@Lou
Faster than Light experiment resolved? Result FTL didn't exist.
http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php

NASA "has found more than 90 percent of the biggest asteroids that might pose a threat to Earth.

NASA’s sky-mapping spacecraft WISE was behind the discovery, noting that 911 of 981 of the largest asterorids — asteroids 3,300 feet wide or larger — have been found.

Scientists also say they now think there are fewer medium-sized asteroids than originally believed. New estimates say there are 19,500 asteroids out there that are between 330 feet and 3,300 feet wide.

WISE, which stands for Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, was launched in 2009 to map the entire sky of asteroids, comets, and other celestial objects.
"
-- Very cool! (oh and no Nibiru found yet)

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Faster than Light experiment resolved? Result FTL didn't exist. http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php

What blasphemy is this!? I can't believe you just accepted an unpeer-reviewed explanation as fact!

I think an alien abducted you. Prove you are the real BrianK!

Meanwhile, they neutrino experiment should be reversed to verify the prediction. But that probably can't happen...

@Lou

Quote:

What blasphemy is this!? I can't believe you just accepted an unpeer-reviewed explanation as fact!

You must have missed my sentence ending in 'resolved?' . An interrogation point is used for indirect questions. In this case the question is, does this one calculation solve it.

We now have 2 calculations. One the original team did. And the other was the response to the original team to check their math and see if anyone can find a problem. We need to review the review.

Quote:

Meanwhile, they neutrino experiment should be reversed to verify the prediction. But that probably can't happen

There's no physical way, at this time, to use the exact same neutrinos. Though do to the statistical effects of neutrinos a similar experiment would thought to have the same result. We do have some of those indirectly. SuperNova release nutrinos. We have failed to measure a 4 year stream of neutrinos then observed the SuperNova. (Though it could be we just missed it because we weren't looking in that manner.)

As to a direct experiment CERN is scheduling a run of the experiment. One of their collectors is a few hours from my home at Tower Sudan, Minnesota. They give tours through the research area a few times a year. It's pretty cool stuff.

So yes this isn't 'THE ANSWER'. It's more data to be validated and verified to figure out which of the two is a closer approximation to reality.

Food for thought...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTbSCUY1Z8o

Oh gee, the scientist I posted about a month or two ago that unified quantum mechanics with the rest of physics by studying antigravity and cold fusion gets peer-reviewed...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389211006092

...and the beat goes on...

Last edited by Lou on 18-Oct-2011 at 03:31 PM.

@Lou

Getting published in a badly-reviewed online-only journal that has for some reason decided to go into publishing original research rather than its stated goal of reporting conference proceedings does not validate his 'unification' of quantum mechanics with classical physics.

In fact, his 'unification' of those depends on mathematical sleight-of-hand that requires the reader to not notice that he has in fact used Planck's constant itself in deriving Planck's constant. Epic fail.

Do you also know how he managed to get it through peer review? He selected GA Robertson, known cold fusion whacko, to review his work. So poor was this review that basic elementary grammatical errors exist throughout, wildly controversial claims are made with no references to back them up, and the mathematics... well.

Its the same trick your other friends the Creationists are using to subvert the peer-review system. Unfortunately for them and you, results speak for themselves, and bad science simply withers on the vine as good stuff progresses ever onwards, as described in that video we linked you to that you obviously haven't bothered to watch.



But never mind that. There's a very simple way that Engineer Frank Znidarsic could prove his theories. All he has to do is build a cold fusion reactor and power a single thing with it.

That's all.

Why hasn't he done this? What's he hiding?

The fact that he's wrong, of course. Its a pity fools like 'AlienScientist' and yourself keep paying for his books.

@Lou

Quote:

Oh gee, the scientist I posted about a month or two ago that unified quantum mechanics with the rest of physics by studying antigravity and cold fusion gets peer-reviewed...

Uh,err..sorta. Having a peer review by 1 person isn't very compelling.

Don't forget a peer review is but one of many steps to acceptance. The peer review is still severly lacking. We've yet to see anything working off these writings. We've yet to see any experimental or observational work relating to this. Etc.

