@MikeB

On a matter of religion I have absolutely no problem with somebody holding different opinions than my own. I could even feel sorry for somebody who has been suckered by Harold Camping. I am equally relaxed on matters of politics and football teams. Where I take exception is when you try to postulate your religious belief as science. Belief occurs in the absence of evidence, and many scientific principles started out at this point. Strong belief is held despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This applies especially to support for a minor league football team. Science however has to follow the evidence, and science produces the tools that an engineer needs.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: [quote]Sure, let's heat it up and turn it into a gas in order to fill the balloon properly. You mean reduce its density until it is lighter than air? There is a liquid that is more diamagnetic than Lead. By your hypothesis it should be lighter than Lead, however a bar of Lead will float on the top of this liquid, instead of sinking.

Clearly you missed
Obviously density is important. Is this a case of moving goal posts? We are comparing why one gas floats above another, no?

Quote:

Quote: Clearly the point went over your head... Wasn't the point that you were trying to make that, I as an electrical engineer know nothing about the basic principles of electromagnetic force. That I have neglected to multiply a force by a factor of at least 1000 in order to make it fit a discredited hypothesis.

No you neglect to take the volume of the object in question and that point-mass measurement against that volume and density and magnetic susceptibility.

Quote:

Quote: Orders of Magnitude are what you get when you spin a large celestial magnet. What you get when you spin a large celestial magnet is a spinning magnet. I have already described the operation of an induction motor before and the necessity for aligned magnetic fields. Since this does not match your religious beliefs you will continue to multiply the minute EM fields by whatever imaginary factor necessary to balance the books.

Is not heat generated inside the coil? What happens outside? Or are you only concerned with the inside?

Quote:

Quote: The scientic method clearly involves ignoring what you don't like, it seems. Once upon a time Newtons theories were held to be a complete description of gravity and planetary motion. Then somebody noticed discrepancies and came up with a better theory. then the scientific method supported Einstein and relegated Newtons theory to a method of producing a quick estimate. Liking theories doesn't come into it. The scientific method accepts theories that work and rejects theories that collapse under the weight of their own internal inconsistencies. I can fully accept that we have not achieved the pinnacle of all human understanding, and that there will someday be a better explanation than the one offered by Einstein, but your current pile of claptrap is NOT it. Go away and come back when you have some numbers that work.

Do you deny ? Clearly you continue to deny a formula provided to you by scientists. Forget 'the scientific method', clearly you employ your: deny, ignore, rinse, repeat.

@Thread

Magnetism? EM? Mumbo-Jumbo? This thread was silly when I commented in it. Now it has turned completely nuts. I think MikeB and Lou are just making fun of the rest of you.

@Lou

Quote:

Even your Gravity Probe B's measurements were actually measurements of changes in EM...

This is a baseless fallacy entered without a shred of evidence to support it. This has no more relevance than your assertion "EM bends light"

Quote:

But gravity has failed to be repeatable outside of this star system.

Has it really? I will admit that nobody has stood outside of our galaxy and measured gravity, but we have observed its effects on the orbits of exoplanets, and used gravitational lensing both to improve our view of the universe, and to find extrasolar planets. I would remind you that Mt Everest has only been indirectly measured, but that doesn't mean that you can claim that it is only six inches high.

Quote:

It's a fact that depending where you are on earth that 'g' is 9.7m/s/s not 9.8...do you suppose the magnetic field is slightly off there?

Compare the range of differences in g between 9.7m/s/s and 9.8m/s/s (marginally over 1%) with the differences in Earths magnetic field ranging from 30 microteslas to 60 microteslas (50%) By how much does a calibrated weight vary as it is moved from place to place. Absolute EM FAIL.

Quote:

See how far helium balloons can go despite less pressure in the air and carrying a payload?

37km. Then the weight and density of the balloon reached equilibrium with the surrounding air. It got into the stratosphere, not into outer space. If its diamagnetism was the entire reason for its lift, once it reached the night side of the planet the repulsion from the Earth would add to the repulsion from the Sun and spit it towards Mars.

