@Niolator

Quote:

So, where is Niburu? Give me the coordinates please. I wan´t to see it first hand. We can see planets over 100 light years away but not Niburu which should be closer than Saturn if it is going to hit us before this year is over. So where is it?

No one has found Niburu. There's some guesses and when telescopes have been turned in those directions they see nothing. So, unless the aliens can somehow cloak the visual, EM, and gravitational effects it likely doesn't exist.

Some claimed the Comet Elenin was actually the planet Niburu. Turned out that Elenin was too small and not planet like in any way. The claimed collision with Earth, which was not claimed by any scientific sources, was cut short in Fall of 2011 when a solar flare took out Elenin.

Though I expect we'll see more Niburu myths in the media until Dec 21, 2012. At which nothing will happen. Well, except another Sky is Falling End of the World Woo-Woo will be discarded to make room for a new Sky is Falling End of the World Woo-Woo. Afterall that's the pattern established for the last 2000 years of Doomsday Predictions.

Last edited by BrianK on 12-Jan-2012 at 03:40 PM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: It seems you missed how/where he measured that value...which is of course where your disbelief comes from...studying anti-gravity and cold-fusion... So he got these measurements from... Something that doesn't work, and... something else that doesn't work. Like I keep asking are these actual measurements, or the product of reverse engineering of Plancks constant There are NO working cold fusion units where these figures can be verified. There are NO working anti-gravity installations where these claims can be independently verified. As a result of there being no way to verify these claims there is no reason to think that they are anything other than pure, unadulterated, low grade, science fiction.

Anti-gravity does work. Cold fusion does work...but is now going by the name LENR, which you can find plenty of information on. Your old biases are blinding you.

also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=pJJ-4lnwrck

Quote:

Quote: Big G is defined as an electrostatic force between a hydrogen atom and ZPF Citation please, or are you simply parroting the opinion of Znidarsic as fact like a good little acolyte should?

I gave you the citation to John Brandenburg's book. The actual formula is on page 294, the chapter it is from is 10. Brandenburg found the formula to what the paper I linked from 1994 suggests...which he first proposed in 1998 at an AMS meeting...which is how I found that link to where the "measured value" of big G varied which I personally found amusing because I told you this previously because there's alot of EM interaction going on everywhere...as sublte as it might be...

Quote:

Quote: matter is defined as fluctuations from ZPF Re-Introducing Wave-particle duality as though it were something new, rather than something that was discussed by Aristotle and Democritus still doesn't mean that "it's all EM" The big joke here is that you then go on to quote Newtons equations for gravitational attraction of two masses to "prove" your EM universe.

The big joke is on you. Big G is an electrostatic force. Mass(a factor of the # of hydrogen atoms that make up the matters involved) is simply a multiplier of that force and obviously EM is always affected by distance. What you don't realize is that F=Gm1m2/r^2 is a simple formula for point masses and the reality is much more complex... Go back to the first thread, I told you that formula is a simplification. If something is far enough away (like planets and stars) you can treat them as point masses to simplify the math. When you get closer, like satellites trying to orbit the moon, "gravity" has to be mapped.

Quote:

Quote: The paper I linked several posts ago defines inertia in terms of EM against ZPF as well... /yawn I know. And if you insert ZPF values big enough to electro-magnetically influence a barren rock the size of Mars, the same ZPF figures would cause a huge geomagnet the size of the Earth to stop dead in its tracks. From this article it can be seen that ZPF is far from a proven idea, and there is still a lot of work to be done to refine the concepts. Specifically in relation to orders of magnitude

It was Einstein that discovered the ZPF...so I don't know what you are doubting... It must be your old biases again...
Those guys have been busy. Here they derive F=ma:
http://www.calphysics.org/articles/gravity_arxiv.pdf


Edit:
Oh and speaking of particle-wave duality:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34365659/The-Duality-of-Matter-and-Waves

Last edited by Lou on 13-Jan-2012 at 12:36 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon Nuclear powered cars...now we're talking! Actually this is a steam powered car. The nuclear energy is used to heat water and turn it into steam which pushes a turbine. Not sure if the public will enjoy driving around in a radioactive car. Every crash has a potential to becoming a nuclear waste and exposure issue. Other costs go up as we need every fire station in the land to be trained and prepared for an unpredictable location of a Nuclear Hazaradous Material clean up. Imagine the road costs to clean and rebuild a freeway because of a meltdown during rush hour? Ouch! The design would likely work. It's akin to a nuclear sub design. Though if it works, is effiecent, or is cost effective we'll not know as a working prototype never existed.

