@Lou

Quote:

All I read here is more of your rhetoric.

O. K. Try your hand at some mathematics of

Hawking radiation.
The equation is used to calculate the energy radiated from a black hole. If you insert the mass of the sun into this equation you will get an output of 9.004x10^-29W.
If, instead of the mass of the sun, you use the calculated mass having a Schwartzchild radius equivalent to that of a proton the power output radiated from a single proton increases to approximately 455 million watts. This number would increase to even more ridiculous proportions if you were to insert the measured mass of a proton at 1.673 x 10^-24 grammes.

I also told you in a previous post that a black hole with a Scwartzchild radius matching that of a proton would be hot, so I will show the equation to calculate how hot.



Inserting the mass for a black hole having a Schwartzchild radius equivalent to that of a proton gives a temperature of 139 billion degrees Celsius.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

his number would increase to even more ridiculous proportions if you were to insert the measured mass of a proton at 1.673 x 10^-24 grammes.

That mass is wrong. You need to insert the billion tons that Haramein claims a proton to have.

See you don't get Haramein therefore Haramein has to be right about reality.:lol

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: All I read here is more of your rhetoric. O. K. Try your hand at some mathematics of Hawking radiation. The equation is used to calculate the energy radiated from a black hole. If you insert the mass of the sun into this equation you will get an output of 9.004x10^-29W. If, instead of the mass of the sun, you use the calculated mass having a Schwartzchild radius equivalent to that of a proton the power output radiated from a single proton increases to approximately 455 million watts. This number would increase to even more ridiculous proportions if you were to insert the measured mass of a proton at 1.673 x 10^-24 grammes. I also told you in a previous post that a black hole with a Scwartzchild radius matching that of a proton would be hot, so I will show the equation to calculate how hot. Inserting the mass for a black hole having a Schwartzchild radius equivalent to that of a proton gives a temperature of 139 billion degrees Celsius.

Good job wasting your time.
Let me do you a huge favor and summarize the paper for you:
If the proton is a schwartzchild black hole, then the gravity that would bind two protons orbiting each other is equivalent to the 'Strong' force, no magic particles required.

Too funny:
http://news.yahoo.com/milky-way-galaxy-may-less-massive-thought-124521154.html

"The problem is, we are really in unknown territory," Deason said. "We are assuming properties of these stars that are the same in the inner parts of the galaxy. And this is something that really needs to be verified, what we're assuming, in terms of their density profile and also what their orbits are like."

I love science based on general relativity and all its assumptions...

@Lou

Quote:

Let me do you a huge favor and summarize the paper for you:

My summary of this "paper"is that it would only be of any value if the paper was soft enough.

Quote:

If the proton is a schwartzchild black hole, then the gravity that would bind two protons orbiting each other is equivalent to the 'Strong' force, no magic particles required.

If the proton is a schwartzchild black hole, then the force of gravity that would bind two protons orbiting each other is 7.57 x 10^42N (Not the 7.49 that Haramein "calculated, but as always his maths is sloppy, and his arithmetic is pathetic)
Do you know how much effort it takes to dislodge a proton from a nucleus. Or rather how little.
Also, the protons constituent parts are known, which is not possible with anything on the inside of an event horizon.
Also you have failed to address the lack of Hawking radiation.

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

@Lou

Quote:

Too funny: http://news.yahoo.com/milky-way-galaxy-may-less-massive-thought-124521154.html "The problem is, we are really in unknown territory," Deason said. "We are assuming properties of these stars that are the same in the inner parts of the galaxy. And this is something that really needs to be verified, what we're assuming, in terms of their density profile and also what their orbits are like." I love science based on general relativity and all its assumptions...

There is a very BIG difference here between science and EM_is_God, my shorthand name but fully admitted to be faith of Lou.
* Science assumes X, assumes Y, and concludes Z. It fully admits that X and Y are unknowns. It then gets down to proving, or disproving, X and Y are indeed part of reality. As Xs and Ys are proved along the way it increases our confidence in Z. And if Xs and Y are disproved along the way it decreases our confidence in Z, and perhaps may even point to a new answer.
* EM_is_God assumes Z and concludes Z. It doesn't care about any X or any Y that doesn't support it's assumed conclusion. It instead declares them wrong because the postulate or evidence isn't fitting conclusion. It will never learn, or change, or grow with better knowledge. It's a static inflexible circular assumption of truth.
:.TL/DR? There's a diverse and important difference between scientific epistemology and any faith, and especially the faith Lou is foisting.