When Einstein supplanted Newton, it was not enough to just keep screaming "Newton is wrong" Einstein had to produce a set of better equations. We do not expect any more from you. We have not raised the bar, nor do we keep moving the goalposts. All you have to do to qualify for a Nobel prize is produce a set of working equations that produce more accurate results than Einsteins equations do. Simple really, should be no problem to a man of your obvious genius.

Quote:

Clearly you missed

Actually, No. But since it is your hypothesis I thought it was up to you to prove it and that you should insert values for rate of change of the magnetic field, and local gravitational field, and justify your selection of those values in relation to calculating the orbit of the moon. Or does "think outside of the box" mean "throw away the principles of mathematics and give me the answer that I want"?

Quote:

Clearly the point went over your head...

Quote:

Your inability to read has reached new heights

Quote:

Coincidently if my aunt had a ####, she'd be my uncle.

Quote:

It is 100% clear from this post that you just don't get it

It is 100% clear that you just don't have any interest in sensible debate, and your willingness to be rational has plumbed new depths.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Even your Gravity Probe B's measurements were actually measurements of changes in EM... This is a baseless fallacy entered without a shred of evidence to support it. This has no more relevance than your assertion "EM bends light" Did you read the report? They uses EM to measure tilt since it's impossible to measure a force that doesn't exist. All gravity data is based on measure effects not measure causes. You can measure an EM field at any given time. Quote: [quote]But gravity has failed to be repeatable outside of this star system. Has it really? I will admit that nobody has stood outside of our galaxy and measured gravity, but we have observed its effects on the orbits of exoplanets, and used gravitational lensing both to improve our view of the universe, and to find extrasolar planets. I would remind you that Mt Everest has only been indirectly measured, but that doesn't mean that you can claim that it is only six inches high.

Gravitational lensing LOL! That's your proof that gravity exists? Gravity doesn't work outside this star system without dark matter to make up the room for error in the inability to account for unknown EM fields of distant systems.

Quote:

Quote: It's a fact that depending where you are on earth that 'g' is 9.7m/s/s not 9.8...do you suppose the magnetic field is slightly off there? Compare the range of differences in g between 9.7m/s/s and 9.8m/s/s (marginally over 1%) with the differences in Earths magnetic field ranging from 30 microteslas to 60 microteslas (50%) By how much does a calibrated weight vary as it is moved from place to place. Absolute EM FAIL.

When someone lists a chart then we can come to a resolution. Until then you are guessing.

Quote:

Quote: See how far helium balloons can go despite less pressure in the air and carrying a payload? 37km. Then the weight and density of the balloon reached equilibrium with the surrounding air. It got into the stratosphere, not into outer space. If its diamagnetism was the entire reason for its lift, once it reached the night side of the planet the repulsion from the Earth would add to the repulsion from the Sun and spit it towards Mars.

You are failing to take into account the weight of the apparatus... If the balloon+extra weight got to 37k then they let go when the experiment was done, that means it can go higher but they weren't there to measure it. Sorry but just simply less dense air doesn't get you that far...especially not lugging around intrumentation...

Quote:

When Einstein supplanted Newton, it was not enough to just keep screaming "Newton is wrong" Einstein had to produce a set of better equations. We do not expect any more from you. We have not raised the bar, nor do we keep moving the goalposts. All you have to do to qualify for a Nobel prize is produce a set of working equations that produce more accurate results than Einsteins equations do. Simple really, should be no problem to a man of your obvious genius.

They already exist you just refuse to apply them correctly...

Quote:

Quote: Clearly you missed Actually, No. But since it is your hypothesis I thought it was up to you to prove it and that you should insert values for rate of change of the magnetic field, and local gravitational field, and justify your selection of those values in relation to calculating the orbit of the moon. Or does "think outside of the box" mean "throw away the principles of mathematics and give me the answer that I want"?