All nuclear power plants are "steam engines"... That's for informing us that circles are round!

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Let me RELINK the video with DIRECT EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS: The logical problem you have here is you can't use the source to prove itself correct. What happens is the Eyewitness story becomes the postulate that is accepted as a value to truth when collaborating evidence is availble.

The source is the evidence. Thousands of units of evidence at that. Your typical debunking attitude is too simply dismiss observation and look for everything else left over. If I was to describe a shirt to you to build and you built me a pair of pants and told me it was a shirt, you basically ignore my recounting of the details of the shirt I wanted.
Don't tell me that a pair of pants is a shirt. It's clothing, yes, but a shirt - no.

Quote:

So back to the video I linked. The video evidence provided was stated by various of the Eyewitnesses to be their recording of the event. It's a source of evidence other than the Eye Witness. As such it's one set of data we may use as evidence. Now the Eyewitnesses claimed time of day for the 2 events, lights in front of Mountains, and all the lights made a single UFO. In the video (again from UFO supporters) supports neither lights in front of Mountans, they are behind, nor a single flying object, nothing seen in the daytime video. .. If this is the evidence the UFO witnesses provide to collaborate their story, it fails at doing so.

I couldn't determine the validity of the video that was supposedly supplied. What I do know is that in the video I linked, people reported something flying over them slowly which is a completely different location from what was video-taped that you showed.

Quote:

Quote: Do you not see the discrepencies here? yeah I do. The UFO supporters version of the story and their claimed collaborative evidence don't match. Either the evidence provided by the UFO supporters is lying or the UFO supporters themselves are lying.

Or someone supplied of video of something else. Who provided the video?

Quote:

Quote: I mean you don't find it odd that the Maryland Air National Guard is flying over Arizona? You don't find it odd that Luke Airforce Base has nothing to say that night? Neither of us know every detail of a military operation. Though having in-laws in the National Guard I can tell you that they have had maneuvers outside of the State they are assigned to. 'Luke Airforce Base' has nothing? Lots to check there. Who was this 'Luke Airforce Base' - did they have knowledge, or should they, and did they have military clearance at the time? If you call a guy at the front gate he's unlikely to tell you anything.

http://www.luke.af.mil/main/contactus.asp
Really? I mean considering Maryland's proximatey to uhm THE ATLANTIC OCEAN, you'd think they'd pick a better place to drop flares, no?

Quote:

Quote: Ignore facts as long and your explanation is sufficiently mundane. We dispute the facts. My fact is the lights existed. Your 'fact' is the lights were part of a UFO, which was driven by an unobserved alien. If no one sees it, it's not a fact, it's a hypothesis.

Here is where you twist by adding things that weren't there. It was a UFO. No one said it was or wasn't driven by an alien. No one saw and alien, so according to you, no one saw a UFO piloted by an alien. Go job BrianK, we should call you Brian "Twist" K. It totally sounds gangsta!
The facts are that a UFO was indeed observed. Everything else is you twisting it.

Quote:

Quote: The reality is that his math puts a real formula to quantum mechanics. You can't prove it wrong. Just admit it and move on. You are spot on here! I clearly did not do any proof of his math. I accepted Frank's math as true as you presented. Bad form to trust you. And also I did what you asked and moved on. Assuming the math to be true I moved onto the next question - is there any proof of application to reality and it's accuracy? To date there isn't. (Or at least to date you haven't presented anything valid here.) If you want Math questions Lou is hitting that fairly good so. If you don't want to move on with me you can step back there.

The proof is the math. From it all the quantum predictions matched up including spectral emissions and electron orbits. The power this gives us it the ability to induce quantum transitions now that we know the right frequency.

@Niolator

Quote:

Niolator wrote: So, where is Niburu? Give me the coordinates please. I wan´t to see it first hand. We can see planets over 100 light years away but not Niburu which should be closer than Saturn if it is going to hit us before this year is over. So where is it?

Just stick around until 2900 and see what happens.

@Lou

Quote:

The source is the evidence.

One cannot be the source and the evidence. This is circular logic claiming proof essentially 'because I said so'.

Quote:

Your typical debunking attitude is too simply dismiss observation and look for everything else left over

I see you're taking a #1 sort of approach here. Instead we're not dismissing observation. We're asking for all the facts around the issue and which facts collaborate the observation.

Quote:

I couldn't determine the validity of the video that was supposedly supplied.