@Nimrod,
Quote:

Also, the protons constituent parts are known, which is not possible with anything on the inside of an event horizon.

This tiny fact is hugely important. Gluons have been evidenced to operate the Strong Force and to exist for the last 25 years. Within Haramein's work such a thing could not exist. When we compare Harmein's Schwarschild Black Hole Proton to the mathematics of Black Holes or the reality of protons neither one aligns with his postulates. There's clearly sufficent evidence that Haramein's suppositions and conclusions are out of order compared to reality to declare his schwarzschild work as disproven, or more layman's term - wrong.

@Lou

Aka "Boohoo, GR can't tell us every little detail about things too far away to directly observe, let's throw it all away and go with the belief that Aliens did it".

Sorry, but in science you have to provide BETTER theories for there to be a point in throwing something out.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

42 Planets from Amateur Astronomers But they're still covering up Nibiru! LOL

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Let me do you a huge favor and summarize the paper for you: My summary of this "paper"is that it would only be of any value if the paper was soft enough. Quote: If the proton is a schwartzchild black hole, then the gravity that would bind two protons orbiting each other is equivalent to the 'Strong' force, no magic particles required. If the proton is a schwartzchild black hole, then the force of gravity that would bind two protons orbiting each other is 7.57 x 10^42N (Not the 7.49 that Haramein "calculated, but as always his maths is sloppy, and his arithmetic is pathetic) Do you know how much effort it takes to dislodge a proton from a nucleus. Or rather how little. Also, the protons constituent parts are known, which is not possible with anything on the inside of an event horizon. Also you have failed to address the lack of Hawking radiation.

I personally have failed to address nothing.
If you have issues with Haramein's paper you should post them to scientific journals. As I linked before, better scientists than you have "done the math" and are astounded by the implications. People like you just like to introduce properties not discussed (aka Hawking Radiation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay) and label him a charleton. Yep, you are pulling a BrianK.

Last edited by Lou on 15-Jan-2013 at 06:16 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: 42 Planets from Amateur Astronomers But they're still covering up Nibiru! LOL

Why do you continue to act like a child when I already explained to you why Nibiru wouldn't be found the same way?

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @Lou Aka "Boohoo, GR can't tell us every little detail about things too far away to directly observe, let's throw it all away and go with the belief that Aliens did it". Sorry, but in science you have to provide BETTER theories for there to be a point in throwing something out.

Great! Provide a better theory to GR then.

I have, meanwhile, you just accept flawed theories. You have the logic of a typical hypocrit.

Textbooks still teach the original BLUNDERED theory of general relativity. It was determined wrong in 1924 or thereabouts. Works peachy in this solar system because of all the ASSUMPTIONS it makes (you did read the Cosmic Principle just hit the poop-can, right?), but outside of it, it's just a crap-shoot.

So basically, you fools believe in magic and fairies and I am introducing a better theory.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Too funny: http://news.yahoo.com/milky-way-galaxy-may-less-massive-thought-124521154.html "The problem is, we are really in unknown territory," Deason said. "We are assuming properties of these stars that are the same in the inner parts of the galaxy. And this is something that really needs to be verified, what we're assuming, in terms of their density profile and also what their orbits are like." I love science based on general relativity and all its assumptions... There is a very BIG difference here between science and EM_is_God, my shorthand name but fully admitted to be faith of Lou.

Are you retarded?
You believe in a science based on assumptions that are continuously proved wrong.
I have linked scientific papers that unify the forces down to TWO.
You're extra two forces are essentially MAGIC, not SCIENCE. GLUONS have never been observed. QGP is not a gluon. It's a label they put on something they found. The graviton has also never been observed. You are the ultimate hypocrit who clings to admittedly flawed theories that incorportate unproven magical forces and mythical particles.

Quote:

* Science assumes X, assumes Y, and concludes Z. It fully admits that X and Y are unknowns. It then gets down to proving, or disproving, X and Y are indeed part of reality. As Xs and Ys are proved along the way it increases our confidence in Z. And if Xs and Y are disproved along the way it decreases our confidence in Z, and perhaps may even point to a new answer.