The page I linked from on magnetic levitation already does calculations for levitating water and graphite. I showed how ionocraft work and ion thrusters, which are science-fact...yet you just go on pretending like I've shown nothing.

Quote:

Quote: Clearly the point went over your head... Quote: Your inability to read has reached new heights Quote: Coincidently if my aunt had a ####, she'd be my uncle. Quote: It is 100% clear from this post that you just don't get it It is 100% clear that you just don't have any interest in sensible debate, and your willingness to be rational has plumbed new depths.

It's 100% clear that you are all in a box. You put up this front of demanding the scientific method then ignore all the science you don't agree with considering how flawed the concept of gravity has been shown to be to boot.
It is 100% clear that you just don't have any interest in sensible debate, and your willingness to be rational has plumbed new depths.

@Niolator

Quote:

Magnetism? EM? Mumbo-Jumbo? This thread was silly when I commented in it. Now it has turned completely nuts. I think MikeB and Lou are just making fun of the rest of you.

I really hope you're right.

Then again, I suppose we have to factor in Poe's Law.

@Lou

Stop endlessly asserting that your equation describes the entire universe at every scale, macro, micro and quantum.

Get some data and plug the values into the equation. Why should we do your work for you?

Demonstrate your theory working.

Can you do that for us, or are you just going to continue making baseless personal attacks based on your opinion of my reading level?

@MikeB

Its no good simply claiming that Kepler's Laws are fictituous. You have to actually gather empirical date disproving them.

Speaking of empirical data disproving things, when am I going to get a response to the geological evidence disproving Nibiru that I presented in post 172?

@T-J

With reference to Lou, and his attitude to rational debate, I can only offer the following advice:


Don't feed the troll.

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

Although T-J may find it as newsworthy as a chinese man farting in China (referring to his comment that the recent Volcanic outburst is the equivalent of a sack of rice falling in China). The USA is going through some extreme weather and a Tornado recently destroyed a small American city. It was the deadliest single Tornado in recorded US history and is classified as an EF-5 class tornado, the highest rating available for tornadoes.

IMO the USA needs to prepare for probably the worst hurricane season in its history.

Sadly of course scientists don't understand the true reasons for the formation of tornados. They simply assume it's all due to thermodynamics and assume the electromagnetic aspects of tornados is merely a result rather than a cause.

Sunspots are clearly visible on the sun and are very active electromagnetic regions on the sun's surface and the involved forces becomes obvious through CME when these lines break.

The earth's surface is radically different from the sun, but deeper down towards the core it isn't. You may think the molten part of the earth only rotates, but actually there are many vortex-like flows taking place underneath the surface influenced mostly by the sun. Here you will find many answers to many questions not understood by modern science.

Last edited by MikeB on 25-May-2011 at 01:01 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 25-May-2011 at 12:52 PM.

@T-J

Quote:

caused by a 3600-year invisible planet is simply overwhelming

Every passing will be different depending on the positioning of the earth and nibiru during passage. For example although it is said to pass between earth's orbit and the sun during a passing may not actually come between the sun and earth

@MikeB

Just a minor point it was Kronos who knocked the sack of rice over. He did it in Post #134

Quote:

Sadly of course scientists don't understand the true reasons for the formation of tornados. They simply assume it's all due to thermodynamics and assume the electromagnetic aspects of tornados is merely a result rather than a cause.

Once again you place greater reliance in the school of IMO than in real science. The real science is called meteorology, and, strange as it may seem, meteorology is nothing to do with lumps of rock falling out of the sky. If you want to read about the absolute basics of the subject, then Wikipedia can help. I suspect, however that there are others with a more in depth knowledge of the subject than mine.

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

@MikeB

First thing: Kronos commented about sacks of rice falling over in China. Not me.

I agree with him, but do try to keep things clear.

