@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Niolator You are right we do not have much evidence of a Black Hole. We're playing with what the math postulates. So claiming anything about a Black Hole is a reality is nothing more than a hedged bet. For example, Lou tried to say all Black Holes spin when we don't even have evidence of a single Black Hole and how that one works. We don't even have that level of detail on a single Black Hole.

When you say "we", I'm pretty sure that you actually mean YOU as everyone else pretty firmly accepts that supermassive black holes exist and spin.
Even going down to the particle level of atomic and even quantum level, things "spin".
Continue to deny reality, BrianK, it allows the false theories that you accept as good enough to continue to exist ... in your mind atleast.

@Lou

Quote:

Well, your "communication" sucks.

Fair enough that you hold that belief. Though note you charged my communication style insulted you. It didn't.

Quote:

Just because Einstein's gravity was marginally better than Newton's doesn't make it absolute and correct.

Science and I agree with this statement. Do note I never said it was. To summarize what I have said - With our present state of evidence GR provides a better explanation than any other theory available. To expand a bit the whole idea that it is all EM postulated but not yet qualitative or quantitatively evidenced.

Quote:

demonstratably wrong for not-so-local-space

Not quite. We need more evidence perhaps there are things there we don't have complete observation or knowledge of. For example, finding planets floating around in open space, a fairly new bit of evidence, reduced the need for Dark Matter. Until we have a better picture of it all we can't fairly agree to your assertion.

Also, note even if the above were true it doesn't prove EM is everything. You don't win by default. You win by bringing the evidence.

Quote:

And here you still are trolling without a reference...

. Here's about 10 papers for you to read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_jet_event I hope this time you don't make excuses on how you can't be bothered.

Quote:

Funny, I have provided something that unifies the quantum world with the marcroscopic one and you are here defending two stand-alone "theories" that don't jive well together which makes them both incomplete and wrong. You essentially are defending ignorance...but hey, you can't argue with an idiot

At one time you claimed that running to tell the MODS was an act of cowardice. that instead you retailiate. Do note you are AGAIN instigating insults. I never called you any names. Here again you insist on personal attacks by calling people idiots. They might have value if I valued you on a personal level. Why not stick to discussing the topic instead of attacking the person? Personally I think it shows that you've run out of ideas so have to try below the belt punching.

I agree you have provided unproven papers describing how the two are interrelated. However, they are unevidenced. That's important because it's clear that validating against reality is still a to do for your cited works. And some actually have a fairly long history of existing - for example Brandenburg relies on something that's nearly 100 years old and that foundation has no empirical evidence what so ever. We simply cannot judge right or wrong until we overlay evidence against those. Do note when we did this for Haramein his predictions did not match evidence, whatsoever. We can say, considering the current state of evidence, Haramein's Schwarzschild proton is simply wrong.

Quote:

And you both have failed logically. The proton is considered stable. If it was unstable and decaying then it wouldn't be a proton for long, would it? One way to attempt to disprove something is to introduce outside elements like you and nimrod like to do. That's one way to troll, I suppose...

What are you talking about? We overlaid Haramein's predictions to evidence. Things don't work. For example he incorrectly predicts the mass of a proton. there's no logical failure there. The logic is simple - if Haramein's prediction of proton mass is correct it will match the observed mass of the proton. WTF is a logical failure about that?

@olegil

Quote:

LOU: I award you a "Mr. Twist" award for swapping 'limitless' with 'free'!

Lawyers have a saying - if you can't attack the facts then attack the person. The reason people do this in threads is they think if you leave they win by default.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @BrianK Quote: BrianK wrote: @Niolator You are right we do not have much evidence of a Black Hole. We're playing with what the math postulates. So claiming anything about a Black Hole is a reality is nothing more than a hedged bet. For example, Lou tried to say all Black Holes spin when we don't even have evidence of a single Black Hole and how that one works. We don't even have that level of detail on a single Black Hole. When you say "we", I'm pretty sure that you actually mean YOU as everyone else pretty firmly accepts that supermassive black holes exist and spin. Even going down to the particle level of atomic and even quantum level, things "spin". Continue to deny reality, BrianK, it allows the false theories that you accept as good enough to continue to exist ... in your mind atleast.

While others of us in the thread were able to keep up with snippets it appears you were unable to follow this threaded message. We were talking about the sci-fi book on how to use a Black Hole's Hawking Radiation. Niolator asked if we had evidence of Hawking Radiation in the real world. I commented we have insufficient evidence to either confirm or deny that postulate.