It was video contributed by UFO Supporters as evidence to their observation during research of the Phoenix Light event. UFO Supporters their own video would help collaborate their UFO story.

Quote:

Really? I mean considering Maryland's proximatey to uhm THE ATLANTIC OCEAN, you'd think they'd pick a better place to drop flares, no?

You've rejected on an assumption. What's that #4 in your list? You have no knowledge of what the National Guard from another state was doing there. We can both make guesses but they are guesses and we can't discount or account until we have collaborating evidence. ... I think you'll note I've not asserted this as true or false. It's your guess work that claims it must be false.

Quote:

It was a UFO. No one said it was or wasn't driven by an alien.

Alas this is a failure on your part. The people claiming this to be a UFO event are blaming aliens as a cause. Thus, they've identified an unidentified object.

Quote:

The facts are that a UFO was indeed observed

You are right some people didn't know what the Flying Objects were so they were Unidentified to them. The next question is not a leap of faith to alien claims. The next question is what sources exist that can provide valid evidence to what these might be. There was a group of A-10 pilots that observed exactly the same items the UFO believers did and the events were not unidentified to them but actually caused by them. I believe this is #2 in your list. You want to keep things not known by the public marked as unknown.

Certainly the average joe isn't familar with A-10 flares and such training going on. So yeah they would be Unidentified to them. Be sure your arguments aren't falling into a logical fallacy by conflating the unknown to the unknowable.

Quote:

The proof is the math

While a mathematical proof can stand on it's own. The application of that math to reality ONLY comes through validation by experimentation. Just cuz it's pretty don't mean it works.

Good job you've broken all your own rules! - last one insult the person.
Quote:

Go job BrianK, we should call you Brian "Twist" K. It totally sounds gangsta!

#3

Last edited by BrianK on 12-Jan-2012 at 06:45 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 12-Jan-2012 at 06:42 PM.

@BrianK

Yeah, I know all about that. The big hoax here is Niburu itself. Made up to lure money out of New age people.

@Niolator

Quote:

Yeah, I know all about that. The big hoax here is Niburu itself. Made up to lure money out of New age people.

Of course it is. As is every Doomsday prediction to date. What we'll see is 'moving the goal post'. Where people begin to claim the prediction was read wrong.

Stichin himself did this as he denied the Lieder, and other, claims and published a book claming 2900AD is the return of Nibiru. Though none have any valid evidence demonstrating Nibiru's existence. Nibiru is another Vulcan with even worse evidence.

I appreciate things like Nemesis as at least it has falsible properties, even though it's not real either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRAS and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide-field_Infrared_Survey_Explorer have mapped the skies to find nothing, squat, nada, in the Nemesis realm let alone the sacred cow Nibiru.

Last edited by BrianK on 12-Jan-2012 at 11:08 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

Of course it is. As is every Doomsday prediction to date. What we'll see is 'moving the goal post'. Where people begin to claim the prediction was read wrong.

Not all of them. One of the most interesting ones where the resilient predictions of a global nuclear war starting 1989-1990. It was supposedly thwarted by a true hero and replaced by the end of the cold war.

Last edited by Niolator on 13-Jan-2012 at 01:02 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: The source is the evidence. One cannot be the source and the evidence. This is circular logic claiming proof essentially 'because I said so'. Quote: Your typical debunking attitude is too simply dismiss observation and look for everything else left over I see you're taking a #1 sort of approach here. Instead we're not dismissing observation. We're asking for all the facts around the issue and which facts collaborate the observation. Quote: I couldn't determine the validity of the video that was supposedly supplied. It was video contributed by UFO Supporters as evidence to their observation during research of the Phoenix Light event. UFO Supporters their own video would help collaborate their UFO story. Quote: Really? I mean considering Maryland's proximatey to uhm THE ATLANTIC OCEAN, you'd think they'd pick a better place to drop flares, no? You've rejected on an assumption. What's that #4 in your list? You have no knowledge of what the National Guard from another state was doing there. We can both make guesses but they are guesses and we can't discount or account until we have collaborating evidence. ... I think you'll note I've not asserted this as true or false. It's your guess work that claims it must be false. Quote: It was a UFO. No one said it was or wasn't driven by an alien. Alas this is a failure on your part. The people claiming this to be a UFO event are blaming aliens as a cause. Thus, they've identified an unidentified object. Quote: The facts are that a UFO was indeed observed You are right some people didn't know what the Flying Objects were so they were Unidentified to them. The next question is not a leap of faith to alien claims. The next question is what sources exist that can provide valid evidence to what these might be. There was a group of A-10 pilots that observed exactly the same items the UFO believers did and the events were not unidentified to them but actually caused by them. I believe this is #2 in your list. You want to keep things not known by the public marked as unknown. Certainly the average joe isn't familar with A-10 flares and such training going on. So yeah they would be Unidentified to them. Be sure your arguments aren't falling into a logical fallacy by conflating the unknown to the unknowable. Quote: The proof is the math While a mathematical proof can stand on it's own. The application of that math to reality ONLY comes through validation by experimentation. Just cuz it's pretty don't mean it works. Good job you've broken all your own rules! - last one insult the person. Quote: Go job BrianK, we should call you Brian "Twist" K. It totally sounds gangsta! #3

