@Lou

Quote:

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html

And if you have read this quote, work out why you consistently post trash without anticipating that I will trash your post.

Quote:

Also, if you looked up how MRI imaging works like I asked you to, you'd realize how wrong you are about magnetic fields aligning.

I did watch the video that you posted, and there was nothing in it that stated that magnetic fields do not align. In fact it is because the magnetic "dipoles" of the protons are aligned that the machine can actually work. You may however note that an MRI scanner has an extremely powerful electromagnetic torus with a core only 600mm in diameter. The subject is placed inside the core of the scanner where the magnetic fields are at their strongest and most concentrated, and yet 100 yards away the scanner will not be able to pull a compass needle towards itself because the magnetic flux is all contained in closed loops.
Also if the Earth were being turned by EM, the rotating magnetic field that was turning it would be detectable and there is no such electromagnetic field with the power to achieve your fantasy. Add to that the FACT that the planet Mars has no discernible geomagnet to use to induce spin. This is the equivalent of building a 3 phase squirrel cage motor with a wooden rotor.

Quote:

Just like in a proton, applying a magnetic field doesn't re-orient the dipole orientation of the proton...just the outer edge of it's magnetic field.

unlike a proton contained within the nucleus of an atom of oxygen, the planet Earth is free to rotate in any plane. Over geological time the distortion of its magnetic field as a result of the spin axis and the magnetic axis being different would cause the spin axis to shift to align with the magnetic axis. Your so called "theory" about EM spinning planets also ignores the fact that the Earths geomagnet flips occasionally without causing the planet to change its direction of rotation.

Quote:

I have chosen to ignore most of them because there's an old saying about arguing with nimrods...

Correction. You choose to ignore the facts that I post because either you are incapable of understanding them, or because you lack the honesty to admit even to yourself that they demonstrate clearly the invalid nature of your belief in Sitchins papal infallibility and Brandenburgs PhD. There is no lie that you will not clutch tightly to your heart providing only that it seek to contradict the facts that contradict your faith. It makes no difference to you that the lie that you are postulating also contradicts your chosen religion.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

And if you have read this quote, work out why you consistently post trash without anticipating that I will trash your post.

The quote, even if not from Einstein, is a good summary of the thread. Lou posts something, expecting on faith we'll believe him. Then we look at his claims. Lou gets all butt-hurt that his claims were compared to reality. Then he lies and says we never looked at his claim. We spell out his lie and ask him about details of other evidences and why his claims don't fit those either. Lou ignores those, calls us names, then posts some other non-sussed view. ..Wash, rinse, repeat.

We're certainly not going to convince each other of anything. The reason why is pretty simple - the ground rules which we both operate are different. We want evidence. We want to build that anti-gravity car. Lou just wants reality to be shaped by his personal desires. Unfortunately, Lou doesn't understand he's contained and constrained by reality, reality is not contained by him.

When you can't even prove what you BELIEVE IN is correct, you are in no place to demand proof from me.

@Lou

Quote:

When you can't even prove what you BELIEVE IN is correct, you are in no place to demand proof from me.

My 'belief' is repeatable validated evidence is the best indicator of reality. Though I use 'belief' in quotes for you. Because this is a proven fact it's in no sense a belief. Beliefs are those things we accept without proof. Science has gotten us beyond the solar system with simply validating evidence and using that validated evidence to better itself and humanity. And be it Lou or Einstein or whomever I simply don't care you all must bring evidence to the table to demonstrate your claim to know reality is valid.

You made the bold claim that Brandenburg has wrapped up this EM_is_God idea into something better than a belief. Since you have been unable to provide any valid evidence to this effect you have failed to demonstrate your claim of fact. Until you can you have nothing but a belief.

You may be right! But, without valid evidence as proof you are only right due to chance, not knowledge.

@BrianK

GR may be right, but it's already proven wrong at galactic scales.
Hence your GR_is_god zealotry is getting you no where.

Many a nimrod doesn't believe in vacuum energy pressure yet vacuum energy is proven to exist and is the basis of quantum mechanics.
Many a nimrod will tell you that Gravity Probe B proved something to back GR when in reality gravitomagnetism is the new 'ether'.

The funny thing about the standard model that you so champion is that quantum physics doesn't consider gravity.