It might be correct but there's still a very long way to go to evidence and demonstrate it is correct.

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote: @Lou Getting published in a badly-reviewed online-only journal that has for some reason decided to go into publishing original research rather than its stated goal of reporting conference proceedings does not validate his 'unification' of quantum mechanics with classical physics. In fact, his 'unification' of those depends on mathematical sleight-of-hand that requires the reader to not notice that he has in fact used Planck's constant itself in deriving Planck's constant. Epic fail. Do you also know how he managed to get it through peer review? He selected GA Robertson, known cold fusion whacko, to review his work. So poor was this review that basic elementary grammatical errors exist throughout, wildly controversial claims are made with no references to back them up, and the mathematics... well. Its the same trick your other friends the Creationists are using to subvert the peer-review system. Unfortunately for them and you, results speak for themselves, and bad science simply withers on the vine as good stuff progresses ever onwards, as described in that video we linked you to that you obviously haven't bothered to watch. But never mind that. There's a very simple way that Engineer Frank Znidarsic could prove his theories. All he has to do is build a cold fusion reactor and power a single thing with it. That's all. Why hasn't he done this? What's he hiding? The fact that he's wrong, of course. Its a pity fools like 'AlienScientist' and yourself keep paying for his books.

The formula that equates to Plank's constant can be writen on the palm of your hand.
AlienScientist only posts things which he can verify.
You keep calling me a creationist - you are the epitome of disinformation.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Oh gee, the scientist I posted about a month or two ago that unified quantum mechanics with the rest of physics by studying antigravity and cold fusion gets peer-reviewed... Uh,err..sorta. Having a peer review by 1 person isn't very compelling. Don't forget a peer review is but one of many steps to acceptance. The peer review is still severly lacking. We've yet to see anything working off these writings. We've yet to see any experimental or observational work relating to this. Etc. It might be correct but there's still a very long way to go to evidence and demonstrate it is correct.

Oh, yes, ofcourse, I forgot about how your scientific community plays favorites. Apparently all 'peers' are not created equal...

PS,
Lack of acceptance is not lack of truth.

Last edited by Lou on 18-Oct-2011 at 08:34 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Oh, yes, ofcourse, I forgot about how your scientific community plays favorites. Apparently all 'peers' are not created equal.

Let's say you've got a bad stomach ache, are throwing up, and need to call an ambulance to drive you to the hospital. Would you ask for a podatrist, he's a doctor afterall. Or would the specialist in gastrointestinal be a better call?

Clearly any old 'peer' is not equal. Nor is any single peer. Science works based on the greatest mountain of evidence, mountain of experimentation, and mountain of predictability. Having someone throw a couple of grams of dirt on a yet non-existent mountain is but a beginning. Which should be fairly clear in what I said. 1 person's review clearly does not hold the weight of hundreds. Nor is 1 person's review as good as the weight of hundreds of correlating experiments.

The mountain is a fairly good analogy. 4 fundamental forces is at the pinacle. GEM is at the bottom looking up. They've taken a baby step up the 20K foot climb. They've certainly got miles to go.

Quote:

PS, Lack of acceptance is not lack of truth.

PSS: Lack of proof means we're unable to establish truth.

Quote:

AlienScientist only posts things which he can verify.

Last edited by BrianK on 18-Oct-2011 at 11:43 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 18-Oct-2011 at 11:40 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Oh, yes, ofcourse, I forgot about how your scientific community plays favorites. Apparently all 'peers' are not created equal. Let's say you've got a bad stomach ache, are throwing up, and need to call an ambulance to drive you to the hospital. Would you ask for a podatrist, he's a doctor afterall. Or would the specialist in gastrointestinal be a better call? Clearly any old 'peer' is not equal.

So you're saying he's being reviewed by people who are not in the field. I suppose you have proof of this right?

