@Lou

Right, I take it from your two-word answer that its just more bunk models then. Not to worry, I was just curious to see if you actually had anything worth mentioning to present as evidence against our direct observational evidence of the mediating particles that transmit both the strong and weak nuclear forces.

I see I was being optimistic.

This is interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction

Its a shame that the universe isn't uniformly 10^15 K in temperature. If it was, Lou might just be onto something with this 'its all EM' stuff. Oh well.

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote: @Lou Right, I take it from your two-word answer that its just more bunk models then. Not to worry, I was just curious to see if you actually had anything worth mentioning to present as evidence against our direct observational evidence of the mediating particles that transmit both the strong and weak nuclear forces. I see I was being optimistic.

I had a World of Warcraft raid to attend which was far more important than this thread. Sorry to disappoint you. However my two word answer was plenty sufficient.

@Lou

Quote:

Torsion fields.

While I am fond of brevity, I think that your response was too much of a good thing, and I feel that your response requires a little bit of disambiguation.
Do you men torsion fields as in Einstein-Cartan theory, or as in torsion field research?

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

@Lou

Quote:

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?

Under gravity the solar system would rearrange to find a point closer to equilibrium. So I don't see this proves what you believe it to.

Quote:

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.

In the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics heat transfers from the hotter object to the cooler object through space. If heat was pushing the planets wouldn't we see consistency of alignment due to temperature?

Quote:

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.

You have science on it's head. We don't embrace EM because we don't know. That's simply backwards. Instead we embrace what we have evidence for.

Perhaps this is why you've failed to bring valid evidence of EM and instead try to focus on disproving Gravity. If gravity is disproven EM doesn't win by default. EM still needs to be proven. In a related event this is the politics Creationists we use to claim their unproved and unproveable woo is science.

@BrianK

Quote:

In the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics heat transfers from the hotter object to the cooler object through space.

Ah yes. the good old Laws of thermodynamics

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

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: 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? Under gravity the solar system would rearrange to find a point closer to equilibrium. So I don't see this proves what you believe it to. Quote: 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. In the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics heat transfers from the hotter object to the cooler object through space. If heat was pushing the planets wouldn't we see consistency of alignment due to temperature? Quote: 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. You have science on it's head. We don't embrace EM because we don't know. That's simply backwards. Instead we embrace what we have evidence for. Perhaps this is why you've failed to bring valid evidence of EM and instead try to focus on disproving Gravity. If gravity is disproven EM doesn't win by default. EM still needs to be proven. In a related event this is the politics Creationists we use to claim their unproved and unproveable woo is science.

So you have proven 'gravity' exists? I must have missed the memo.

Perhaps this helps explain how it's a result of EM: http://www.filefactory.com/file/b2c439d/n/4D_Maths.pdf

@Lou

Quote:

Perhaps this helps explain how it's a result of EM: http://www.filefactory.com/file/b2c439d/n/4D_Maths.pdf

Lets try this again from #380
Quote:

Quote: There is evidence that gravity is bogus. All that you have to do is produce the evidence for your Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Proposal and we will all fall into line. The reason that you keep on whining is because you have no evidence Lack of evidence against the veracity of your opium dream is not evidence for it' The sales pitch of a convicted fraudster is not reliable evidence. Narrative causality is not evidence Wishful thinking is not evidence. Personal abuse is not evidence.

Another self published book that is no longer available for sale, and is therefore remaindered on the web as pdf downloads. Real science gets peer reviewed. This drivel has absolutely no scientific credibility at all, and quite rightly belongs with all of the other unscientific unreadable unbelievable untenable CRAP that you have been dredging up to try to defend the two indefensible cornerstones of your existence.
Sadly Sitchin is still the late village idiot, and EM is simply one of many forces evident in the universe, and is not the predominant cause of planetary motion.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Another self published book that is no longer available for sale, and is therefore remaindered on the web as pdf downloads. Real science gets peer reviewed. This drivel has absolutely no scientific credibility at all, and quite rightly belongs with all of the other unscientific unreadable unbelievable untenable CRAP that you have been dredging up to try to defend the two indefensible cornerstones of your existence. Sadly Sitchin is still the late village idiot, and EM is simply one of many forces evident in the universe, and is not the predominant cause of planetary motion.

If your view of my existence is to please you, then I think you need to change your view.

Last edited by Lou on 07-Jul-2011 at 10:22 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

If your view of my existence is to please you, then I think you need to change your view.

Please accept my assurance that your existence neither pleases, nor displeases me.
I am not the person that has been posting reams of Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Proposals on this site and asking for it to be seen as evidence that the world is in some way different than it actually is.

I have followed every link that you have posted and addressed every point that you have made, and your response has been to whine when I do not immediately respond, complain when I do respond, accuse me of breaching the TOS, and resort to either personal abuse or senseless inanities when I or others successfully demonstrate that your "evidence" has no relevance, or in some cases, is self contradictory.

You, on the other hand have consistently demonstrated a total lack of intellectual and ethical integrity, refused to supply data for the equation you posted supposedly "proving" your "EM is everything" BS, refused to answer the six simple questions that I asked in post #489, and didn't even have the courtesy to respond to my request for clarification in post #504.

Please allow me to reduce my response to your rancid mixture of creationism, pseudoscience, and intellecual fraud, to a single phrase that matches your own level of debate.

