@Nimrod

Quote:

Nice to see that I am not the only one who has problems with birthday bumps as a result of middle age spread

The best thing about middle age is the earth moving parties.


@Lou
Quote:

Hey, why don't we lower the threshold to 1.0!!!!? /fail

This sounds a bit like sour milk. The paper you linked did cite a few 4.x events. I compared to a smaller range of data 6.+. This ensured I'd give your linked paper a clear benefit.

Let's drop it to 5.x+, closer to the paper,we're talking on average 1450+ events per year . When these ranges are better aligned the conclusion is either the researcher under reported earthquakes OR there are less events during alignment. (NOTE: I'm talking about the myriad of posts I made on statistics. Not the particluar recent example of selecting 1 random date.) What we can see is the author failed to compare rates against the statistical norm. If one wants to detect an abnormal event it is fairly important to demonstrate the norm of alignments is higher than the norm of non-alignments.

@BrianK

It's not sour milk, just fact. Compared to Elenin alignments, your birthday has produced puny earthquakes.

@Lou

Quote:

It's not sour milk, just fact. Compared to Elenin alignments, your birthday has produced puny earthquakes.

If you compare the smallest Elenin blamed earthquake, 4.9 in the paper to my largest birthday party quake 8.3 I think we find they are in the range. -- Hardly puny. Though seriously the real fact is neither is the true cause of an earthquake.

EDIT: Looking at the projected trajectory of Elenin it appears Elenin will likely pass earth in such a way we won't even get a light show. Sad. :End EDIT

Last edited by BrianK on 29-Jun-2011 at 09:02 PM.

@Lou

Just thought I would point out that this is not the first time that either you or MikeB have posted a link to the mindless ramblings of this clown. I clearly remember reading T-J's post pointing out that there is no such thing as "The European Royal Society". I was going to search out his post and link to it, but I really do not wish to be seen to take this at all seriously.
As a result of this I will clearly state that the entire premise of Elenin causing earthquakes, as proposed by Mensur Omerbashich, is a total unmitigated lie.

I then typed the name Mensur Omerbasich into google and got reams of links to more Elenin woo, but also removed.

Edit: link to scribd/youtube video removed following complaint from it's author.

Last edited by _Steve_ on 17-Jul-2011 at 11:29 PM.
Last edited by _Steve_ on 17-Jul-2011 at 11:26 PM.
Last edited by _Steve_ on 17-Jul-2011 at 11:25 PM.
Last edited by Nimrod on 30-Jun-2011 at 08:56 AM.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

I then typed the name Mensur Omerbasich into google and got reams of links to more Elenin woo, but also this.

This seems to be an attack on Mensur as a person. While it would appear it's very warranted. There's no evidence Mensur has the scientific background to make a serious approach at the question. It doesn't disprove the paper but it certainly does require the paper is scrutizined even heavier.

Though I don't think even that higher level is needed. A quick dip into the statistics and Mensur's failures become readily apparent. The paper is bunk.

Happy 4th of July!

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Astronomers-Report-Unprecedented-6903.aspx?RelNum=6903

Yes, it's magnetic field lines, you know - the prevailing force in the universe!

@Lou

The fact is that EM exists, and it can make its presence felt as shown in the article quoted.
Quote:

because the magnetic field is so strong at the galactic center — about 1,000 times stronger than where we are in the galaxy's suburbs. A strong, large-scale magnetic field can affect the galactic orbits of molecular clouds by exerting a drag on them

This does not make EM the prevailing force in the universe. The magnetic field here is 1,000 times weaker, and comets, asteroids, moons, and planets are not "molecular clouds".
Have you ever heard the phrase "out by several orders of magnitude" before?

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou The fact is that EM exists, and it can make its presence felt as shown in the article quoted. Quote: because the magnetic field is so strong at the galactic center — about 1,000 times stronger than where we are in the galaxy's suburbs. A strong, large-scale magnetic field can affect the galactic orbits of molecular clouds by exerting a drag on them This does not make EM the prevailing force in the universe. The magnetic field here is 1,000 times weaker, and comets, asteroids, moons, and planets are not "molecular clouds". Have you ever heard the phrase "out by several orders of magnitude" before?