Quote:

Nor is any single peer. Science works based on the greatest mountain of evidence, mountain of experimentation, and mountain of predictability. Having someone throw a couple of grams of dirt on a yet non-existent mountain is but a beginning. Which should be fairly clear in what I said. 1 person's review clearly does not hold the weight of hundreds. Nor is 1 person's review as good as the weight of hundreds of correlating experiments.

The paper exists for the world to read. The math is there. Perhaps you just like to carry on?

Quote:

The mountain is a fairly good analogy. 4 fundamental forces is at the pinacle. GEM is at the bottom looking up. They've taken a baby step up the 20K foot climb. They've certainly got miles to go.

Actually the mountain top is no longer there because it was a volcano filled with dark energy.

Weak has been assimilated. Brandenburg originally published his results in 2009. Only recently has his personal book been published for the masses.

Quote:

Quote: PS, Lack of acceptance is not lack of truth. PSS: Lack of proof means we're unable to establish truth.

"Unable to" implies "will never".

Quote:

Quote: AlienScientist only posts things which he can verify.

I suppose you can validate the reasoning behind your 'lol'...
As AlienScientist always says "do your own research". When you can disprove anything he's said with something other than conjecture, let me know.

Are you still in denial of the existence of cold fusion as well?

Last edited by Lou on 19-Oct-2011 at 12:26 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

So you're saying he's being reviewed by people who are not in the field. I suppose you have proof of this right?

There's more then enough of me filtering through the CRAP. How about you provide the group and credentials of the those that peer-reviewed this.

Quote:

Unable to" implies "will never"

I'd agree with a cavot. (And that cavot trips up your finger pontification.) The logic of the sentence structire is if X then Y. This logical syllogism is named Modus Ponens it affirms by affirming. In this case X 'the lack of proof' affirms 'Y' an unestabled truth. And that statement is presently exactly true. This can be fixed, of course, which is when !X is the affirmation. So, as requested build the proof in order to demonstrate the truth.

Quote:

I suppose you can validate the reasoning behind your 'lol'...

Sure. You asserted that Alien Scientist ONLY posts things which he can verify. The language needs to be reworked a bit to make the logical syllogism a bit more clear. What you stated was it is the case that all of Alien Scientist's posts are verfied as true. Or For all X (a post) therefore Y (verfied occurred).

The case where 'For all X :. Y' can easily be disproved as all we need is a single case that's not true.... So take a look at this . At the bottom he makes this supposition 'Some day we will use this technology to begin building craft like this'. As the future has not happened he cannot possibly verify that this will occur. In order to make this post he had to make a conjecture of one possible outcome in the future. He clearly didn't verify the unverifable. So 'For all X:.Y' is clearly false. Thus, a LOL at your statement's mistake is clearly valid and warrantied.

You asked me to prove something without conjecture. Yawn.. Bedtime.

Quote:

Are you still in denial of the existence of cold fusion as well?

I don't recall stating anything about Cold Fusion? But, since you asked. At present we've been unable to duplicate the room temperature Cold Fusion experiments. Reproducability is very important to validation of truth. Certainly you don't accept my invisible dragon that is untouchable and only breaths fire the temperature of the environment exists do you?

Last edited by BrianK on 19-Oct-2011 at 05:56 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

Oh, yes, of course, I forgot about how your scientific community plays favorites. Apparently all 'peers' are not created equal...

As you do not like the rules of peer review, please allow me to let you into a little secret. There is an acceptable method of bypassing the nasty evil scientists who are holding back the truth.
All you need to do is build and distribute the relevant devices so that people can see and use them, and then they will no longer need to "believe" or "disbelieve" but they will instead "know".
This is the simple challenge that I have raised concerning your mythical manna machine, and T-J has raised concerning Znidarsics mythical cold fusion device.
Once the starving millions are being fed, and people are getting supplies of electricity "too cheap to meter" there will be an overwhelming mountain of evidence that the nasty evil scientists were wrong, and peer review merely a method of maintaining control of the masses.

Quote:

As AlienScientist always says "do your own research". When you can disprove anything he's said with something other than conjecture, let me know.