Quote:

Sadly of course scientists don't understand the true reasons for the formation of tornados. They simply assume it's all due to thermodynamics and assume the electromagnetic aspects of tornados is merely a result rather than a cause.

Science does not 'simply assume' the cause of hurricanes and tornadoes, and to suggest it does is to perpetuate your deliberate, wilful misconception of the scientific method. Or is it actually a misrepresentation of the scientific method, to discredit it and grant your religious belief in the Power of Magnets more credibility?

Creationists do exactly the same thing, so it wouldn't surprise me.

Regardless, the scientific method 'assumes' nothing. The evidence suggests that thermodynamics cause air flow patterns and vortices that we call 'hurricanes' or 'tornadoes' depending on exactly where and how they form.

If you want to prove that magnetism forms them, your course of action should be clear. Get a set of electromagnets and create a tornado yourself. We can build electromagnets with flux densities many times stronger than that of the sun or the Earth's magnetospheres, so you should be able to create a fairly impressive storm with a set of fridge magnets. But go ahead - find an empty field and set up your powerful electromagnets.

Don't worry about public safety. If you're right, as soon as you switch off the electromagnets, the storm will dissipate. And if science is right, you'll just be a silly tinfoil hatter in a field with some magnets. Looking silly.

Do that, or present a similarly confirmable mathematical constructiond describing how they could form, or you have no evidence whatsoever.

And if you fail to present this evidence, either the experimental proof or a mathematical model that we can similarly confirm, then as sane, rational users of the scientific method, we will be forced to reject your hypothesis.

Quote:

The earth's surface is radically different from the sun, but deeper down towards the core it isn't.

Wrong. The Earth's core is actually a solid. Made of iron and nickel. The outer core is a convecting molten nickel-iron slush. The mantle is solid and made from iron and magnesium rich silicates, with a melt fraction usually less than 2% of total volume. The crust is of course also solid and made of a wide range of silicate minerals and 'other'.

The solar core is plasma. Hot, dense gas in a plasmic state undergoing constant nuclear fusion. So, not like the Earth.

The solar surface, or photosphere, is a high-temperature hydrogen gas with a density of 2×10^−4 kg/m3. So, not like the Earth.

Quote:

You may think the molten part of the earth only rotates, but actually there are many vortex-like flows taking place underneath the surface influenced mostly by the sun. Here you will find many answers to many questions not understood by modern science.

Are there really? Got any evidence for this, or is this another one of your vaunted 'opinions'?

Goodness me, if we scientists were as sloppy about proving our opinions as you are, we'd still be believing in Halley's hollow earth. Or the flat/square/bowl-shaped Earths of antiquity.

But regardless, since you seem to have suddenly found a passion for, er, 'geology', perhaps you'd like to address the evidence raised against Nibiru in post #172?

Last edited by T-J on 25-May-2011 at 02:20 PM.

@MikeB

Oh, didn't see your most recent comment. Well, let's have a look:

Quote:

Every passing will be different depending on the positioning of the earth and nibiru during passage. For example although it is said to pass between earth's orbit and the sun during a passing may not actually come between the sun and earth

Right. Well, I've presented evidence that at no point over the last 35 million years did 'Nibiru' cause a 'crustal shift' of the sort you describe in order to melt the ice caps.

If it hasn't happened at any single point in 35 million years, I contend that perhaps it doesn't happen at all, and that perhaps you just might possibly be wrong.

I further contend that at no point over the last three billion years has any catastrophic global crustal rifting occurred due to any astronomical body. And that rifting is a geological process caused by factors intrinsic to the Earth, acting over millions of years. And that geomagnetic reversal is similarly intrinsic and irrelevant, and does not adhere to a 3600-year cycle, or any variation on a 3600 year cycle.

So, Nibiru has failed to make any impact whatsoever, for at least three billion years. What are we to think? That suddenly, now, for no reason, its going to cause a cataclysm? Or that it actually doesn't exist, and that there is no trans-neptunian interloper periodically entering the inner solar system to cause disasters?

