@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Your 'experiments' don't prove its a fundamental force rather than the derivative that it actually is. And where is the EVIDENCE that supports this Clearly Ridiculous Absurd Postulate? You don't have any. Just because the great high priest tells you that radiation pressure is pushing this planet toward the sun, and blithers on about dark ojects in a light box, the measured amounts of radiation pressure as far out as the Voyager probe demonstrate that his mathematics are faulty. It doesn't matter how many PhD's Brandenburg has to his name, or how long he has worked as a propulsion systems engineer, if his guess doesn't match the observable universe then it is wrong. I will accept that we do not know everything about what gravity is, but we do know lots of things that it is [b]definitely not[b]. Your protestations about the inaccuracy of current knowledge and your CRAP alternative is like saying that because pi to 10 significant figures being 3.1415926534 is not totally accurate, the true value of pi must be 42, beacuse Douglas Adams said so! Just to remind you, both BrianK and myself know that radiation pressure exists, we are not trying to pretend otherwise, but unlike you, we know the limits of its power. Expecting the measured levels of pressure to achieve the results you claim is like attempting to float a fully laden oil tanker on the top of a cumulo nimbus.

Just to remind you, YOU and BrianK claim 'gravity' is a fundamental force.
Newton didn't go that far.
You prove it! Stop being spoon-fed science and prove something for once in your existence. Prove that you two aren't nimrodic trolls waiting for me to cross your bridge. Prove that the THEORY of General Relativity is a FACT!

PROVE YOU'RE NOT FULL OF THE CRAP I KNOW YOU ARE FILLED WITH.

Last edited by Lou on 16-Apr-2013 at 09:36 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 16-Apr-2013 at 09:33 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Prove that the THEORY of General Relativity is a FACT!

What this request tells me is you don't understand how those two items are operationally different. A quote from Paul Feyerabend lays it out as well as I could - "Facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are the structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival theories explaining them.

TL:DR? You don't understand the difference and relationships between postulates, facts, and scientific theories.

Also note - lead theories are established by their explanation of facts and their better predictable nature. Proving Gravity is wrong under certain conditions doesn't automatically discard it. It identifies an area for more research. And it certainly does not promote the EM postulate to a theory. You still need to prove a better predictability. Thus, even if we did what you wanted it doesn't get you out of the fact you've yet to prove squat about TOE being all EM.

@Lou

Quote:

Prove that the THEORY of General Relativity is a FACT!

I can't, because it isn't. GR is a scientific theory which means that it will be superseded when a better one comes along.
What you still fail to understand is that just as Newtons theories were a better fit than the previous system of epicycles, Einsteins General Relativity was yet another improvement. As theories become better the errors between calculated prediction and observable results become smaller. Newtons theories were very good considering that he was working from a baseline where alchemy and magic were indistinguishable from science, but there were errors. People knew about the errors for a long time before Einstein but his equations were still used because until Einsteins GR Newtons equations were the best available. And it was Newtons own equations that proved that there were errors in Newtons laws.
Likewise GR makes sufficiently precise predictions to be able to carry its own proof of failure, and the need for further research, but still remains the current best fit. We all know that there are gaps needing to be filled in but that does not permit any old line of CRAP to claim the scientific high ground without itself making verifiable and verified predictions about the way the universe works. Your fantasy about gravity being a result of shielding of radiation pressure would make it impossible for two stars to collide in space, this is clearly and demonstrably not the case, both by measuring the levels of radiation pressure from our own sun and comparing it to the incoming pressure (Free clue:- Voyager space probe), and also by watching ongoing stellar collision events.

While it is highly likely that somebody posting on this thread is full of CRAP, it is neither BrianK or myself.

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

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Prove that the THEORY of General Relativity is a FACT! What this request tells me is you don't understand how those two items are operationally different. A quote from Paul Feyerabend lays it out as well as I could - "Facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are the structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival theories explaining them. TL:DR? You don't understand the difference and relationships between postulates, facts, and scientific theories. Also note - lead theories are established by their explanation of facts and their better predictable nature. Proving Gravity is wrong under certain conditions doesn't automatically discard it. It identifies an area for more research. And it certainly does not promote the EM postulate to a theory. You still need to prove a better predictability. Thus, even if we did what you wanted it doesn't get you out of the fact you've yet to prove squat about TOE being all EM.

And you've proven you are in no position to determine what 'squat' is.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Prove that the THEORY of General Relativity is a FACT! I can't, because it isn't. GR is a scientific theory which means that it will be superseded when a better one comes along. What you still fail to understand is that just as Newtons theories were a better fit than the previous system of epicycles, Einsteins General Relativity was yet another improvement. As theories become better the errors between calculated prediction and observable results become smaller. Newtons theories were very good considering that he was working from a baseline where alchemy and magic were indistinguishable from science, but there were errors. People knew about the errors for a long time before Einstein but his equations were still used because until Einsteins GR Newtons equations were the best available. And it was Newtons own equations that proved that there were errors in Newtons laws. Likewise GR makes sufficiently precise predictions to be able to carry its own proof of failure, and the need for further research, but still remains the current best fit. We all know that there are gaps needing to be filled in but that does not permit any old line of CRAP to claim the scientific high ground without itself making verifiable and verified predictions about the way the universe works. Your fantasy about gravity being a result of shielding of radiation pressure would make it impossible for two stars to collide in space, this is clearly and demonstrably not the case, both by measuring the levels of radiation pressure from our own sun and comparing it to the incoming pressure (Free clue:- Voyager space probe), and also by watching ongoing stellar collision events. While it is highly likely that somebody posting on this thread is full of CRAP, it is neither BrianK or myself.

