@MikeB

Quote:

A hypothetical cloud though.

And so far your. brown dwarf star is also a hypothetical so mine's as good as yours.

Of course the other item is the Oort CLoud's effects are weak. Simply the speed of acceleration and angle of attack results in the hypothetical Sedna being accelerated by the sun past the hypothetical Oort CLoud and thus all of it together will hypothethically cause dogs and cats to live together, total chaos.

Quote:

For some reason NASA seems to block me (I could view them in the past).

I asked them too.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: the electromagnetic field energy (being equivalent to mass as one would expect from Einstein's famous equation E=mc2) So let's just have a look at the maths If we break the equation E = mc2 into its components and write out the terms fully we get: E = energy (measured in joules) m = mass (measured in kilograms) c = the speed of light (3x 10^8 m/s) E = 1kgx(3x10^8)^2 =1x(9x10^16) Each kilo of ice is the equivalent of 90,000,000,000,000,000 joules One m^3 of ice weighs 1000 kg therefore has an energy equivalent of 90,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules. Vacuum permiability of free space = 4π×10−7 H/m Energy density in Joules/m^3 =9x10^19 (Calculated above) Magnetic field strength in Tesla=sqr(2xvacuum permiability x Energy density). = sqr(2 x (4 x pi x 10^-7)x9x10^19) =1.06x10^7 Tesla Therefore you would need a magnetic field 1000 times that of the sun to match the equivalent mass of one cubic metre of ice. Of course I am not a scientist, merely an engineer. To be specific an electrical engineer. Rotating magnetic fields are what drive the rotor of a three phase squirrel cage motor. This rotating magnetic field is generated by the stator, which then induces a current in the rotor windings. This current then generates a magnetic field around the rotor that is in exact opposition to the field that generated it. Please note the term exact opposition not 23 degrees from or 90 degrees from or almost non existent. The amount of energy required to move or accelerate a magnetic field is far less than the amount of energy required to align it. This fact alone prevents your "magnetic solar system" from matching the observable system that we inhabit.

Uhm...
Letting the m in E = mc^2 stand for a quantity of "matter" (rather than mass) may lead to incorrect results, depending on which of several varying definitions of "matter" are chosen.

From some aborigines myths/legends:

"The water poured from his mouth in a flood. It filled the deepest rivers and covered the land. Only the highest mountain peaks were visible, like islands in the sea. Many men and animals were drowned."

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aus/mla/mla09.htm

@Lou

Quote:

Uhm... Letting the m in E = mc^2 stand for a quantity of "matter" (rather than mass) may lead to incorrect results, depending on which of several varying definitions of "matter" are chosen.

The mass in the first equation was 1kg. The substance and volume of the mass is totally irrelevant to this calculation.
1 cubic metre of ice has a mass of 1000kg, therefore the original equation result was multiplied by 1000 to calculate mass/energy equivalents. Had I decided to demonstrate the example using lead the increased density would have caused the second stage to be calculated using a multiplier of 11,340, as 1 cubic metre of lead has a mass of 11340kg.
a cubic metre of lead has an energy equivalent to a magnetic field 11,340 times that of the sun, however you are far more likely to find big lumps of ice than big lumps of lead out there.

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

@MikeB

Nice bit of quote mining. try these for size from the same source
Quote:

After many had died of thirst, all the animals in the land met together in a great council to discover the cause of the drought.

Quote:

When they all arrived at the chosen meeting place in Central Australia, they discovered that a frog of enormous size had swallowed all the water in the land

Actually, thinking about it, I think I prefer Rudyard Kipling's "Just so stories".

Last edited by Nimrod on 05-May-2011 at 10:33 PM.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

King James Bible. Matthew 7 verses3to 5

Nice bit of quote mining. try these for size from the same source

Try this
Leviticus 11:13-19
Quote:

These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the .... and the bat

Psalm 22:21
Quote:

The unicorn is a dangerous animal

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Uhm... Letting the m in E = mc^2 stand for a quantity of "matter" (rather than mass) may lead to incorrect results, depending on which of several varying definitions of "matter" are chosen. The mass in the first equation was 1kg. The substance and volume of the mass is totally irrelevant to this calculation. 1 cubic metre of ice has a mass of 1000kg, therefore the original equation result was multiplied by 1000 to calculate mass/energy equivalents. Had I decided to demonstrate the example using lead the increased density would have caused the second stage to be calculated using a multiplier of 11,340, as 1 cubic metre of lead has a mass of 11340kg. a cubic metre of lead has an energy equivalent to a magnetic field 11,340 times that of the sun, however you are far more likely to find big lumps of ice than big lumps of lead out there.