Your beliefs in GR have already been proved failed.

Quote:

* EM_is_God assumes Z and concludes Z. It doesn't care about any X or any Y that doesn't support it's assumed conclusion. It instead declares them wrong because the postulate or evidence isn't fitting conclusion. It will never learn, or change, or grow with better knowledge. It's a static inflexible circular assumption of truth. :.TL/DR? There's a diverse and important difference between scientific epistemology and any faith, and especially the faith Lou is foisting.

John Brandenburg unified all the forces for you. Even Haramein has shown that 'strong force' is just gravity between two protons...which in no way contradicts Brandenburg. Many other scientists have written papers about gravity being from radiation pressure WITH MATH and WITH OBSERVATIONS on a cosmic scale.

You are the fool that still accepts the UNscience that takes many ASSUMPTIONS for facts.

Quote:

@Nimrod, Quote: Also, the protons constituent parts are known, which is not possible with anything on the inside of an event horizon. This tiny fact is hugely important. Gluons have been evidenced to operate the Strong Force and to exist for the last 25 years. Within Haramein's work such a thing could not exist. When we compare Harmein's Schwarschild Black Hole Proton to the mathematics of Black Holes or the reality of protons neither one aligns with his postulates. There's clearly sufficent evidence that Haramein's suppositions and conclusions are out of order compared to reality to declare his schwarzschild work as disproven, or more layman's term - wrong.

Gluons have not been evidenced. Get your facts straight. Oh I forgot, your assumptions are as good as facts to you.

@Lou

Quote:

If you have issues with Haramein's paper you should post them to scientific journals

Why should I give this moron the credibility of mentioning his name in scientific circles. It would be the equivalent of quoting Eric von Daniken as an archaeologist, or Bernie Madoff as an investment manager.
Haramein has already been exposed as a liar from his egyptology scam and there is a clear pattern emerging out of his attempts to claim scientific ability.

Quote:

As I linked before, better scientists than you have "done the math" and are astounded by the implications.

You made the claim but as ever you do not say who the so called scientists are. Anybody who calls themselves a scientist and was not horrified by the faulty mathematics, and bodged arithmetic that Haramein routinely spews out needs to go back to kindergarten to learn the basics.

Quote:

People like you just like to introduce properties not discussed

The reason that Haramein does not discuss the lack of Hawking radiation is because it shows up his brainfart for the junk that it really is. I brought it up because it demonstrates that Haramein is incapable of real science.
My pointing out the failing in Harameins ideas is no different than Einstein pointing out the flaws in Newtons equations. Of course Harameins errors are so glaringly obvious that I didn't need to be up to Einsteins standard to spot the deliberate deceptions.

To sum up, a proton is stable and under normal circumstances will not radiate, while a black hole with a mass of 885,000,000 tons will glow brightly radiating huge amounts of power. Smashing two protons together in a collider results in the release of a few decay products, while merging two black holes will produce a single larger black hole.

Quote:

Great! Provide a better theory to GR then.

The hunt for something better than GR is a work in progress. The part that you cannot get through your prejudices is that different does not automatically mean better, The lies postulated by Haramein, and the erroneous assumptions made by Brandenburg are most definitely not better than the current best approximation.

Quote:

Textbooks still teach the original BLUNDERED theory of general relativity

They do this because currently GR is the best there is. When something better comes along the books will be updated to contain the new better theory. There is no more reason for teaching the failed Kaluza-Klein theory or any of its defective derivatives than there is for teaching the "Stork" theory of human conception.

Quote:

I have linked scientific papers that unify the forces down to TWO.

What scientific papers, when and where. What you persist in linking to are unfounded unscientific assertions that can very easily be demonstrated to be base lunacy and distortions of reality.

Last edited by Nimrod on 16-Jan-2013 at 01:35 PM.
Last edited by Nimrod on 15-Jan-2013 at 08:48 PM.

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

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @BrianK Quote: BrianK wrote: 42 Planets from Amateur Astronomers But they're still covering up Nibiru! LOL Why do you continue to act like a child when I already explained to you why Nibiru wouldn't be found the same way?

You asserted a possible reason. This neither demonstrated the excuse as true nor of Nibiru actually existing. At the same time we still have Nibiru believers that continue to claim a false worldwide conspiracy to cover up Nibiru.