I got news for you Mr. Twister!
Astronomy is based on observation.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Debunking - for the loss!

@Lou

Quote:

I got news for you Mr. Twister! Astronomy is based on observation. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Debunking - for the loss!

You are saying observing aliens is akin to observing an astronomic event, say Mars? I hope you realize how unequivalent the evidence from these events are.

Earlier in this thread, and in 2011, I took the opportunity to watch the History Channel's Ancient Aliens

The show was pseudscientific woo-woo filed that, in short, assumes if history isn't written down man was too stupid to do it and it was visiting aliens that did it.

Here's a very good summary of 6 learnings from Ancient Aliens

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: I got news for you Mr. Twister! Astronomy is based on observation. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Debunking - for the loss! You are saying observing aliens is akin to observing an astronomic event, say Mars? I hope you realize how unequivalent the evidence from these events are.

Really? I've seen ufos. I've never seen Mars.

@Nimrod

More
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070510111445.htm

Quote:

“As it turns out, the vacuum is not empty - there is a difference between the vacuum and nothingness,” he stated. “Surprisingly, of all known ‘substances’, the vacuum is the least well understood.” From the point of view of cosmology, the vacuum appears to have an energy density, which is sometimes called “dark energy” or the “cosmological constant”, responsible for the observed accelerated expansion of the universe. From a particle physics viewpoint, the vacuum is permeated by a “Higgs Field” - named after physicist Peter Higgs. In the Standard Model of particle physics (which has mapped the subatomic world with remarkable success for over 30 years), the masses of all particles are generated as a result of their interactions with this field.

As Brandenburg describes it and via the example about the light spheres in the dark box and dark spheres in the light box, space(filled with EM) creates a pressure. We don't feel it just as a fish doesn't feel the pressure of the water surrounding it, but it is there. Light has inertia...and light continues on endlessly across 'the vacuum' until absorbed. Light(EM) causes a pressure. An hydrogen bomb is cause by an atomic bomb (which is an EM/light explosion) putting pressure on the inner material which compresses it causing fusion...but if you squeeze something enough, did you know you can make a black hole?

I guess the problem I have with the standard model is that when they see an "effect" they assign a "particle" to it. There is energy in the vacuum. Matter is simply a fluctuation of that energy in a given space. It's all EM.

Back to the light spheres in the dark box. Since they emit light, they are pushing away from each other, like every galaxy is pushing away from each other. With the dark spheres surrounded by a box whose walls emit light, the dark spheres will attract each other because they shadow each other.

@Lou

Quote:

Really? I've seen ufos. I've never seen Mars.

EXCELLENT Question let's walk through this.

There has been a number of postulates to what Mars is. The Greeks believed it to be 1 of the 5 suns that revolved around our planet. Modern man believes it to be planet that is red and doesn't orbit us. -- So we have 2 observations how do you figure it out?

What science says is you identify the differences in the postulates so each can be error checked to the best of our ability. Sun vs planet, orbits earth vs not orbiting earth. And with each identifier there's certain characteristics. If the Greeks are right Mars would always be illuminated because that's what suns do, and we could chart it's course around the earth - accurately predicting future locations. If modern man is right Mars is reflective and not illuminated at all times everywhere. It's splotchy red in color. This too can chart course and accurately predict future locations. Modern man believes to have a known size and distance to the object.

The next step is to develop experiments to measure the different characteristics. You could start with a small underpowered telescope. It won't give you much details but some. Probably enough to identify the object isn't burning always. Which basically kicks the sun postulate out. You can then increase the power of the telescopes and get ever greater detail. You can rent the biggest telescope in the world and get fairly good detail. What you find is the body is red, splotchy, and does not self illuminate. Using the same telescopes you can measure the size and distance. If those are accurate then the previous modern man knowledge is validated as they give you exactly that information which you confirmed. Then you can chart the path around the earth through a few years and you'll find out Modern Man's predictions of path and location is much higher in accuracy. This in turn identifies that Mars doesn't revolve around us. Therefore the Greeks were wrong.

