Late Aug Voyager was thought to have left our solar system. The paper on that data was recently re-released having undergone peer review Voyager has left the Heliopause .

Interesting enough what the scientists are seeing is an area of space of which doesn't have a name, and they'll need to name. Voyager I is no longer impacted by the solar wind. Voyager I is still being impacted by the gravitational pull of the Sun. Another way to say this is the Sun's EM radiation is no longer distinquishable from the background EM radiation of the universe. While the gravitational pull from the Sun is still able to be distinguished from the universe's gravitational field.

It'll be interesting to see when the gravitational pull from the Sun is lost in the background gravity of the universe to Voyager I.

@BrianK

Quote:

I think I posted this before. But, how to demonstrate accuracy in your guesses is fairly straight forward - watch the first minute Richard Feynman on the Scientific Method

The first minute was good, but I liked the period from 3:55 to 5:00 where it was explained that it was always possible to prove theories wrong, and as a result of improving accuracy, even established theories can be overturned. It was by showing an example of the failure of the "Gravity = Radiation Pressure" idea, that I demonstrated that no matter how pretty the theory, or how beautiful the guess, if it doesn't agree with the universe, then it's wrong.

On the subject of increasing accuracy, it seems that the universe is a bit older than previously calculated, and is expanding slower than some theories assume. link

Quote:

Late Aug Voyager was thought to have left our solar system. The paper on that data was recently re-released having undergone peer review Voyager has left the Heliopause.

"Ladies and gentlemen, Elvis has left the building. Thank you and goodnight"
Except that the show is far from over, and in fact the fun has only just started. There are new facts to be discovered, and new knowledge to be gained.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

The first minute was good, but I liked the period from 3:55 to 5:00 where it was explained that it was always possible to prove theories wrong, and as a result of improving accuracy, even established theories can be overturned. It was by showing an example of the failure of the "Gravity = Radiation Pressure" idea, that I demonstrated that no matter how pretty the theory, or how beautiful the guess, if it doesn't agree with the universe, then it's wrong.

I agree the whole video was good for a watch. But, since Lou argues he can't be bothered to review anything that doesn't back his bias I thought that first minute quickly boiled down to what's going on here and where Lou's failing. In short - it doesn't matter how pretty it is, or who said it, if it disagrees with evidence then it's wrong. Lou continues to prefer Brandenburg due to prettiness and personality, not the evidence. Sad.

Clearly the charges of Radiation Pressure compared to results leave LOTS of error to account for. Whereas using gravity the error is less pronounced. Now Lou does kind of understand error can be a problem. He complains about how gravity's error is accounted for by the unproven dark matter/dark energy. But, he doesn't seem to understand that RP is even more error prone. It's clearly not the improvement. Or more properly Lou has been unable to evidence it as being a better predictor. Claiming it so is the 'guess' phase of the Feyman video.

Quote:

Except that the show is far from over, and in fact the fun has only just started. There are new facts to be discovered, and new knowledge to be gained.

No doubt it's exciting to see how humans have built such a craft and managed to get it out of the universe by using...
dun,dun,dah! Gravity!

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Nimrod Quote: The first minute was good, but I liked the period from 3:55 to 5:00 where it was explained that it was always possible to prove theories wrong, and as a result of improving accuracy, even established theories can be overturned. It was by showing an example of the failure of the "Gravity = Radiation Pressure" idea, that I demonstrated that no matter how pretty the theory, or how beautiful the guess, if it doesn't agree with the universe, then it's wrong. I agree the whole video was good for a watch. But, since Lou argues he can't be bothered to review anything that doesn't back his bias I thought that first minute quickly boiled down to what's going on here and where Lou's failing. In short - it doesn't matter how pretty it is, or who said it, if it disagrees with evidence then it's wrong. Lou continues to prefer Brandenburg due to prettiness and personality, not the evidence. Sad. Clearly the charges of Radiation Pressure compared to results leave LOTS of error to account for. Whereas using gravity the error is less pronounced. Now Lou does kind of understand error can be a problem. He complains about how gravity's error is accounted for by the unproven dark matter/dark energy. But, he doesn't seem to understand that RP is even more error prone. It's clearly not the improvement. Or more properly Lou has been unable to evidence it as being a better predictor. Claiming it so is the 'guess' phase of the Feyman video. Quote: Except that the show is far from over, and in fact the fun has only just started. There are new facts to be discovered, and new knowledge to be gained. No doubt it's exciting to see how humans have built such a craft and managed to get it out of the universe by using... dun,dun,dah! Gravity!