My problems with the 'standard model' isn't that quantum mechanics is wrong, per say. My problem with it is the concept of 'particles'. Waves are reality. A point is just where two waves intersect when a measurement is taken. The concept of photons, gluons and higgs-bosons - it's just bogus. It's like saying you have presents under your tree because of Santa Claus rather than the mechanical action of your parents while you were sleeping... Acutally, I think even quantum mechanics says this but is still illustrated with 'particles'. It's the dumbed-down physics you people have come to accept. For instance, the bohr model is still in your heads...

@Lou

Quote:

GR may be right, but it's already proven wrong at galactic scales. Hence your GR_is_god zealotry is getting you no where.

You are lying here again. GR has not been proved wrong at galactic scales. It's neither been proved fully right at galactic scales. It's a work in progress, which I and science fully acknowledge. That's where you get into trouble you make a false claim 'proven wrong'.

For fun let's assume that GR is proven wrong. What replaces GR must also comply to my zealotry. Again this zealotry is what demands better evidence must be demonstrated prior to accepting that Theory is better. You act like EM wins by default. That's not how it works. EM scientists must bring their work, just like everyone else.


Quote:

The funny thing about the standard model that you so champion is that quantum physics doesn't consider gravity.

The reason you find this 'funny' is because you demand that the Standard Model be TOE. It's clearly not, nor was meant to be. So while the Standard Model has proven every particle it predicted, science has also acknowledged that it is incomplete. The Standard Model certainly was a good predictor, and it served it's purpose. We all know that Physics needs another solid model. It's an exciting time that we've evidenced the postulates found we were on the right direction as well as know that direction only got us part of the way to the destination. I've even posted articles here on how Physics needs to work on the next path for the journey.

Quote:

My problems with the 'standard model' isn't that quantum mechanics is wrong, per say. My problem with it is the concept of 'particles'. Waves are reality

Viewing the classical macroverse definitions of both waves or particles neither one is complete when it comes to the reality of the nanoverse. As such Scientists are developing new concepts of this construct. It's more of a wavicle. A combined word for the idea that these components have structures of both concepts. What you say here 'waves are reality' is not proving true when the evidence is viewed at the quantum level.

Quote:

For instance, the bohr model is still in your heads

Speaking of the Bohr model (which I want to acknowledge has been superceded of course) did you see the photos of atomic bonds. It's amazing how much they look like the shorthand notation used to communicate how these chemical bonds operate? http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/31/4382606/berkeley-lab-hi-res-photograph-of-atoms-forming-covalent-bond

...
Oh and getting back to GR - science fully acknowledges it's incomplete. Thusly the search for more and better evidence continues.

@Lou

Quote:

Hence your GR_is_god zealotry is getting you no where.

IF we were claiming that "GR is god" in the manner that you imply then you would be correct. The simple fact that you fail to accept that only evidence can hold the position as deity. GR is not god, it is merely the best available model of how the universe works. When something better comes along GR will join epicycles or even ether in the dustbin of history, but as yet nothing better has come along

Quote:

Many a nimrod doesn't believe in vacuum energy pressure yet vacuum energy is proven to exist

Stop lying, Lou. Nobody posting on this thread has denied the existence of vacuum energy, we know that it exists and we know its magnitude. Also as I keep trying to tell you but you are still apparently incapable of comprehending. Quote:

Belief is Irrelevant

Quote:

Many a nimrod will tell you that Gravity Probe B proved something to back GR when in reality gravitomagnetism is the new 'ether'

Gravitomagnetism doesn't mean what you believe that it means. Gravitomagnetism is the analog of magnetisms relationship to electricity, not gravity as a subset of magnetism. As for your claim that is is the new "Ether" you couldn't be more wrong. Gravitomagnetism has been demonstrated to exist and not only by the findings of gravity probe b. "Ether" on the other hand was predicted at certain levels and not detected. It was not detected at the levels predicted, and it still as not been detected at far lower levels that can be detected by improved technology.

Last edited by Nimrod on 31-May-2013 at 09:42 PM.

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

@Lou

A good example of why evidence is so powerful? It fact checks the Human Condition. A Normal person sees a convex face, when the real shape is concave Another good example of errors in the human condition and why external validated evidence is the best tool we have to demonstrate reality.

A new paper on how to build an experiment to measure gravity waves.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/06/space-based-clouds-of-atoms-future-gravitational-wave-detector/

...


Lou - don't take the unproven as wrong. What science says is 'we don't know and we're still searching'. I know it's an uncomfortable place for people. Thus we do things like invent Gods or assume EM_is_God so we don't have to think about it. The truth is the most accurate understanding of our universe only comes through hardwork.