An ice cube is not a particle moving thru space. Hence rest mass and invariant mass are the same as the energy in the rest frame.

Further more:
When particles are moving, relativistic mass provides a very economical description that absorbs the particles' motion naturally. For example, suppose we put an object on a set of scales that are capable of measuring incredibly small increases in weight. Now heat the object. As its temperature rises causing its constituents' thermal motion to increase, the reading on the scales will increase. If we prefer to maintain the usual idea that mass is proportional to weight—assuming we don't step into an elevator or change planets midway through the experiment—then it follows that the object's mass has increased. If we define mass in such a way that the object's mass does not increase as it heats up, then we will have to give up the idea that mass is proportional to weight.

Hence an icecube does not have more energy than the sun and your whole formula is bonk.

Last edited by Lou on 05-May-2011 at 11:39 PM.

@Lou

Erm, no.

The First Law of Thermodynamics lays down the principle that energy can be transformed, but neither created nor destroyed. Einstein figured out the mass-energy equivalence, demonstrating that mass is also conserved.

What you're talking about is the effect of heating on the reliability of a set of scales... Or perhaps the effect of chemical reactions in certain experiments.

Last edited by T-J on 06-May-2011 at 03:38 AM.

@BrianK

As an example of the misleading results of quote mining , my favourite (mis)quotes from that source are Psalms 14.1, and Psalms 53.1
Quote:

There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Quite why the book chooses to repeat itself I have no idea.
My favourite way to get rid of people from my doorstep when they start pushing this particular book is to ask if light is "good" or "bad". When They reply "good" I point out that "Lucifer" is the latin term for "the bearer of light", then ask if Lucifer is the good guy, or the bad guy.
They then go away and do not come back.

PS Thanks for the Psalm 22:21 quote. I will have to keep that one in mind, in case of emergency.

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

@Lou

You were the one who brought up the energy equivalence of mass in your earlier post, quoting Einsteins famous equation to prove your point.Quote:

Turns out that something's mass is simply a measure of it's electro-magnetic force relative to a field.

I simply followed up your claim, using the equation quoted to convert the mass of one cubic metre of ice to the energy form quoted, to see if the mathematics that you quoted verified your claim.
You then quibbled on the use of matter changing the result, so I repeated the calculation using one cubic metre of lead, just for your benefit It seems that it didn't help.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou You were the one who brought up the energy equivalence of mass in your earlier post, quoting Einsteins famous equation to prove your point.Quote: Turns out that something's mass is simply a measure of it's electro-magnetic force relative to a field. I simply followed up your claim, using the equation quoted to convert the mass of one cubic metre of ice to the energy form quoted, to see if the mathematics that you quoted verified your claim. You then quibbled on the use of matter changing the result, so I repeated the calculation using one cubic metre of lead, just for your benefit It seems that it didn't help.

But your definition of mass is different than mine and as I tried explaining, an ice cube and piece of lead is a composite material and just like F=MA, E=m*c*c is a simplified formula that only works when certain variables are fixed. For instance even in 'your accepted formula for gravity' there is a 'gravitational constant' ... which is anything but constant. That's the irony of 'gravity'.

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote: @Lou Erm, no. The First Law of Thermodynamics lays down the principle that energy can be transformed, but neither created nor destroyed. Einstein figured out the mass-energy equivalence, demonstrating that mass is also conserved. What you're talking about is the effect of heating on the reliability of a set of scales... Or perhaps the effect of chemical reactions in certain experiments.

Look up the rest frame frame and combine that with the formula for composite material. Clearly the fact that the simplified formula e=mcc only is simple for particles went over your head.