None of the 4 of us - Nimrod, olgleil, Niolator, or I commented on spin. So while you and I talked about spin it's was not part of the topic at the time. Please keep up.

You want to talk about the state of empirical know about spinning Black Holes? All you need to do is demonstrate we have the evidence that you claimed and which I said we don't. Show us how every Black Hole in the universe is accounted for and how we checked each one for spin.

Last edited by BrianK on 18-Jan-2013 at 06:56 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 18-Jan-2013 at 06:53 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

One thing that will confuse a nimrod is that a proton is considered STABLE,

Well spotted that man, a proton is STABLE. Now get a dictionary and look up what the word stable means.(and I am not referring to a storage facility for Tesco beefburgers) Once you have done that, compare that definition with the fact that a black hole the size of a proton would not be STABLE.

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

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/01/09/congressionial-disclosure-studies-alien-moon-bases/

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: One thing that will confuse a nimrod is that a proton is considered STABLE, Well spotted that man, a proton is STABLE. Now get a dictionary and look up what the word stable means.(and I am not referring to a storage facility for Tesco beefburgers) Once you have done that, compare that definition with the fact that a black hole the size of a proton would not be STABLE.

If the facts are that you are miscontruing facts, then what are you?

The topic of that sub-thread was the SCHWARTZCHILD proton.
Hence no one is talking about a black hole the size of a proton.
Stop being a nimrod!
A proton is mostly empty space. At the center of that empty space could be a black hole.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: @BrianK [quote] BrianK wrote: @Niolator You are right we do not have much evidence of a Black Hole. We're playing with what the math postulates. So claiming anything about a Black Hole is a reality is nothing more than a hedged bet. For example, Lou tried to say all Black Holes spin when we don't even have evidence of a single Black Hole and how that one works. We don't even have that level of detail on a single Black Hole. When you say "we", I'm pretty sure that you actually mean YOU as everyone else pretty firmly accepts that supermassive black holes exist and spin. Even going down to the particle level of atomic and even quantum level, things "spin". Continue to deny reality, BrianK, it allows the false theories that you accept as good enough to continue to exist ... in your mind atleast.

Quote:

While others of us in the thread were able to keep up with snippets it appears you were unable to follow this threaded message. We were talking about the sci-fi book on how to use a Black Hole's Hawking Radiation. Niolator asked if we had evidence of Hawking Radiation in the real world. I commented we have insufficient evidence to either confirm or deny that postulate. None of the 4 of us - Nimrod, olgleil, Niolator, or I commented on spin. So while you and I talked about spin it's was not part of the topic at the time. Please keep up. You want to talk about the state of empirical know about spinning Black Holes? All you need to do is demonstrate we have the evidence that you claimed and which I said we don't. Show us how every Black Hole in the universe is accounted for and how we checked each one for spin.

Ah yes the old "put the burden of proof on Lou trick".
FU BrianK, show me one that doesn't spin.

As for the schwartzchild black hole, specifically in the case of the shwartzchild proton, it was a thought-provoking hypothetical paper. You can see it for that, or you can be a troll. You seem to always pick troll.

Last edited by Lou on 18-Jan-2013 at 09:11 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @olegil Quote: LOU: I award you a "Mr. Twist" award for swapping 'limitless' with 'free'! Lawyers have a saying - if you can't attack the facts then attack the person. The reason people do this in threads is they think if you leave they win by default.

Yes and he was clearly misrepresenting the facts in that attack of the person that he did. ...as do you...

@Lou

Quote:

Ah yes the old "put the burden of proof on Lou trick". FU BrianK, show me one that doesn't spin

Lou YOU made the claim about reality therefore YOU have the burden of proof.

You asked me to prove one that does not spin. Why should I prove something that I never claimed? What I stated is we have an observational lack of evidence to either confirm nor deny your claim of reality.

Since you believe this item is reality you need to demonstrate the item. Where is your observational proof that confirms your claim about reality? For example, I made a claim we have observational proof of the gluon. You claimed we had not and challenged me to provide proof. I then linked you to an article which had about 10 scientific experiments directly evidencing the Gluon. (BTW, have you read those yet.) -- I'm asking nothing of you I haven't supplied so get off your high horse.

Quote:

As for the schwartzchild black hole, specifically in the case of the shwartzchild proton, it was a thought-provoking hypothetical paper.