The RP model explains the mechanical source of the gravitational effect.
General Relativity is a dumbing down of the effect.
The radiation pressure/shadowing model both pre-dates and supersedes GR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation
If they knew then what we know now, GR would not exist. What wasn't refined prior to the 1900's has been refined since then.

The math isn't as simple as GR (which is why is has much error) so I don't know where you claim this error to be because I haven't posted computations, only explanations. Only a nimrod would post computations based on such a nimrod's own assumptions. The RP model identifies the mechanical behavior behind the 'magic' you call gravity. If you claim I believe in religion, then I claim you believe in magic.

Once the mechanics are understood, then you can develop machines to test it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometer

Force is force no matter the source. Gravity is not magic in spite of what you believe.

Last edited by Lou on 22-Mar-2013 at 04:54 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 22-Mar-2013 at 04:49 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

The RP model explains the mechanical source of the gravitational effect. General Relativity is a dumbing down of the effect.

Yes Lou we get the English definition of the hypothesis you present. What you've been able to evidence is how the 17.7 microPascals of Radiation Pressure from the Sun on the Earth pushes us along. You want to claim that reflection can double it. Which, assuming a perfect reflective surface, it can. Though is no where near sufficient force to keep the earth circling the sun. The problem was further evidenced by me, and I think Nimrod, by providing you the evidence of how scientists account for RP on satellites. It's a fraction of the total force.

Quote:

If they knew then what we know now, GR would not exist. What wasn't refined prior to the 1900's has been refined since then.

No Lou the reason RP has not replaced GR is because of the severe lack of quantitatively and qualitative valid evidence. See the way science works is it always chases the horse that answers everything as well as all the horses plus does a better job at predicting more happenings correct. You have lacked the demonstrable evidence. Though I don't blame you. It's because that stuff doesn't exist. Else you'd be able to present it. And perhaps you wouldn't try to shuffle us off on hundreds of posts of bad tangents claiming things like Haramein is right, only later to admit you knew he never was, and stick to your point.

I assume you're a bright chap and if you bothered to watch the first minute of the video I posted you'd probably understand. And if you watched all 10, you'd even understand better. It says it well. We don't care who or how pretty the postulate is, if it don't work then it's wrong. You never got the testing part against reality. You just jump over that step.

Quote:

Force is force no matter the source. Gravity is not magic in spite of what you believe

Yup and we have forces from EM, forces from Strong, forces from Weak, and forces from Gravity. The 'Theory of Everything' that combines these all into a single explaination is still in the 'Work To Do' bin of scientists.

Last edited by BrianK on 22-Mar-2013 at 07:33 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 22-Mar-2013 at 05:19 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

The RP model explains the mechanical source of the gravitational effect.

No it doesn't. Some time ago you posted a claim that bright objects in a dark environment would be forced apart, and dark objects in a bright environment would be forced together. By this logic it would be impossible for two stars to ever collide because as they approached each other their combined RP would overcome the (attenuated by distance) RP pushing them together.
Also Voyager has moved out of the EM influence of the Sun, yet is still within the zone where gravity from the sun is greaterthan the background gravity of the rest of the universe.

Quote:

The radiation pressure/shadowing model both pre-dates and supersedes GR:

It does indeed predate GR, but Bechers Phlogiston chemistry ideas predate the modern periodic table but that doesn't prove Mendeleevs periodic table wrong. In fact Mendeleev made accurate predictions about elements that had not been discovered, that were subsequently demonstrated to be correct. This is something that none of your fantasies have yet managed, primarily because your comment about superseding GR is just so much bovine excrement.