So while you haven't seen Mars yet, you could. And then you can do further experiments such as knowing the predictive path and distance you can build a rocket and figure out what you need to land on the planet. Assuming your accuracies of construction of the rocket are correct it makes it there aiding you by further evidencing Modern Man's planet idea is the right one.

WOW! So here we had two postulates of what Mars was and we didn't accept the observers claim as fact and go to bed. Instead we accepted the observers claim as a possibility and validated those claims with EVIDENCE. It's a recurring theme in my responses that first we build a postulate, then we validate with experimentation and evidence, and then we can create our Theory. We wind up with the best workable explaination for the evidence we have available. And if/when better evidence becomes available it may augment or even destroy our previous Theory. But, it's completely invalid to destroy the theory on a leap of unevidenced faith....

Getting back to the Phoenix Lights. We have two groups of people with different postulates (aliens vs flares) and we can evidence those. Turns out the video evidence the UFO believers claimed to prove their point of aliens didn't. So, is the flaw in the evidence or in the believer? As, other lines of evidence indicate that the UFO Videotape is accurate we need to conclude that the claimant of alien crafts has miss observed and/or misinterpeted the events.

Last edited by BrianK on 13-Jan-2012 at 07:44 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 13-Jan-2012 at 07:28 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Really? I've seen ufos. I've never seen Mars. EXCELLENT Question let's walk through this. There has been a number of postulates to what Mars is. The Greeks believed it to be 1 of the 5 suns that revolved around our planet. Modern man believes it to be planet that is red and doesn't orbit us. -- So we have 2 observations how do you figure it out? What science says is you identify the differences in the postulates so each can be error checked to the best of our ability. Sun vs planet, orbits earth vs not orbiting earth. And with each identifier there's certain characteristics. If the Greeks are right Mars would always be illuminated because that's what suns do, and we could chart it's course around the earth - accurately predicting future locations. If modern man is right Mars is reflective and not illuminated at all times everywhere. It's splotchy red in color. This too can chart course and accurately predict future locations. Modern man believes to have a known size and distance to the object. The next step is to develop experiments to measure the different characteristics. You could start with a small underpowered telescope. It won't give you much details but some. Probably enough to identify the object isn't burning always. Which basically kicks the sun postulate out. You can then increase the power of the telescopes and get ever greater detail. You can rent the biggest telescope in the world and get fairly good detail. What you find is the body is red, splotchy, and does not self illuminate. Using the same telescopes you can measure the size and distance. If those are accurate then the previous modern man knowledge is validated as they give you exactly that information which you confirmed. Then you can chart the path around the earth through a few years and you'll find out Modern Man's predictions of path and location is much higher in accuracy. This in turn identifies that Mars doesn't revolve around us. Therefore the Greeks were wrong. So while you haven't seen Mars yet, you could. And then you can do further experiments such as knowing the predictive path and distance you can build a rocket and figure out what you need to land on the planet. Assuming your accuracies of construction of the rocket are correct it makes it there aiding you by further evidencing Modern Man's planet idea is the right one. WOW! So here we had two postulates of what Mars was and we didn't accept the observers claim as fact and go to bed. Instead we accepted the observers claim as a possibility and validated those claims with EVIDENCE. It's a recurring theme in my responses that first we build a postulate, then we validate with experimentation and evidence, and then we can create our Theory. We wind up with the best workable explaination for the evidence we have available. And if/when better evidence becomes available it may augment or even destroy our previous Theory. But, it's completely invalid to destroy the theory on a leap of unevidenced faith.... Getting back to the Phoenix Lights. We have two groups of people with different postulates (aliens vs flares) and we can evidence those. Turns out the video evidence the UFO believers claimed to prove their point of aliens didn't. So, is the flaw in the evidence or in the believer? As, other lines of evidence indicate that the UFO Videotape is accurate we need to conclude that the claimant of alien crafts has miss observed and/or misinterpeted the events.

The video "evidence" is 1 piece...with the source never directly named, mind you.
Meanwhile we have many more (named) witnesses whom it actually flew over...vs some video from off in the distance supplied my "mystery supporter #1".

Considering the millions of people whom have seen ufos vs. Mars, I'd say ufos exist and Mars, who knows...