@Lou

Quote:

Are you retarded?

Why do have a need to insult the person? I've in no way insulted you. If you feel I have cite the post.

Quote:

You believe in a science based on assumptions that are continuously proved wrong

Actually this statement is wrong. I'll agree that GR has afew items wrong and to work on. However, when it comes to positive evidence no other theory has as much proven right. And going back to what I believe, once the greater evidence arrives for the new theory my faith believes, ney demands, it change it's course.

Quote:

I have linked scientific papers that unify the forces down to TWO.

Postulates, my boy, unproven postulates. The existence of a paper doesn't make the paper true.

Quote:

GLUONS have never been observed. QGP is not a gluon. It's a label they put on something they found.

False.

Quote:

The graviton has also never been observed.

True! But, a graviton is but one of several postulates on how gravity works. It's the only Standard Model prediction to date that's unproven. We don't know. But, neither do you win by default you have to prove yours too, and to date you've postulated but not proven.

Quote:

You are the ultimate hypocrit who clings to admittedly flawed theories that incorportate unproven magical forces and mythical particles.

Again no. gravity is the best demonstrated of the theories. I cling to the value in demonstration. bring something more than a faulty postulate and you can convince the scientific community.

Quote:

John Brandenburg unified all the forces for you

Mathematically questionable. Directly unproved. Based on a 100 year old and totally unproven foundation... Hardly adequate proof here for acceptance today. Never know what tomorrow might bring.

Quote:

Even Haramein has shown that 'strong force' is just gravity between two protons.

Schwarzschild proton is not unproven. Yeah, say you. It's actually proven to be completely wrong. (oops where's your rug?)

I see you are discussion Hawking radiation. I just read an article were they proposed a starship engine with a black hole as the source for propulsion. It would be a miniature black hole and when the engine started it would be "like a new star lit over Earth". The source of the power would be Hawking radiation.

The problem is that I thought Hawking radiation is a very faint radiation even from a huge black hole and it would take hundreds of billion years or more for a stellar size black hole to evaporate due to Hawking radiation. A black hole with the mass of, say a mountain, would have a lot smaller event horizon and therefore a lot less Hawking radiation would form, or have I misunderstood things? If I got it right the Hawking radiation from a small black hole could never power a starship.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: If you have issues with Haramein's paper you should post them to scientific journals Why should I give this moron the credibility of mentioning his name in scientific circles. It would be the equivalent of quoting Eric von Daniken as an archaeologist, or Bernie Madoff as an investment manager. Haramein has already been exposed as a liar from his egyptology scam and there is a clear pattern emerging out of his attempts to claim scientific ability.

More nimrodic rhetoric and "claims" without references...

Quote:

Quote: As I linked before, better scientists than you have "done the math" and are astounded by the implications. You made the claim but as ever you do not say who the so called scientists are. Anybody who calls themselves a scientist and was not horrified by the faulty mathematics, and bodged arithmetic that Haramein routinely spews out needs to go back to kindergarten to learn the basics.

I provided the links you blind fool!

Quote:

Quote: People like you just like to introduce properties not discussed The reason that Haramein does not discuss the lack of Hawking radiation is because it shows up his brainfart for the junk that it really is. I brought it up because it demonstrates that Haramein is incapable of real science. My pointing out the failing in Harameins ideas is no different than Einstein pointing out the flaws in Newtons equations. Of course Harameins errors are so glaringly obvious that I didn't need to be up to Einsteins standard to spot the deliberate deceptions. To sum up, a proton is stable and under normal circumstances will not radiate, while a black hole with a mass of 885,000,000 tons will glow brightly radiating huge amounts of power. Smashing two protons together in a collider results in the release of a few decay products, while merging two black holes will produce a single larger black hole.

Oh really? When was the last time you merged 2 black holes? Oh wait, are you accepting unproved THEORY as FACT again? Yes - yes you are.

Quote:

Quote: Great! Provide a better theory to GR then. The hunt for something better than GR is a work in progress. The part that you cannot get through your prejudices is that different does not automatically mean better, The lies postulated by Haramein, and the erroneous assumptions made by Brandenburg are most definitely not better than the current best approximation.

According to your totally biased unscientific OPINION, you are 100% correct...in your own head.