Quote:

Force is force no matter the source

This is perfectly true, but it does not suddenly get multiplied by some huge factor just because Lou says so. We can measure the amount of RP coming from a source, and we can also measure the gravitational attraction of a given mass. RP can push small dust particles around, but is not so good at pushing asteroids about and it will not prevent the collision of two white dwarf stars that I mentioned earlier.

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

@Nimrod


Quote:

On the subject of increasing accuracy, it seems that the universe is a bit older than previously calculated, and is expanding slower than some theories assume.

It's interesting we've been able to improve the accuracy from the 13.6-12.85 range to 13.82 million. It speaks to how newer better quality of experimentation allows us to better understand the goal of knowing the age of the universe. And the universe is Universe is lopsided and has less Dark Matter and Dark Energy than thought. Phil Plait's article I linked here is a good read.

@BrianK

Quote:

And the universe is Universe is lopsided and has less Dark Matter and Dark Energy than thought.

Typical.
Shoddy construction and workmanship, and they shortchange you on dark energy and dark matter thinking that you will never notice.

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

@Lou

Why does a comet have 2 tails? EM Radiation causes the 2nd tail ... At the distance of the orbit of Mercury, the pressure is about 43.3 x 10^-6 N/m^2

"If Light Pushes on Dust, Wouldn’t It Push On the Comet? The short answer is that light DOES push on the comet" - No real surprise here. We've known that all along. Though if you know the scale of the mathematical values at work you should quickly know why light isn't what keeps the Earth in orbit. But, even if you don't you can read up and learn why ' why the dust gets pushed away from the comet, but the comet doesn’t get pushed to have the same trajectory'. And should be able to do some quick paper napkin math to scaling that to Earth.

Last edited by BrianK on 25-Mar-2013 at 09:42 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Why does a comet have 2 tails? EM Radiation causes the 2nd tail ... At the distance of the orbit of Mercury, the pressure is about 43.3 x 10^-6 N/m^2 "If Light Pushes on Dust, Wouldn’t It Push On the Comet? The short answer is that light DOES push on the comet" - No real surprise here. We've known that all along. Though if you know the scale of the mathematical values at work you should quickly know why light isn't what keeps the Earth in orbit. But, even if you don't you can read up and learn why ' why the dust gets pushed away from the comet, but the comet doesn’t get pushed to have the same trajectory'. And should be able to do some quick paper napkin math to scaling that to Earth.

Thanks genius...I told you a comet's tail was an EM interaction about 2 years ago. Of course you were in denial then...

@BrianK

haha. he stopped reading after the first two sentences. Cause that's all he agreed with

_________________
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:

Thanks genius...I told you a comet's tail was an EM interaction about 2 years ago. Of course you were in denial then...

About two years ago you were telling us that Sitchins fairy tales were an accurate translation of Sumerian texts, which they aren't.
About two years ago you were telling us that Aztecs and Mayans built figures on the Gaza strip which they didn't.
About two years ago you were telling us that there was evidence that excavations of biblical giants were being concealed, which they weren't.
About two years ago you were telling us that there was evidence of pre 1940's nuclear explosions in the deserts of the world, which there isn't.
About two years ago you were telling us that Nibiru would be here soon, and we would all be amazed at your perspicacity. Wrong again.

You later told us that EM was the sole answer to the question about life, the universe, and everything. which it clearly and demonstrably isn't. I am not saying that EM does not exist, merely that other things also exist.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Thanks genius...I told you a comet's tail was an EM interaction about 2 years ago. Of course you were in denial then... About two years ago you were telling us that Sitchins fairy tales were an accurate translation of Sumerian texts, which they aren't. About two years ago you were telling us that Aztecs and Mayans built figures on the Gaza strip which they didn't. About two years ago you were telling us that there was evidence that excavations of biblical giants were being concealed, which they weren't. About two years ago you were telling us that there was evidence of pre 1940's nuclear explosions in the deserts of the world, which there isn't. About two years ago you were telling us that Nibiru would be here soon, and we would all be amazed at your perspicacity. Wrong again. You later told us that EM was the sole answer to the question about life, the universe, and everything. which it clearly and demonstrably isn't. I am not saying that EM does not exist, merely that other things also exist.