You've already had it explained to you that the majority of matter in the universe is plasma. In looking at the universe, you can see that it forms according to magnetic fields. It's not just limited to gas, you just want to believe so. It's not worth discussing 'gravity' because it clearly fails and wouldn't allow for the formation of such structures in the universe to begin with.

fractaluniverse.org

Me thinks it's your brain not opening up to the true order of things. Magnetic fields are responsible to the formations of entire galaxies and here you are on earth trying to justify gravity when all the equations fail in this solar system when looking outside it. How's that for magnitude?

@Lou

Quote:

Magnetic fields are responsible to the formations of entire galaxies and here you are on earth trying to justify gravity when all the equations fail in this solar system when looking outside it. How's that for magnitude?

So just answer the questions that I asked earlier and tell me
1) what size magnetic field is required to lift 1kg of granite and suspend it against a local gravity acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s?
2) Why do the geomagnetic fields of planets with geomagnetic fields not align with the suns magnetic field?
3) Why to planets/moons with no magnetic fields still orbit?
4) How come the distant planet WASP17b is able to orbit against the direction of rotation of its suns magnetic field?
5) What EM equation can describe planetary orbits and motions more accurately than Newton, let alone Einstein?
6) If rotating magnetic fields cause tornadoes, why do electric motors need fans for cooling?
Once you have actually answered these six simple questions then I will give due consideration to your claim (as yet unproven) that gravity equations fail.

From you question in post #471
Quote:

Ugh. Why do you continue to associate me with stuff relating to a Zeta-sucker as well as Niburu in 2012?

You are putting forward the same Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Proposal, in the same manner and with the same resort to personal attacks when your position is challenged. Until you are able to demonstrate your pipe dreams mathematically then you will be considered to be merely regurgitating the mindless ramblings of such challenged individuals as Nancy LIEder, who also claims that it is all EM, "because the voices in her head said so".

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Magnetic fields are responsible to the formations of entire galaxies and here you are on earth trying to justify gravity when all the equations fail in this solar system when looking outside it. How's that for magnitude? So just answer the questions that I asked earlier and tell me 1) what size magnetic field is required to lift 1kg of granite and suspend it against a local gravity acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s? 2) Why do the geomagnetic fields of planets with geomagnetic fields not align with the suns magnetic field? 3) Why to planets/moons with no magnetic fields still orbit? 4) How come the distant planet WASP17b is able to orbit against the direction of rotation of its suns magnetic field? 5) What EM equation can describe planetary orbits and motions more accurately than Newton, let alone Einstein? 6) If rotating magnetic fields cause tornadoes, why do electric motors need fans for cooling? Once you have actually answered these six simple questions then I will give due consideration to your claim (as yet unproven) that gravity equations fail. From you question in post #471 Quote: Ugh. Why do you continue to associate me with stuff relating to a Zeta-sucker as well as Niburu in 2012? You are putting forward the same Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Proposal, in the same manner and with the same resort to personal attacks when your position is challenged. Until you are able to demonstrate your pipe dreams mathematically then you will be considered to be merely regurgitating the mindless ramblings of such challenged individuals as Nancy LIEder, who also claims that it is all EM, "because the voices in her head said so".

Actually, gravity is CRAP and you have yet to demostrate it accurately to any degree outside this star (Solar) system and even then has been demonstrated to be quite imperfect. But it's the only CRAP you were taught and so that's the CRAP you believe and now you have to live in a world supporting your CRAP.

Unlike the CRAP you've been taught your whole life, other people have observed accurately how galaxies have been forming.

Gravity was CRAP proposed by Newton. Inventing 'dark matter' is literally making up more CRAP to make the original CRAP not stink so bad. You are taking 'dark matter' (CRAP) for granted.