I am quite frankly surprised that you agree with AlienScientist when he makes this statement. The reason for my surprise is that when I suggested a simple experiment that you could carry out, you said that it was for me to do the experiment, and then report the results. Please make up your mind!

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

@Lou

Quote:

The formula that equates to Plank's constant can be writen on the palm of your hand.

I told you - that formula uses a previously assumed value to calculate Planck's constant. You can work it out, if you already know it.

This is not impressive.

And regardless, the fact is that his mathematics can't be applied successfully to any real-world examples (if you think otherwise, prove it!) and his article is full of unreferenced claims and basic errors.

Quote:

AlienScientist only posts things which he can verify.

'AlienScientist' posts things he has verified only to his own satisfaction. Its not my fault that his standards for verification are comically low.

Quote:

You keep calling me a creationist - you are the epitome of disinformation.

You're the one who quoted Creationist Wiki to try and 'disprove' me. If the shoe fits, wear it.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Are you still in denial of the existence of cold fusion as well? I don't recall stating anything about Cold Fusion? But, since you asked. At present we've been unable to duplicate the room temperature Cold Fusion experiments. Reproducability is very important to validation of truth. Certainly you don't accept my invisible dragon that is untouchable and only breaths fire the temperature of the environment exists do you?

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/08/cold_fusion?currentPage=all
It seems once again your 'generally accepted' view is wrong...

/yawn

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote: @Lou You're the one who quoted Creationist Wiki to try and 'disprove' me. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Yes, but I'll use anything to disprove you, so you can call me everything. To single that simply exposes your own biases...

@T-J

Quote:

Quote: The formula that equates to Plank's constant can be writen on the palm of your hand. I told you - that formula uses a previously assumed value to calculate Planck's constant. You can work it out, if you already know it.

So basically this genius has mathematically proven that Planck's constant = Planck's constant.
Why does the phrase "Two short Planck's" come to mind?

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

@Lou

Quote:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/08/cold_fusion?currentPage=all It seems once again your 'generally accepted' view is wrong...

No Lou, all this shows is that not everybody has walked away from the idea, and some people are still trying to prove it. The experiments are still not universally repeatable, and even the proponents cannot achieve the desired results every time. Neither can they explain why this is.

From your article
Quote:

"We have been running these (experiments) for so long," Swartz told the audience, "that the question now is not just can we (generate) excess heat, it's can we get a kilowatt? Can we get a small car moving on this stuff?"

The true question is "can we reliably generate heat, but as I have already stated, once the hardware is out there it won't matter what anybody says about it being impossible. Until then this is simply another idea that is not proven.
Please don't get me wrong, I would absolutely love it if this were possible, and we could all have our own "Mr Fusion" reactor capable of generating the 1.21 Gigawatts necessary to... oops sorry, mind wandered a bit there.

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

@Lou

Quote:

@BrianK Quote: I don't recall stating anything about Cold Fusion? But, since you asked. At present we've been unable to duplicate the room temperature Cold Fusion experiments. Reproducability is very important to validation of truth. Certainly you don't accept my invisible dragon that is untouchable and only breaths fire the temperature of the environment exists do you? http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/08/cold_fusion?currentPage=all It seems once again your 'generally accepted' view is wrong...

Wow you seem to need some reading proctoring. The article clearly states that this guy might have the answers, is working on his own experiment, and as I stated his experiments have yet to be reproduced. If anything this article backed my views that science has yet to produce sufficent work to fully embrace this idea. Let alone the science is at a state where we can't apply Cold Fusion to anything.

Recap of my view and supported by the Wired article: Cold Fusion, perhaps, lots more work to do.

Last edited by BrianK on 20-Oct-2011 at 12:37 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Yes, but I'll use anything to disprove you, so you can call me everything.

I think this is a fair summary of what we've seen. You 'use anything'. Importantly if you're trying to disprove someone you have a couple of options. The best option would be to use something demonstrated to be true. Another way to describe your actions is throwing CRAP and hoping something sticks.