Rational thought and the need for evidence to back up an assertion leaves me with no choice but to reject Nibiru as a geological process and hence as an astronomical body.

A more in-depth exploration of this geological evidence can be found in post
172, of course, if you'd care to actually address the evidence.

Last edited by T-J on 25-May-2011 at 02:21 PM.

@T-J

Quote:

Get a set of electromagnets and create a tornado yourself.

That would be like me suggesting to you to prove that it's just thermodynamics by putting your farts on fire.

@MikeB

Quote:

That would be like me suggesting to you to prove that it's just thermodynamics by putting your farts on fire.

Actually that is not such a silly idea.
There is a type of flame effect "fire" display that suspends a small free moving set of vanes over an electric lamp to create a moving light pattern. The vanes are moved by moving air rising from the lamp.
In this "conflict of theories it is possible to claim that the vanes are being moved by an air column generated either by EM from the electric supply to the lamp, or by heat rising from the lamp.
Simply make a non metallic set of vanes, then replace the lamp with first a room temperature permanent magnet, and then later by a piece of hot ceramic tile.
Then observe which method generates a detectable air movement.

This is called basic experimental science. It enables you to see things for yourself instead of relying on other peoples opinions, not even mine.

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

@Nimrod

The distance between molecules expands when heated, causing a lower density of molecules relative to its surrounding.

Thermodynamics alone do not explain tornados.

@MikeB

Quote:

Thermodynamics alone do not explain tornados.

Maybe the weather is a message from above

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

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: @Nimrod The distance between molecules expands when heated, causing a lower density of molecules relative to its surrounding. Thermodynamics alone do not explain tornados.

http://discerningthetimes.me/2011/02/08/magnetic-pole-shifts-causing-massive-global-storms/
Quote:

The Earth’s northern magnetic pole was moving towards Russia at a rate of about five miles annually. That progression to the East had been happening for decades. Suddenly, in the past decade the rate sped up. Now the magnetic pole is shifting East at a rate of 40 miles annually, an increase of 800 percent. And it continues to accelerate. Recently, as the magnetic field fluctuates, NASA has discovered “cracks” in it. This is worrisome as it significantly affects the ionosphere, troposphere wind patterns, and atmospheric moisture. All three things have an effect on the weather.

...
Quote:

One of the most stunning signs of the approaching Ice Age is what’s happened to the world’s precessional wobble. The Earth’s wobble has stopped.

Nope! Our magnetic field has no relation the the weather. Not related at all. 1000 rocket scientists couldn't possibly be wrong, right?

Remember, MikeB:
charged particles have no effect on air/wind...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft
1000 rocket scientists couldn't possibly be wrong, right?

Last edited by Lou on 25-May-2011 at 09:58 PM.