Go suck a zube!

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

@Lou

Quote:

So you have proven 'gravity' exists? I must have missed the memo.

Yes Lou the world's been running around for the last 300+ years with no evidence of gravity. Way to go. Next up who stole Lou's lollypop on the playground.

Quote:

Perhaps this helps explain how it's a result of EM

Read about 1/2 of it and got enough of the nice claim too bad the evidence opposes him that I got bored. Lots of fanantical ideas that Newton and Einstein are wrong and that the person has the clear view of the Universe. None yet to proven to be any better....
...

@NIMROD
Einstein, Newton, and Pascal were in heaven. They were playing hide and seek. Einstein closed his eyes and started counting. Pascal ran off and hid behind a cloud. Newton stood in the open, drew a 1m x 1m box and jumped on top. Einstein sees Newton and says I found you. No was the response. You found 1 Netwon over 1 meter square, Einstein you found a Pascal.

@BrianK, NIMROD

/yawn

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/07/new-devices-convert-large-variety-of-electromagnetic-waves-to-power.ars

If that paper is biodegradable perhaps that's why we don't see evidence of it today. The ancients had electricity as has been demonstrated by 'Baghdad Batteries' found in Iraq and Egypt. There are rumors that the great pyramids were built as giant capacitors....not to be confused with the stepped pyramids that were actually used as tombs.

Perhaps some rocket scientist will explain this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L0kOl6-Afg&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCFybK2IVHc

Hmmm...magnetic cancellation...hmmm...
http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/yurchyshyn2001b.pdf

It seems what you think you know isn't what it seems...
http://leedskalnin.com/

@Lou

Quote:

/yawn http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/07/new-devices-convert-large-variety-of-electromagnetic-waves-to-power.ars

Which shows EM exists. Doesn't show gravity doesn't. Doesn't prove EM is the only force. So yeah it's Yawn as others here agree that EM exists. They simply don't agree it's the only force in the universe as you want to claim.

Remember magentism and electricity always exist with each other. As WiFi is an EM wave there's got to be a way to harvest it in some capacity. Now if it gives you any useful amount of power is another thing. Can't break those Laws of Thermodyanmics. If you harvest more than you produce then something else is going on in the system. Perpetual motion machines are impossible in our universe.


Quote:

Perhaps some rocket scientist will explain this: magnetic cancellation

I don't see this testing as very thorough nor as anything unknown. Let's use the first link. He's got a U shaped w/ a couple of coils. When he inserts another EM field via a collar it cancels 1 of the poles. I wish he would have placed the paper clip between the collar and the other coil. I'd bet the paper clip is attracted there. So the magnetic field exists it's simply negated by a 2nd magnetic field. More then 1 force in a system has interactions on each other, no surprise here. So the question is what the force is generated by the collar and in what direction. It appears to be sufficently enough power to no longer enable picking up a paper clip.

So why does the other side not negate? There's something in the way, we don't know what we have to trust the guy at his word as he doesn't show us. (Magicans do that all the time, BTW. Magic's never real, they simply trick our common sense. No wonder science rejects common sense and demands proof.) It's likely a coil that appears charged by the electricity but a magnetic field going down the mid-shaft is likely to meet enough resistence that the force cannot travel to the other side.

Repeating what I said at the beginning. This lacks thoroughness, unknowns exist, and therefore we can't fairly conclude the You Tube guy is right or wrong on his assertions. Though his and my suppositions are both testable with more work.

Someone here, T-J?, said he worked with electric motors. He might have a better applied background which could highlight what's going on.

@BrianK

Quote:

Someone here, T-J?, said he worked with electric motors. He might have a better applied background which could highlight what's going on.

T-J is the geologist/palaeoclimatologist.

No rocket science, or any other branch of ballistics required. The magnet trick is done by placing a strong electromagnet behind a weaker permanent magnet. This sets up a magnetic "void" on the other side of the permanent magnet. No great new discoveries here. Yawn

P.S. I chose this particular link because the item in question is sold with a BS adaptor included.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

No rocket science, or any other branch of ballistics required. The magnet trick is done by placing a strong electromagnet behind a weaker permanent magnet. This sets up a magnetic "void" on the other side of the permanent magnet. No great new discoveries here. Yawn

You mean opposite forces of similar magnitudes oppose each other? I think if any lesson is learned here it's that failing to Do the Math homework bites you in the butt everytime.

The question was asked how does the nucleus of an atom stays together. Magnetic cancellation is the answer.

/yawn

Now let me ask a question: are electrons real particles?

Wow just decided to skim this and part 1, some v. clever people here. I might get to read all this one day... one day, sigh....

_________________
Amiga A1200, 3.1 ROMs, Blizzard 1230 MKIV 64MB & FPU, 4GB DoM SSD, Workbench 3.1

Traditionally the second half of the year is the most costly with regard to naturel disasters. This year however all previous records have already been broken before hurrican season...

@thread

Quote:

Lou wrote: The question was asked how does the nucleus of an atom stays together. Magnetic cancellation is the answer. /yawn Now let me ask a question: are electrons real particles?

No takers?

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @thread Quote: Lou wrote: The question was asked how does the nucleus of an atom stays together. Magnetic cancellation is the answer. /yawn Now let me ask a question: are electrons real particles? No takers?

Post #510

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