From fractaluniverse.org:
Quote:

Any theory of the universe has to address the growing list of new observations listed in the previous pages. At the least it should include a mechanism with the subtlety to make spatial fractals and the speed and strength to structure the vast universe we see. Uniquely electromagnetic energy and its resultant force has these and other attributes. It provides a compelling explanation for the flatness of structures, from atoms to galaxy walls. The gathering of matter by Z-pinch nicely explains voids. The ability to store energy in magnetic fields and to bring about nuclear fusion is powerful stuff. Many of the intractable problems which beset cosmology look amenable to an electronic approach especially considering the various modes and frequencies of oscillation. The universe appears to be fractal, cyclic and self- regenerating. Implied is that it is eternal and infinite.

@Lou

Quote:

Actually, gravity is CRAP and you have yet to demostrate it accurately to any degree outside this star (Solar) system and even then has been demonstrated to be quite imperfect. But it's the only CRAP you were taught and so that's the CRAP you believe and now you have to live in a world supporting your CRAP.

I do not actually believe anything, I merely use whatever works. Once you can accurately and completely answer the six questions from my previous post (repeated below) to produce valid answers, I will quite happily use the Lou Dias theory.
Quote:

1) what size magnetic field is required to lift 1kg of granite and suspend it against a local gravity acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s? 2) Why do the geomagnetic fields of planets with geomagnetic fields not align with the suns magnetic field? 3) Why to planets/moons with no magnetic fields still orbit? 4) How come the distant planet WASP17b is able to orbit against the direction of rotation of its suns magnetic field? 5) What EM equation can describe planetary orbits and motions more accurately than Newton, let alone Einstein? 6) If rotating magnetic fields cause tornadoes, why do electric motors need fans for cooling?

Until you can answer these questions, the CRAP that you keep spouting is less use than a stopped clock. At least a stopped clock is right at some time.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou I do not actually believe anything, I merely use whatever works.

No. You believe you use what ever works good enough because that's what you were taught and when someone throws a rock in the air, Newton's laws are good enough.


Quote:

Once you can accurately and completely answer the six questions from my previous post (repeated below) to produce valid answers, I will quite happily use the Lou Dias theory. [quote]1) what size magnetic field is required to lift 1kg of granite and suspend it against a local gravity acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s? 2) Why do the geomagnetic fields of planets with geomagnetic fields not align with the suns magnetic field? 3) Why to planets/moons with no magnetic fields still orbit? 4) How come the distant planet WASP17b is able to orbit against the direction of rotation of its suns magnetic field? 5) What EM equation can describe planetary orbits and motions more accurately than Newton, let alone Einstein? 6) If rotating magnetic fields cause tornadoes, why do electric motors need fans for cooling?

Perhaps you weren't paying attention to the conversation I had with BrianK. About water molecules exhibiting 'gravity' and beading. You can look at water and see that it's molecules are polarized just like atoms are polarize, some more than others and planets and stars are no different. They never touch but temperature can affect how close they come to each other. So saying a planet or moon has *no* magnetic field is not accurate. It's just a weak one. Wasp17b was affected my another body that changed it's orbit. Regardless you are wrong about the direction of rotation being a requirement and a star is polarized up and down and attraction is always in. Since it's tilt is almost 180 degrees, it orbits close to the star and it swelled up due to it's proximity. It's no different than the moon orbiting earth which is tidally locked. This has been discussed before as well.

Your questions are assinine because whether they merit answers from me or not is irrelevant to the fact that gravity fails at describing everything on http://fractaluniverse.org which is why you keep dodging that. You are quite content with *good enough* so feel free to carry on in your little closed world.

@Lou

Quote:

Perhaps you weren't paying attention to the conversation I had with BrianK. About water molecules exhibiting 'gravity' and beading.

I was. Does the phrase "out by several orders of magnitude" sound vaguely familiar?

Meanwhile, lets start from the beginning.
What size magnetic field is required to lift 1kg of granite and suspend it against a local gravity acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s?