What's highly likely is that you live up to your username.
What's obvious is you can't prove anything about what you believe then sit there and attempt to judge what I believe.

@Lou

Quote:

And you've proven you are in no position to determine what 'squat' is.

You're right we've only used Einstein's equation to get Voyager beyond our solar system. Certainly they're wrong. How silly of me.

@Lou

Quote:

What's obvious is you can't prove anything about what you believe then sit there and attempt to judge what I believe.

You still seem to be under the mistaken impression that science is based on belief. Religion is based on belief, while science is based on evidence based models of how things work. In science belief is irrelevant, and theories of how things work are used to calculate anticipated outcomes, which are compared with experimental and observational results.

The postulate that you are currently championing would make it impossible for any source of radiation pressure to collide with another source of radiation pressure, and this is clearly not the case, therefore your preferred postulate is wrong. It is even less able to produce accurate predictions or explanations of how the universe works than were the geocentric epicycle theories that predated Newton.

I am not seeking to judge your beliefs, whatever your religious viewpoint is, it is of no interest to me until you attempt to pass it off as proven scientific fact. When you do this you will run into the requirement to meet scientific standards of evidence instead of being able to recite a religious credo to avoid the requirement for verification.

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

And the search for more answers continues.

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

@Lou

I'd thought you'd like this research that scientists believe they have identified Major DNA Shift within humans They are still trying to identify possible causes for this DNA shift.

It made me think of writings of Sitchin - "create Primitive Workers through genetic manipulation of Ape woman". Though this probably isn't the one Sitchin claimed as that event was 300,000 years ago. This DNA shift is about 4,500 years ago.

First Neutrinos detected from outside our solar system since 1987.
LINK

@Thread

It would seem that GR is not as broken as some here would have us believe, demonstrating once again that belief is irrelevant

Quote:

Co-author Professor Marten van Kerkwijk, from the University of Toronto in Canada, said: "The observations disprove these alternatives, and thus give further confidence that Einstein's theory is a good description of nature - even though we know it is not a complete one, given the unresolved inconsistencies with quantum mechanics."

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

@Lou

A new test for gravity further demonstrates the accuracy in it's predictability High Mass Pulsar Binary best test of General Relativity . Definitely spot on that this further constrains other possible answers.

@Lou,

A Perpetual Motion machine? An interesting theoretical idea. Nicely, the same scientist has the wherewithal to build an experiment to verify his work. He understands that while the mathematics on the paper look very pretty that until evidence is found in the real world we're unable to verify or deny the truthfulness of this mathematical construct.

A great example for you to read and think about when talking about EM. You've provided those pretty papers from Brandenburg. What you're missing is evidence. In the above the scientist is building an experiment that will lead us to observing if the paper's conclusions are true, or not.

@BrianK

I think Lou should watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8wi0QnYN6s

_________________
Live Long and keep Amigaing!

A1200, Power Tower, TF1260 128MB RAM, 68060 Rev 6, OS3.9 BB2, HD-Floppy, Mediator TX+ PCI, Voodoo 3 3000, Soundblaster 4.1, TV Card, Spider USB, 100MBit Ethernet, 16GB CF HD, 52xCDRom.

@thread

Do you think all of you could steer this train wreck of a thread back on track, please?

Thanks in advance.

The topic, in case some of you forgot, is Nibiru.

_________________
¤¤ Official Hyperion Zealot ¤¤

(No, I didn't type that with a straight face.)

Thanks Yo! Yo's right. This thread is all about what would be if a completely fictional planet existed.

Nibiru supposedly supports life.... Wookie or Ewok which would better survive the extremes. Discuss!

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou, A Perpetual Motion machine? An interesting theoretical idea. Nicely, the same scientist has the wherewithal to build an experiment to verify his work. He understands that while the mathematics on the paper look very pretty that until evidence is found in the real world we're unable to verify or deny the truthfulness of this mathematical construct. A great example for you to read and think about when talking about EM. You've provided those pretty papers from Brandenburg. What you're missing is evidence. In the above the scientist is building an experiment that will lead us to observing if the paper's conclusions are true, or not.

Ah yes, ask for evidence while providing none of your own.

@Amiboy

Quote:

Amiboy wrote: @BrianK I think Lou should watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8wi0QnYN6s

You should probably watch it yourself and in particular listen to the segment starting at 8:25.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Thread It would seem that GR is not as broken as some here would have us believe, demonstrating once again that belief is irrelevant Quote: Co-author Professor Marten van Kerkwijk, from the University of Toronto in Canada, said: "The observations disprove these alternatives, and thus give further confidence that Einstein's theory is a good description of nature - even though we know it is not a complete one, given the unresolved inconsistencies with quantum mechanics."

Is this "evidence"? Evidence for what? One of the ones it eliminated was MOND which was already eliminated.

Many a nimrod can calculate the radiation pressure of 1 star.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130430105948.htm
Keep going old boy, let me know when you're finished.