@Thread

If you remember a few weeks back I commented on the fact that something held an atoms nucleus together against the tendency for EM charges to repel.
It seems that somebody did a bit of research into this and has produced an answer. Once again religion is being passed off as science as a nation marches steadfastly towards ignorance.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

If you remember a few weeks back I commented on the fact that something held an atoms nucleus together against the tendency for EM charges to repel. It seems that somebody did a bit of research into this and has produced an answer. Once again religion is being passed off as science as a nation marches steadfastly towards ignorance.

I know you gave the answer away in the video. But, I have to comment on why it's wrong. And to do so I need to put in print that answer. Sorry for giving away the 'secret'.

SPOILER BELOW WARNING!
This video talks to how the unknown force that scientists can't come up with to keep an atom's positive charges held together is 'Jesus Christ'. The reason this is wrong is because as we all know Jesus Christ has 2 arms, afterall that's how he was crucified. In reality there's a multitude of atoms in the universe and there's a limit to speed - c. There's no way Jesus could travel around in time to hold all the atoms together The real answer is it's the Flying Spaghetti Monster. His noodly appendages are an uncounted multitude. He wouldn't have to run anywhere those atoms are attached to all his arms at once. FSM FTW!

Last edited by BrianK on 06-Jun-2013 at 06:06 PM.

@Lou

We know how you like your Vegas Gambling. Did you know that 83% of Gamblers quit right before the big win?

Increase in data/evidence for the Big Bang came from better quality equipment able to see further away (read back in time). This item settled a two decade old scientific question as to why we see a inconsistency in lithium isotypes. There were a couple of postulates why, this evidence indicated 1 is more correct than the other.

@Lou

Is Dark Matter really an EM anapole? An interesting idea. Though like you've told us Dark Matter has never been detected or discovered. So we have no data which to confirm or deny this.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou We know how you like your Vegas Gambling. Did you know that 83% of Gamblers quit right before the big win?

This time I had my female friend pull me away when I was up a little.
Now that I'm back:

http://news.yahoo.com/listened-eisenhower-110600933.html

It's more then an invisibility cloak. It's a reality cloak

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909004112.htm

What? Another constant that's not constant?

*shocker*

/yawn

Who would have thunk that constants change all the time...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110720085828.htm

Last edited by Lou on 13-Jun-2013 at 02:21 PM.

@Lou

By your tone I expect you to now provide us with flashbacks to where your favourite postulates predicted this.

_________________
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:

Lou wrote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909004112.htm What? Another constant that's not constant? *shocker* /yawn Who would have thunk that constants change all the time... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110720085828.htm

Wow are you really trying to get away that claiming (the last part) the change from more accurate methods and measures of a force is the same as the inconsistency across space, (the first part.) You do realize the 'change' in these two items are not the same nor related, right? You see words have many meanings and their use is not always interchangeable.

EDIT: Stupid AW engine can't translate a [ without a space before it. That always catches me as other sites I use have no problem with that. GRR!

Last edited by BrianK on 15-Jun-2013 at 05:31 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909004112.htm What? Another constant that's not constant? *shocker* /yawn Who would have thunk that constants change all the time... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110720085828.htm

As has frequently been explained to you, the only true constant in science is the requirement to follow the evidence. As new and better evidence becomes available new and better theories are developed to match. This is the reason that there is the quote "The fine structure constant, and other fundamental constants, are absolutely central to our current theory of physics. If they really do vary, we'll need a better, deeper theory," in the first article. Also in the second article is the line "The constants, which range from relatively famous (the speed of light) to the fairly obscure (Wien frequency displacement law constant) are adjusted every four years in response to the latest scientific measurements and advances. " You may possibly remember a post of mine stating that the "value for π" has changed from 22/7 to a number exceeding one million decimal places of precision. Despite the constant changes to the value for π, it is not, never has been, and never will be true that π=42.
It is only recently that we have been able to remotely measure such things to an accuracy of 0.0001% across the known universe, and we base these measurements and calculations on a theory that you do not yourself accept as being accurate, if GR is so flawed how can it be used to make accurate measurements across the observed universe. If you wish to demonstrate the superiority of your EM is god universe shouldnt you be linking to evidence that measures these constants to a greater degree of accuracy using measured radiation pressure figures from the distant galaxies, or the magnetic fields of non-magnetic rocks.
Everywhere you look there is evidence of tiny variations and fluctuations that needs to be explained, but the theory that explains them does need to be better than the current theories

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