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

@Lou

Quote:

erhaps you weren't paying attention to the conversation I had with BrianK. About water molecules exhibiting 'gravity' and beading. You can look at water and see that it's molecules are polarized just like atoms are polarize, some more than others and planets and stars are no different.

While we discussed EM works on the microlevel, polarized molecules. We also discussed it fails on the nanolevel when the Strong Force takes over. As for planets you never displayed any valid evidence that planets display the same behavior as atoms.

Quote:

They never touch but temperature can affect how close they come to each other.

That's demonstrated to be untrue. The sun is cooler now than it was previously but all planets didn't move closer. And Venus is hotter than Mercury yet farther away. Don't blame the messenger again. It's the valid evidence that doesn't support this conclusion.

Quote:

answers from me or not is irrelevant to the fact that gravity fails at describing everything

No one ever said gravity describes everything. This is a error on your part of understanding what has been said. Within this thread it's been repeated time and again that 4 forces describe our present universe. EM, Weak, Strong, and Gravity.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Perhaps you weren't paying attention to the conversation I had with BrianK. About water molecules exhibiting 'gravity' and beading. I was. Does the phrase "out by several orders of magnitude" sound vaguely familiar?

Yes and you are clearly oblivious to it as it you look at http://fractaluniverse.org you'll see plasma patterns the size of galaxies larger than the Milky Way. Hence 'several' when referring to orders of magnitude is the understatement of the century.

Quote:

Meanwhile, lets start from the beginning. What size magnetic field is required to lift 1kg of granite and suspend it against a local gravity acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s?

I'm sorry but until you can promise me a piece of paper decalring an acredited degree I have no motivaton to answer any question of yours. In the meantime I'll gladly had you a kite.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: erhaps you weren't paying attention to the conversation I had with BrianK. About water molecules exhibiting 'gravity' and beading. You can look at water and see that it's molecules are polarized just like atoms are polarize, some more than others and planets and stars are no different. While we discussed EM works on the microlevel, polarized molecules. We also discussed it fails on the nanolevel when the Strong Force takes over. As for planets you never displayed any valid evidence that planets display the same behavior as atoms.

Planets act more like electrons. You are looking at it from the wrong perspective. Look at it this way, obviously planets are more complex than electrons, so now imagine if this solar system considted of 9 identical earths instead of the various planets we have now. What do you suppose would happen to their orbits?

Quote:

Quote: They never touch but temperature can affect how close they come to each other. That's demonstrated to be untrue.

Oh you have video of water molecules physically touching?

Quote:

The sun is cooler now than it was previously but all planets didn't move closer. And Venus is hotter than Mercury yet farther away. Don't blame the messenger again. It's the valid evidence that doesn't support this conclusion.

You are over simplifying. Temperature does not refer to the body itself but the space around it as heat is felt in the propagation of EM across space.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrodynamics :
Quote:

we do not yet have physical understanding of those electromechanical systems where we cannot neglect the mutual interaction between electric charges and currents, and the electromagnetic field emitted by them. In spite of a century long effort, there is as yet no generally accepted classical equation of motion for charged particles, as well as no pertinent experimental data..

Quote:

Quote: answers from me or not is irrelevant to the fact that gravity fails at describing everything No one ever said gravity describes everything. This is a error on your part of understanding what has been said. Within this thread it's been repeated time and again that 4 forces describe our present universe. EM, Weak, Strong, and Gravity.

Actually the error is on your part in force-feeding me that there are 4 forces and that gravity is indeed one of them. We don't know everything about EM (see the quote above) yet you rule it out as what causes many things and give credit to gravity when not a sigle instrument has measured it's direct existence.