After you said this let me double check if I am understanding you - Are you claiming Haramein's postulates on the proton are not reality but only a thought provoking hypothetical? I'd agree to that.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-beams-mona-lisa-moon-laser-104109127.html;_ylt=Ao_e8nsIDACzYMtYeg8IdNpOJMV_;_ylu=X3oDMTVxbmk0ZWxvBGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDEwMDBwb29sd2lraXVwcmVzdARtaXQDQXJ0aWNsZSBNaXhlZCBMaXN0IE5ld3MgZm9yIFlvdSB3aXRoIE1vcmUgTGluawRwa2cDZGUwYmFhOTAtMmYxOC0zYmJhLTk3YTQtNmZjMjNlZGM2OTkzBHBvcwMyBHNlYwNuZXdzX2Zvcl95b3UEdmVyAzhhYzkyNjIxLTYxNWMtMTFlMi1hZjRjLTYxZjI0M2U1ZGI5Zg--;_ylg=X3oDMTE2Z2ppM3RwBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdAMEcHQD;_ylv=3

...more proof SETI is a waste of time and money...

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Ah yes the old "put the burden of proof on Lou trick". FU BrianK, show me one that doesn't spin Lou YOU made the claim about reality therefore YOU have the burden of proof.

I've already clearly told you that everyone BUT YOU has only observed spinning ones.

Quote:

You asked me to prove one that does not spin. Why should I prove something that I never claimed? What I stated is we have an observational lack of evidence to either confirm nor deny your claim of reality.

You denied my claim with no proof.

Quote:

Since you believe this item is reality you need to demonstrate the item. Where is your observational proof that confirms your claim about reality? For example, I made a claim we have observational proof of the gluon. You claimed we had not and challenged me to provide proof. I then linked you to an article which had about 10 scientific experiments directly evidencing the Gluon. (BTW, have you read those yet.) -- I'm asking nothing of you I haven't supplied so get off your high horse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lund_string_model
the gluon is not a real particle and this is simply an interpretation.

Quote:

Quote: As for the schwartzchild black hole, specifically in the case of the shwartzchild proton, it was a thought-provoking hypothetical paper. After you said this let me double check if I am understanding you - Are you claiming Haramein's postulates on the proton are not reality but only a thought provoking hypothetical? I'd agree to that.

finally you have bought a clue

Edit by mod: Nasty bits snipped.

Last edited by Darrin on 19-Jan-2013 at 02:14 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

The topic of that sub-thread was the SCHWARTZCHILD proton

Do you actually understand what the term SCHWARTZCHILD radius means. If all of the mass is within the schwartzchild radius, then the irtem is a black hole. A black hole the diameter of a proton would have a mass of 885 million tonnes, and would radiate 445 megawatts of Hawking radiation.

Quote:

A proton is mostly empty space. At the center of that empty space could be a black hole.

So another unsupported and ill considered postulate being passed off as the solution to all of the problems with your fantasy. A smaller black hole would have a smaller schwartzchild radius, a lower mass, and would emit more Hawking radiation, not less. It would also be less stable and would increase its radiation output exponentially as it evaporated.

Incidentally the schwartzchild radius of a black hole with the mass measured for a single proton would be 2.47 e-51 metres. This is 6.54 e-15 times the planck length. A black hole this small would evaporate instantly. Not quite what I would describe as stable.

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

@BrianK

Quote:

Quote: As for the schwartzchild black hole, specifically in the case of the shwartzchild proton, it was a thought-provoking hypothetical paper. After you said this let me double check if I am understanding you - Are you claiming Haramein's postulates on the proton are not reality but only a thought provoking hypothetical? I'd agree to that.

I could almost accept the claim if the papers had been listed as a thought experiment. My one reservation would be including the words "Haramein" and "thought" in the same sentence. Reading the few examples of Harameins work that he does not charge silly prices for do not claim to be a thought provoking exercise but instead proclaim Haramein to be some kind of genius who has solved all of the problems in the world. This ridiculous fantasy is maintained by Lou, and is backed up by personal attack and name-calling rather than logical debate.
In this there is nothing to separate him from a spoiled child throwing his toys out of the pram in a fit of pique.

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

@Lou

Less of the name calling please. Having a different opinion is not "trolling" regardless of who is right or wrong. It is the intention that counts.

_________________
AmigaOne X1000, A4000(T), A3000, A2000, A1200(T), A1200, A500, CD32, Minimig+ARM, FPGA Arcade, Chameleon64, C-One, C128, C128D, C64C, C64, VIC-20, CBM 8032, CBM4032, Efika, Ultimate64

@Lou

Quote:

I've already clearly told you that everyone BUT YOU has only observed spinning ones, you troll.