About 3 years ago, you decided to call yourself a nimrod, what's your point?

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @BrianK haha. he stopped reading after the first two sentences. Cause that's all he agreed with

Ion tails are what people see when they see a comet in the sky. They are the only ones worth talking about.

@Lou

EM is photons, not ions. Hence "the _second_ tail is from EM". The first one is from the ion wind, which will not point in the same direction.

Last edited by olegil on 26-Mar-2013 at 10:18 PM.

_________________
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.

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @Lou EM is photons, not ions. Hence "the _second_ tail is from EM". The first one is from the ion wind, which will not point in the same direction.

Wow you have a lot to learn...

The only tail you see in the sky is the ion tale which always faces away from the sun no matter the path of the comet. The myth you have been believing is that THAT tail has been light reflecting off melting ice all along.

You do realize that "chemistry" is just a fancy name for EM interactions between atoms and molecules, right?

@Lou

Quote:

The only tail you see in the sky is the ion tale which always faces away from the sun no matter the path of the comet.

Hale-Bopp as we can see there's two visible tails. The blue one is the ionizing effects of the gas. Whereas the white is heavier dust and arcing.


As seen in the picture below the ionized tail is very faint and much harder to make out than the white dust tail.


These images demonstrate the 'only tail ...is the ion tale..' is a lie. There are two tails there the straight ion tail and the curved dust tail. The second picture is very good because we can see both tails and it demonstrates how difficult it is to see the ion tail. The predominately observed tail on Hale-Bopp is the white dust tail. Part of the problem is likely color related. It's easier for the darker blue to be washed out by the dark sky than the much lighter white. (EDIT: For a great example of how the ion tail is lost bring up this page on your desktop with a high quality monitor, you can clearly see the ion tail. Then do the same with a phone. Unless you expand that picture and squint you aren't going to see the ion tail.)

To give you an out on RP perhaps you're thinking the non-visually observable is the 3rd tail? It's a sodium tail that can only be seen with special lens filters. I think you may find that it's thought this 3rd tail, inbetween the blue and white tails, is driven mainly by radiation pressure from the sun. The radiation pressure has much less of an impact on the ion and dust tails. The ion tail being thought to be mainly driven by the solar winds (eg electrons and protons) and the dust tail by gravity because of it's heavier elements. Though the problem here is that the tail driven by radiation pressure is completely non-observable from earth.

Hale-Bopp is good example of how science says this works
* The tail most commonly seen is the white heavy dust tail. It's curved due to acceleration and gravity of the sun
* A second tail is seen from earth too. It's a blue light gas tail is straight due to the solar winds - eg. protons and electrons outgassing from the sun.
* A third tail can't be seen without the correct filter and is invisible to the naked eye. It's the lightest materials of all and is pushed by Radiation Pressure.

Lou - you tell us that Radiation Pressure pushes everything about, including the planets. The observed evidence from Comets is RP only works on the most light of materials. When objects get heavier the RP effects become inconsequential. Of course, scientists know this to be true because the major trajectory for satellites is built based on accounting for acceleration and gravitational effects. It's only the very slight minor correction to account for a small iota of RP. EVIDENCE my boy. It's important.

Last edited by BrianK on 28-Mar-2013 at 01:09 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 27-Mar-2013 at 01:48 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 27-Mar-2013 at 01:42 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 27-Mar-2013 at 01:40 PM.

@olegil

Quote:

haha. he stopped reading after the first two sentences. Cause that's all he agreed with

Sure that wasn't two words?

@Lou

Hearsay is not evidence, even if it's about UFOs

Low Neutrino counts? Check your flavor!

Interesting enough Neutrino do not interact by EM but instead by the Weak forces. Evidence again that EM is not God.