@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: You are the definition of the old grain. And your desperate adherence to the Luminiferous Aether fallacy is supposed to be cutting edge modern science I suppose. I admit that scientists often get it wrong and their predicted results do not match the measured results However you always get better science when you change your theories to match the universe rather than the other way round.

And for the nail in the nimrod's head:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/09/970918045841.htm

Matter is made from light. End of story.

@Lou

Yeah. 2 trillion billion photons divided into 1000 packets of duration 1 picosecond each created over a HUNDRED (wow, that's a big number) positrons.

That's like totally radical. They're just one step away from using handheld torches to create unicorns, I bet.

If you're interested to learn more about this "mass-energy equivalence", I suggest you pick up a copy of Albert Einsteins paper "Does the inertia of a body depend on its energy content?", which can be found here. I believe there's even a formula including only E, m, c and a single-digit number to be found if you look REALLY hard. Leave no stone unturned in your search for that one. Really crawl under those rocks, man. Might be there's a shortage of science-trolls under one of those rocks, you'll fit RIGHT in.

_________________
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:

Matter is made from light. End of story.

Excerpt from the article
"Similar conditions are found only rarely in the universe; neutron stars, for instance, have incredibly strong magnetic fields, and some scientists believe that their surfaces are home to the same kind of light-to-matter interactions the team observed."
As always it is a matter of scale. We know that there is an equivalence between matter and energy, but we also know what that ratio is.
Please learn to wrap your head around the concept of measured values.

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

Dark Matter detected

My 2 cents is it's early. No one should hang their hat on the faith of one supposedly experimental success. It needs verification, duplication, and other experimental data to back it up. But, it early signs are interesting...

@BrianK

Quote:

It needs verification, duplication, and other experimental data to back it up. But, it early signs are interesting...

Interestingly enough, comparing this statement with Lou's most recent post is a perfect example of Charles Darwin's comment that "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge", and there is nobody more confident than Lou.

In the meantime I am willing to admit that I don't know what the answer is, but I do know what it isn't. (i.e. EM is god.)

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

@BrianK

It wouldn't (by far) be the least sensible thing I've ever hung a hat on. I'm suffering a severe shortage of hats due to hanging my hats on things which hats should not be hung on.

_________________
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.

LHC doubles it's power

@Nimrod

Quote:

In the meantime I am willing to admit that I don't know what the answer is, but I do know what it isn't. (i.e. EM is god.)

I'm even open to EM is God. Lou needs to have more rigor and less faith to convince me. Also, while I don't reject 'EM is God' due to Lou's belief that men are incapable and need aliens to do the work for us-woo it certainly does not inspire confidence. He's probably amused people bothered to talk about his views for this long.

It wasn't Ancient Alients

It's not modern aliens either -- Recent documents from the CIA indicate the relationship of U2 plane missions of 60K feet and increases in UFO reports in similar areas. The CIA accounts for about 50% of all reports. Though the CIA did not fully disclose all their missions flown.

Now we can't assume that 100% of all UFO sightings are CIA flights. But, I think we can fairly conclude that the # is going to be greater than 50%. Besides there are strange things reported by people that clearly are not CIA planes. For example: During a black out in NY City there were several reports of UFOs, which turned out to be the moon.

If you want to dispute accepted science then you have to bring science to the table .

You cannot spend an hour or a day or even a week Googling a few websites and then loudly proclaim that the scientific consensus is wrong; no, you need to do the hard work.

@BrianK

Quote:

You cannot spend an hour or a day or even a week Googling a few websites and then loudly proclaim that the scientific consensus is wrong

Ah, but Lou can do exactly that. For some reason his posts are never taken seriously by the rest of us, but that hasn't stopped him so far

_________________
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.

@all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EPlyiW-xGI

This series of videos is so simple even a bunch of nimrods can understand it.

Everything is explained from the galactic structures down to the photon.

Once again: end of story.

@Lou

Entertaining story. Thanks

@Lou,

I recall you complaining that science has never directly measured gravity.. Science fixed that for you.

http://m.phys.org/news/2015-01-gravity-curvature.html

@Lou
At 5:23 in the video the presenter states "I believe that this magnetic field structure is an intrinsic property of all matter" and he then implies that his belief (a) is true, and (b) solves any real problems.
This entire video is very pretty, but pretty boring, and adds less than nothing to the sum total of human knowledge.

Everything is asserted and yet nothing is either explained or evidenced, and that which may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence.

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

@Nimrod

The difference is my presenter matches his theory to direct observation [at every scale] where as direct observation makes gravity worshippers look like nimrods...

Last edited by Lou on 18-Jan-2015 at 08:55 PM.

http://www.universetoday.com/118252/astronomers-are-predicting-at-least-two-more-large-planets-in-the-solar-system/

Looks like we have a planet X ... and Y.
The plot thickens...

@BrianK
Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou, I recall you complaining that science has never directly measured gravity.. Science fixed that for you. http://m.phys.org/news/2015-01-gravity-curvature.html

So how does this disprove that gravity is merely radiation pressure/shielding?
Oh it doesn't - that's right.

Last edited by Lou on 18-Jan-2015 at 08:51 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 18-Jan-2015 at 08:51 PM.

@Lou
Quote:

So how does this disprove that gravity is merely radiation pressure/shielding? Oh it doesn't - that's right.

If gravity is just shielding, then why aren't http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/lensing-star-weighed/these stars receding from each other at an appreciable fraction of speed C ?
They are closer to each other than the Earth and Moon and are the classic Bright objects in a dark box that you claim will move apart.

They have been using Einstein's theory of relativity to "weigh" stars for over ten years now, and yet still nothing practical comes from your "EM is god" brainfart.

We KNOW that EM and radiation pressure exist. We can measure them. We have measured their effects both close up and at distance.

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