More "It's all EM!":

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/antiferromagnets-used-to-make-smallest-storage-bit-yet-but-only-work-near-absolute-zero.ars

@Lou

Quote:

The video "evidence" is 1 piece...with the source never directly named, mind you. Meanwhile we have many more (named) witnesses whom it actually flew over...vs some video from off in the distance supplied my "mystery supporter #1".

The video evidence is indeed 1 piece. There are many other pieces as the Phoenix Lights have been studied fairly indepth. Perhaps this is your confusion that you're assuming only 1 item of evidence shows the opinions as wrong? Many more do too.

Remember it was you that said I produced no evidence and asked for 1. So, I presented you with one of tthe many. If you want a list of all the evidence that's something different and far outstrips the space in the thread. Though I'm highly doubtful that's what you want. As you continue to claim a statement is valid truth without validation. (Hint Read the link in my post on Ancient Aliens. You'll see how that program fails in the same manner.)

Quote:

Considering the millions of people whom have seen ufos vs. Mars, I'd say ufos exist and Mars, who knows...

There are several names for the fallacious argument you are making here. Appeal to emotion or Appeal to popularity or the bandwagon argument ... Either way it's all the same. You are concluding something is true because many people believe it to be true.

There are many examples in History proving that popularity has no value to truth. GeoCentric view of the universe is one example. Earth,Wind,Fire, Water, and Ether are the elements that everything is comprised of. Diseased caused by evil spirits is another. McDonalds Hamburgers are the most sold in the world so therefore they're the best food for you. ... etc.

So what good is popularity? Skipping the political usefulness and getting to truth, the usefulness of popularity is a claim. This can used to build a POSTULATE which we can experiment, evidence, and validate for truth.

Last edited by BrianK on 13-Jan-2012 at 09:03 PM.

What if what? There's nothing to discuss.

Here we have 63 pages of bunkum.

Nibiru is typical NWO nut theory.

The queens a flying lizard and she eats radioactive brussel sprouts for breakfast and when she farts she shapeshifts!!11onetewwlve

_________________
A1200, 68060/64MB/1.2GB/WiFi/AGAtoCRT/OS3.9 Pegasos I, G3 600Mhz/512/9200SE/80GB WinUAE, Ryzen 5 2400G/Vega11, 8GB DDR4, 256GB SSD,Win 10 Pro x64 Amiga Forever !

@Lou

Quote:

Anti-gravity does work. Cold fusion does work...but is now going by the name LENR, which you can find plenty of information on. Your old biases are blinding you.

The fantasy that is cold fusion goes back to the 1920's and to date many have claimed success, but none have been able to give a demonstration under controlled conditions. Cold fusion is currently as credible as spoon bending, seances, and mind reading. As for anti-gravity, I note that I still drive in the left hand lane, not above it, and aircraft still need wings to generate aerodynamic lift.

Quote:

An hydrogen bomb is cause by an atomic bomb

A Hydrogen bomb is an uncontrolled release of energy arising mainly from fission reactions. It works by using the energy of a fission bomb to trigger fusion fuel. This is done by placing a fission bomb and fusion fuel (e.g. lithium deuteride) in close proximity in a container. When the fission bomb is detonated, it first compresses the fusion fuel, then heats it to thermonuclear temperatures. The ensuing fusion reaction can then induce fission in materials not normally prone to it, such as depleted uranium. In large, megaton-range hydrogen bombs, about half of the yield comes from the final fissioning of depleted uranium. In the core of a star the compression of the fusion fuel is achieved by something called gravity.

Quote:

There is energy in the vacuum. Matter is simply a fluctuation of that energy in a given space. It's all EM.

The average density of interstellar space is 1,000,000,000,000 hydrogen atoms per cubic metre, which by calculation using Avogadros number (6.0221415 × 10^23) equates to 1.66 picogram. Using Einsteins famous equation, one gram of matter has an energy equivalent of 8.9 terajoules which means that one cubic metre of interstellar space has sufficient mass to be the energy equivalent of 151Joules
Using the upper limit of the recently revived cosmological constant, the vacuum energy in a cubic metre of free space has been estimated to be one nanoJoule. Or to put it another way, 2/3 of an atom of hydrogen per cubic metre. Even the IGM manages somewhere between 10 and 100 Hydrogen atoms per cubic metre. It would be more accurate to claim that it's all mass.

I guess the problem you have with the standard model is that you still think that simple mathematics can be overridden by the power of wishful thinking.

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