Gravity Probe B recently confirmed Gravito-electromagnetism only for earth, measuring inertial frame dragging that warps spacetime. Relativity theory states electric and magnetic fields are aspects of the same field, which appear differently in different frames of reference. Earth spins immersed in plasma, and the sun is plasma. Where gravity is weak, and low velocities, GEM fields are essential. The solar wind is radial, as is earth's electric field. About 200 AU distance the heliosphere abruptly ends, which is about where MOND says Gravity changes. Slowpoke binary stars show that Kepler's 3rd law doesn't work when they orbit the galaxy. Likely vortex and tendex field lines connect these binary stars, and Kip Thorne says tidal gravity is the electric field lines, which team member David Nichols says cause earth's ocean tides to rise, because of a connection between the moon and earth. Other moons, Jupiter's Io and Saturn's moon are connected by electric circuits. The Universe out to 12 billion light years scale view is plasma filamentary structures, poorly labeled as the cosmic web of dark matter. Scientists collaborate with big-bang scientists, and are required to have enormous amounts of missing dark matter, black holes, and mysterious dark energy. Black holes are theoretical, inferred, mathematical postulations to explain what GEM forces in plasma can do, such as x-rays, jets, magnetic fields, etc. Naked singularities too are mathematically sound, but don't support the big-bang theory. Fact: Most of the MASS (gravity) in the universe is in plasma filaments, with galaxy clusters second. EM forces are given no significance, because gravity scientists say the universe is essentially all neutral charged. NASA scientist David Stern states, "electric fields in space are associated with any streaming plasma through a magnetic field." "Only a small number of electrons need to link charge locations to have dramatic effects," in the universe that is 99.999% plasma, says Peratt. Protostars form in filaments like beads on strings, as do galaxies and galaxy clusters, to form the cosmic web. Yet, the credit is all given to gravity, for what are obviously EM forces. The shapes of galaxies and galaxy clusters, require phony dark matter and galaxy halos, to explain their observable shapes, because these forces are difficult to detect and observe. Yet, their is a galaxy coroana, and huge bubbles, and WHIM filaments discovered but quietly spoken about. the sloan great wall filament spans 1.3 billion light years across, and we know it attracts gas and dust far stronger then gravity. Likely as telescopes see farther, the universe continues to get older, and the big-bang was not the ultimate beginning, but likely a collision along filaments of superclusters that expands space everywhere only as far as we can see. Galaxy clusters have been found to be the largest collisions that take place along cosmic filaments so far. In relatively theory, gravity is a pseudo-force, that arises from EM forces. Einstein used Maxwell's equation, replacing mass with charge, different constants, with point charges and a charged sphere universe. the point charges became black holes for gravity scientists, which explains why the approximations are very good, but not entirely correct, but better then Newton's Gravity. The overemphasis on gravity and the big-bang is a serious flaw in cosmology today. Please see my website with all these stories we are discussing here, which has photos, animations, and suggest new laws for astrophysics.
http://HOLOGRAPHICGALAXY.BLOGSPOT.COM
http://HOLOGRAMUNIVERSE.WORDPRESS.COM

Some food for thought:

- "NASA reported in November 2006 that the Cassini spacecraft observed a 'hurricane-like' storm locked to the south pole of Saturn that had a clearly defined eyewall."

- "In 2007, very large vortices on both poles of Venus were observed by the Venus Express mission of the European Space Agency to have a dipole eye structure."

- "Observations of the Earth’s magnetic field suggest that there are anticyclonic polar vortices in the core (Olson and Aurnou, 1999; Hulot et al., 2002)."

- "Numerical dynamo models have been successful in explaining the origin of the Earth's magnetic field and its secular variation by convection in the electrically conducting fluid outer core. An important component of the convection in the numerical dynamos are polar vortices beneath the core–mantle boundary in each hemisphere."

- "The Great Red Spot (GRS) is a persistent anticyclonic storm, 22° south of Jupiter's equator, which has lasted for at least 181 years and possibly longer than 346 years."

Connect the dots.

Question to yourself: Can EM play a role in the development of vortex winds?

@Astrophysics

Welcome to the crazy world of Amiga.
A very impressive first post, but can you just summarise it to a single statement of value. Does this mean that the Elenin comet is a brown dwarf that is about to cause all sorts of mayhem on the Earth moving continents all over the place, but not causing high tides?
While I do not deny the existence of EM forces in the universe on both the macro and quantum levels, I refuse to accept that they can switch gravity on and off at will and with a level of discrimination that enables a brown dwarf to sneak through the solar system without perturbing the orbits of outer planets or trackable asteroids, and generate localised gravity surges that can cause major earthquakes and volcanic eruptions without any noticeable tidal surges.
As an engineer I really do not care whose name gets put on to a successful theory that supersedes Newton and Einstein. If you want your EM theory to gain more support than the Dark matter, and Dark energy theories, you need it to remain uncontaminated by association with the lunatic fringe. Any new theory will have a struggle to become accepted, and it becomes harder if it becomes associated with snake oil salesmen and crystal ball gazers.

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