were regurgitating to me was out of date text book rhetoric. Your closed minds limit your own perception.

Last edited by Lou on 12-Oct-2011 at 09:24 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

I'm saying that whatever makes up protons and neutrons is too small to see so their existence is merely inferred.

So, you limit your understanding of the universe to only that which you can see? How closed-minded. Existence is only inferred indeed - its not inferred, its shown by the use of sensory apparatus that is in fact far more reliable than your eyes ever will be.

Quote:

Each proton (or neutron) is made of three quarks - but the individual masses of these quarks only add up to about 1% of the proton's mass. So what accounts for the rest of it? Strong force is what accounts for the rest of it. Does strong force start to sound like dark energy yet? All you are trying to do is support the current paradigm. So perhaps the unification theory will solve all our problems. Accepting the current theory isn't going anywhere...

Wrong.

The 'strong force' isn't equal to any mass. The quantum chromodynamic binding energy is equal to that spare mass. We can measure the QCBE and use it to account for the observed properties of the larger particles since mass and energy are equivalent, and demonstrably so. See nuclear fission, nuclear fusion and the practical applications of both, or would you have us believe that Hydrogen bombs and atomic power stations are also part of the conspiracy and really run on hamsters?

I'm not supporting any paradigm save the empirical theory of knowledge, which states that knowledge is primarily derived from sensory experience. Sensory in the sense that it can be detected, either visually, audibly, through the use of electron microscopes, through the use of particle accelerators or whatever other method.

Your paradigm is to look at an optical illusion and declare it The Truth, closing your mind to all other ideas. Frankly, that's a paradigm that goes nowhere and achieves nothing.


Quote:

Feel free to fight that fight, just with someone else.

No, Lou. You don't get to decide that just because you don't understand something, you don't have to argue with it. If it presents evidence against your 'its all EM' bunk, you have to answer that or concede that its not all EM. Its how debate works.

And if you keep getting the basics of quantum theory wrong, things like the electric charge held by a quark for example, your interpretation loses credibility at a humorously fast rate.