@Lou

Last month you kept posting the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life in the belief that it somehow justified your opinion that the law of large numbers did not apply to radioactive decay when the article quite clearly stated that it did apply. Now you keep doing the same with the link http://fractaluniverse.org in the same mistaken belief that it supports your Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Proposal.
I could, of course fully investigate this link and give a response to its contents, but then you would only complain, as you have done previously. I refer of course to your reply to my post #448
Quote:

After seeing all the investations you've done, I really have only one thing to say: get a life. I would never delve that deeply into something someone posted on the internet. You, sir, have issues...

I did do a quick search to find his scientific credentials,(if any) but could only find his own website, and an entry from Amazon. Guess what, he has written a book! Self published in 2006 and no longer available.
So no mathematics, no evidence, no scientific peer review, just a rehash of your own methodology of assertion=proof, pretty pictures, and woo.
For example:
Quote:

The resemblance between the shapes of ‘ordinary’ spiral galaxies and hurricanes was noted long ago, but the idea got no further, spirals are not remarkable enough. However, a strange-looking hurricane in the Caribbean on 26 September 2002 is less easy to dismiss as accident. How did the mis-shapen hurricane ‘Karl’ come to bear such a strong likeness to the equally deviant ‘Tadpole Galaxy’? Pure coincidence or a shared formative process?

Guess what. Blind speculation does not, in any way qualify as evidence.
This web site starts off by using some references to physics and cosmology leading me to anticipate some amazing new scientific discoveries. What this is, however, is a poetic expression of the somewhat self-similar forms found in nature at various degrees of scale.

Quote:

Quote: Meanwhile, lets start from the beginning. What size magnetic field is required to lift 1kg of granite and suspend it against a local gravity acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s? I'm sorry but until you can promise me a piece of paper decalring an acredited degree I have no motivaton to answer any question of yours. In the meantime I'll gladly had you a kite.

Once again, as you are not able to answer the question you act like a petulant child and resort to inane, meaningless comments.

Last edited by Nimrod on 06-Jul-2011 at 06:22 PM.
Last edited by Nimrod on 06-Jul-2011 at 06:17 PM.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: Once again, as you are not able to answer the question you act like a petulant child and resort to inane, meaningless comments.

What's the matter? Don't you like flying kites?

@Lou

Personally, I've not been following this thread for a while now because frankly, I'm bored of it. If I want to read frothing fundamentalists deny basic science, I can look up the current state of the creationism in schools debate. Thank goodness nothing you've said is in any danger of invading the classroom, that's all I can say.

But I just checked in for old times sake, and a point raised by BrianK piqued my curiosity.

What about the Strong and Weak interactions?

In your belief system, you take it as read that 'its all EM', so how do your sources of divinely-inspired revealed Truth handle the existence of those other two forces? Is it just going to be the same old repeated denials without evidence as for gravity? Bunk models of EM somehow exerting thousands of times its observed force for no reason, as in your orbital models of moons and planets that we have, by the way, thoroughly demolished several times?

Or do you have something more tangible in mind? Its just that you can't very well say its 'all EM', while you're leaving two of the three forces you seek to 'disprove' unaddressed.

Last edited by T-J on 06-Jul-2011 at 09:15 PM.
Last edited by T-J on 06-Jul-2011 at 09:09 PM.

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote: @Lou Personally, I've not been following this thread for a while now because frankly, I'm bored of it. If I want to read frothing fundamentalists deny basic science, I can look up the current state of the creationism in schools debate. Thank goodness nothing you've said is in any danger of invading the classroom, that's all I can say. But I just checked in for old times sake, and a point raised by BrianK piqued my curiosity. What about the Strong and Weak interactions? In your belief system, you take it as read that 'its all EM', so how do your sources of divinely-inspired revealed Truth handle the existence of those other two forces? Is it just going to be the same old repeated denials without evidence as for gravity? Bunk models of EM somehow exerting thousands of times its observed force for no reason, as in your orbital models of moons and planets that we have, by the way, thoroughly demolished several times? Or do you have something more tangible in mind? Its just that you can't very well say its 'all EM', while you're leaving two of the three forces you seek to 'disprove' unaddressed.

Torsion fields.