1) Dictating your opinion doesn't make it valid
2) "Everyone" -- Interesting any citations available?
3) "Everyone" -- popularity of opinion doesn't give credit to accuracy or correctness. Your whipping out the fallacies again.
4) "observed" -- again you make claims and provide 0 evidence.
5) "troll" ah yes more ad hominems. Being insulting doesn't make you right either,.

You made the claim of reality - " talking about a simple black hole and not the spinning ones of reality". Since that time you have completely failed to demonstrate any sort of validity to your assertion. Instead you play condescending and insults. What are you hiding behind?

Quote:

You denied my claim with no proof, you troll.

Actually no I didn't. In order to deny your claim I would show 1 non-spinning Black Hole. I made the factual statement that you do not have the evidence to support your claim. If you wish to prove me wrong, you can! You just need to supply the proof that we know of the spins of all Black Holes in the universe.


Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lund_string_model You troll, the gluon is not a real particle and this is simply an interpretation

You seem to neglect the quality and quantity of evidence. StringTheory evidence is nearly non-existent. There's better evidence for the Gluon. And there's better evidence for the Proton. If you want to claim it all strings go ahead. It may be. But, do note that Gravity has far better quantative and qualitative evidence than String does. String might be true, but again we have insufficient evidence to claim which of the half dozen and incompatible versions is indeed the truth.


Quote:

finally you have bought a clue

You've spent few hundred threads trying to prove that Haramein is onto something. His hypothesis isn't even interesting as it's so completely does not comply with reality. Now that you've given up on the Haramein version of the universe how's that Brandenburg doing? Do you think his version of reality is true?

@Nimrod

Quote:

I could almost accept the claim if the papers had been listed as a thought experiment. My one reservation would be including the words "Haramein" and "thought" in the same sentence. Reading the few examples of Harameins work that he does not charge silly prices for do not claim to be a thought provoking exercise but instead proclaim Haramein to be some kind of genius who has solved all of the problems in the world. This ridiculous fantasy is maintained by Lou, and is backed up by personal attack and name-calling rather than logical debate. In this there is nothing to separate him from a spoiled child throwing his toys out of the pram in a fit of pique.

Indeed Lou has endeavored to sustain the Haramein's C.R.A.P. about protons being Black Holes. If he really held this opinion a long time ago he should have done as you indicated, call it the thought experiment he does now. It was semi-interested and easily discarded when applied to the evidence of reality. Perhaps Lou didn't want to give up because it showed the skepticism of science actually working? But, that's only a guess.

Your last point is spot on, I think he should be more gracious. But, I've grown to know Lou's posting replies with insult style and don't expect anything more. Now that he confessed Haramein's science fiction is exactly that we can toss Haramein in the trash when it comes to any knowledge about Proton, or Black Holes. ... I'm wondering if Brandenburg and his use of a 100 year old unproven foundation is a similar thought experiment. If so Lou should step up and admit that too.

@admins,

I'm sorry that you don't see these trolls for the trolls that they are.

For instance, over the course of the last several pages, resident troll BrianK, keeps proclaiming as fact that 'nibiru' still has not been found.

It's a bold faced lie as it was found in 1983 and refound in 2011: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/15/scientists-telescope-hunt-massive-hidden-object-in-space/

Funny how resident trolls who aptly name themselves nimrod claim that Sitchin twists facts when his solar system creation translation predicts where 'nibiru' would be and its size and the entire formation of our planet and did so in 1976 where as today SCIENCE accepts the earth resulted from a collision and that something else tugs on Pluto. What's ignored about the FACTS that Sitchin posted is that there is no other explanation for them being facts other than from the claimed source.

These resident trolls sit here and defend both General Relativity and the Standard Model when both are incomplete and somewhat at odds with each other and they defend them not as fact, but as 'good enough to act as fact' as their only counter to math that actually works from papers that I have linked with nothing better to offer only to sit here and deny more complete solutions that their trollish brains can't understand because these trolls believe in 'particles' that don't exist. These colliders are measuring ENERGY/EM WAVES. Then the nooblet people who analyze this data are placing it within a model that fits their paradigm. Data that doesn't is left out. For instance 3-5 'higgs-like *particles* (term used loosely) were found but "THE HIGGS" was announced.

These trolls are being spoon-fed and defending "popular science" and not actual science.