Quote:

Quote: Textbooks still teach the original BLUNDERED theory of general relativity They do this because currently GR is the best there is. When something better comes along the books will be updated to contain the new better theory. There is no more reason for teaching the failed Kaluza-Klein theory or any of its defective derivatives than there is for teaching the "Stork" theory of human conception.

Oh is that more empty claims without a reference? So basically, you accept one FLAWED theory over an unproved one. HOW SCIENTIFIC OF YOU!

Quote:

Quote: I have linked scientific papers that unify the forces down to TWO. What scientific papers, when and where. What you persist in linking to are unfounded unscientific assertions that can very easily be demonstrated to be base lunacy and distortions of reality.

Why do you persist in naming yourself appropriately?

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: @BrianK [quote] Why do you continue to act like a child when I already explained to you why Nibiru wouldn't be found the same way? You asserted a possible reason. This neither demonstrated the excuse as true nor of Nibiru actually existing. At the same time we still have Nibiru believers that continue to claim a false worldwide conspiracy to cover up Nibiru.

It's the actual reason but you do enjoy living in denial of facts that contradict your view of reality.

Last edited by Lou on 16-Jan-2013 at 02:25 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Are you retarded? Why do have a need to insult the person? I've in no way insulted you. If you feel I have cite the post.

I've explained many times how insulting your posting style is.

Quote:

Quote: You believe in a science based on assumptions that are continuously proved wrong Actually this statement is wrong. I'll agree that GR has afew items wrong and to work on. However, when it comes to positive evidence no other theory has as much proven right. And going back to what I believe, once the greater evidence arrives for the new theory my faith believes, ney demands, it change it's course.

GR was never proven right...and actually proven wrong. Yet you assimilate it whole-hardedly oh exalted hypocrite among hypocrites.

Quote:

Quote: I have linked scientific papers that unify the forces down to TWO. Postulates, my boy, unproven postulates. The existence of a paper doesn't make the paper true.

As opposed to the dis-proved theories you believe in, I'll take those postulates.

Quote:

Quote: GLUONS have never been observed. QGP is not a gluon. It's a label they put on something they found. False.

I see you're joining the nimrod club of blanket statements without references. Of course, this is merely a display of your faith...dare I say the cornerstone of it!

Quote:

Quote: The graviton has also never been observed. True! But, a graviton is but one of several postulates on how gravity works. It's the only Standard Model prediction to date that's unproven. We don't know. But, neither do you win by default you have to prove yours too, and to date you've postulated but not proven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Model
It's so amusing to see you stand by both the blundered theory of general relativity and the standard model.

"Physics beyond the Standard Model refers to the theoretical developments needed to explain the deficiencies of the Standard Model, such as the origin of mass, the strong CP problem, neutrino oscillations, matter–antimatter asymmetry, and the nature of dark matter and dark energy.[1] Another problem lies within the mathematical framework of the Standard Model itself – the Standard Model is inconsistent with that of general relativity, to the point that one or both theories break down under certain conditions (for example within known space-time singularities like the Big Bang and black hole event horizons)."

It looks to me like the only thing that joins the better parts of both theories are the ones I'm linked. Where as you choose to have faith in the 2 separate and almost opposing theories that are completely INCOMPLETE and flawed.

Quote:

Quote: You are the ultimate hypocrit who clings to admittedly flawed theories that incorportate unproven magical forces and mythical particles. Again no. gravity is the best demonstrated of the theories. I cling to the value in demonstration. bring something more than a faulty postulate and you can convince the scientific community.

How is gravity the best demonstrated if the universe seems to be ignoring it in its accelerating expansion? Epic fail.

Quote:

Quote: John Brandenburg unified all the forces for you Mathematically questionable. Directly unproved. Based on a 100 year old and totally unproven foundation... Hardly adequate proof here for acceptance today. Never know what tomorrow might bring. [/quoe] GR as you have faith in, it totally disproven and contradictory to your faith in the standard model... I'll take my chances with UNproved over DISproven - thanks. Quote: [quote]Even Haramein has shown that 'strong force' is just gravity between two protons. Schwarzschild proton is not unproven. Yeah, say you. It's actually proven to be completely wrong. (oops where's your rug?)

Again taking a page out of the nimrodic method for making claims without references that are soley based on faith.

Like sands thru the hourglass so is the source of our power!

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/kerosene-lamps-face-gravity-powered-usurper/