These treads have gone on and on only because of their trolling.
These trolls kept asking for math and then I provide papers with math then they say math ain't good enough yet the math fits observation where as in joke theories like relativity, you adjust a variable to fit the observation. Mass, as used in relativity, is a joke. Was the mass of the sun computed using the earth's mass or of the earth-moon system's mass? You just adjust the mass to fit the equation. Then these same trolls try to equate the mass of relativity to quantum measurements. They are not even remotely close which is why these trolls can't understand Nassim Haramein's paper.

Relativity is challenged almost on a daily basis. It survives by popularity alone.
Just today NewScientist.com posts:
Sacrificing Einstein: Relativity's keystone has to go


A troll is a troll is a troll.

BrianK, resident troll 1st class says I "claim" all black holes spin and that I have no proof. I say, show me one that doesn't spin, he shows nothing but mentions the schartzchild black hole, which is just a theory. I said all actually observed black holes spin, referring to super-massive black holes at the center of every galaxy which everyone has been shown to spin, he the claims I provided no evidence because apparently, common knowledge of which thousands of links can be provided is not *evidence*. I asked for the same from him and he's got nothing but the THEORY, with no observation. A troll will be a troll... Then goes on to claim that the burden of proof is always on me...as usual.

Then there was the joke about the mythically observed gluon. This fool troll still doesn't understand how science can label an efffect which is what the gluon *particle* is used for in the standard mode and it doesn't mean it's an actual PARTICLE. That's the whole joke. The the 'glue' particle. Quantum mechanics understands that there is only waves...treating things as particles is just a paradigm to help troll-simpletons understand what's actually happening so that it can be pictured in their feeble minds.

Ban me, lock the thread, I don't care. I'm sick of these trolls regurgitating ancient popular science inspite of newer evidence to the contrary.

You may now resume your regularly scheduled trolling...

@Lou

Quote:

Astrophysicists John Matese and Daniel Whitmire from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette think data from NASA's infrared space telescope WISE will confirm Tyche's existence and location within two years.

Postulated, not found. There IS a difference, as you would know had you followed these threads, rather than just complain about quoting styles.

_________________
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.

@Lou

Quote:

claim that Sitchin twists facts when his solar system creation translation predicts where 'nibiru' would be and its size

Not merely claimed, and not merely postulated, but evidenced. Sitchins so called "translations" are short, selective, and self inconsistent. Sitchin "translates" a paragraph as the building of a spaceship, while ignoring the preceding paragraph describing the process of manufacturing mud and straw bricks used to build the so called spaceship. Sitchin is the only person who never referred to the contempoaneous documentation compiled by the assyrian scribes to enable them to read sumerian documents. It is as inept as claiming to read Egyptian heiroglyphs by contradicting the information gained from the discovery of the Rosetta stone.

Quote:

Then goes on to claim that the burden of proof is always on me...

If you want to claim to have made a new discovery the onus is on the new discoverer to prove the new claim to be better than the old theory. That is why when Einstein proposed GR he had to not only demonstrate that there were flaws in Newtons model which was already known, he had to prove that his own was better. This is something that Einstein was able to do while Kaluza-Klein theory failed to give a similar level of validity. As a consequence GR became the best available model and KKT became a stagnant backwater. Despite the wishful thinking of some, KKT took a further kicking recently when supersymmetry was further contradicted by experimental results from the LHC.

Quote:

sit here and defend both General Relativity and the Standard Model when both are incomplete and somewhat at odds with each other and they defend them not as fact, but as 'good enough to act as fact

We are aware that there are gaps in the standard model but it remains the best available fit. If there was something better we would use it, but the CRAP that you hold dear is about the worst imaginable explanation.

Quote:

These colliders are measuring ENERGY/EM WAVES

The parking sensors on my car use electricity to generate ultrasonic sounds to measure the distance between my car and an obstruction. Is distance measured in Volts? or Hertz? or maybe it is in Metres, measured indirectly.

Quote:

Relativity is challenged almost on a daily basis. It survives by popularity alone

Wrong again. While it is true that there are many challenges, the reason GR survives is that it is still more accurate than any of the competition. One day somebody will find either a better model, or the missing parts of the current model. What the better model is, or where the missing pieces to the puzzle are remains unknown. The reason that the better theory remains unknown is because neither Brandenburg nor Haramein, whose collective brainfarts are mutually contradictory, have produced something that even works, let alone is better.

Quote:

You may now resume your regularly scheduled trolling...

Trolling? what on earth do you mean by that? You are not referring to this by any chance, are you? 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.

I assume that the toys will now get well and truly thrown out of the pram.

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