What I said about it to begin with is that in Einstein's more recent/advance theories that 'm' is derived from the effects of EM space on a volume of matter. This was also proven by observing plasma.

...which doesn't beak any laws of thermodynamics...

Last edited by Lou on 06-May-2011 at 12:17 PM.

@Lou

I'm sorry, Lou, but you can't claim that anything has 'gone over my head' when you simply cannot provide any maths to support your position.

May I tactfully suggest that the equations describing gravity have in fact gone over your head, and that perhaps you don't understand what you're talking about?

And by the way, I think you've also got the concept of 'gravitational constant' confused with the local acceleration due to gravity...

@Lou
You said that E=mc^2 supported your theory, so I did the maths for you, then you say it doesn't because you define mass in some special way that evades logical debate.
Please be so kind as to bestow on us mere mortals your divine definition of "mass" so that we may walk in the paths of righteousness and see the invisible brown dwarf stars that do not perturb the orbits of planets and see how spinning magnets can move rocks that do not have any discernible magnetic field.
Grant me that I might learn from the almighty wisdom of Saint Sitchin and grovel at the feet of our alien overlords, without whom we are as nothing.

If you have an equation that can correctly determine and predict the motion of the stars and planets more readily than Newton, or more accurately than Einstein then please publish it. At the moment you accept/reject Einstein at random depending on if you can pretend he supports your theory, then redefine the question every time you are shown to be wrong.

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

@Nimrod

I already described where your initial formula was wrong to begin with. If you want to continue act ignorant, feel free to do so.

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote: @Lou Erm, no. The First Law of Thermodynamics lays down the principle that energy can be transformed, but neither created nor destroyed. Einstein figured out the mass-energy equivalence, demonstrating that mass is also conserved. What you're talking about is the effect of heating on the reliability of a set of scales... Or perhaps the effect of chemical reactions in certain experiments.

You're being intentionally ignorant.


The initial problem here is that F1 is not equal to F2 unless F2 = -F1 because force is a vector.

There are so many problems with the simpleton formulas you base your ramblings on...

Further more m2 is usually extremely tiny when relating to m1 which is usually the "mass of the earth" and r is the radius of the earth which is an average but we know the earth isn't a perfect sphere...just as orbits are never perfect circles hence using the average radius is completely bogus math.

You want math, you can simulate 'gravity' on any basic PC. Nothing orbits anything in a perfect circle unless the tangent force is constantly applied. This is basic physics which you are failing at. I'm not paid to be a physics teacher, perhaps you need to enroll in some classes. The earth (per the 'gravity' theories) has inertia...not a constant perpendicular force to the 'gravity' of the sun. Gravity fails basic physics. I said pages ago that any orbital simulation of gravity results in a spiral into the larger mass.

Last edited by Lou on 06-May-2011 at 03:23 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 06-May-2011 at 03:21 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

The initial problem here is that F1 is not equal to F2 unless F2 = -F1 because force is a vector.

But vectors only really care about magnitudes. F1 and -F1 are of equal magnitude.

Quote:

There are so many problems with the simpleton formulas you base your ramblings on...

Propose some better ones, then, and we can test them.

Quote:

I said pages ago that any orbital simulation of gravity results in a spiral into the larger mass.

The fact that you keep saying something does not make it true.

@Lou
Summary of the debate so far:
M&L: Saint Sitchin says the ancient gods were aliens, and they're coming back!
Others: Sitchin is wrong
M&L: Saint Sitchin translated these Babylonian carvings and texts.
Others: Sitchins translations are totally inaccurate, here is the evidence.
M&L: Sitchin cannot be wrong because we believe in him. Here are some pictures of Nibiru
Others: Those pictures are sundogs, while those pictures are the result of reflection/refraction.
M&L: Here are some more pictures and videos, they are not sundogs or reflections.
Others: No they are not sundogs or reflections, but here are some identical ones from previous panics going back over a period of years. Most likely an out of focus Venus.
M&L: Nibiru is coming, its alignments have caused massive earthquakes.
Others: If it was a brown dwarf that has been around all of this time its mass would have changed the orbits of the outer planets, moon, satellites, etc. And it would have had a noticable influence on tides.
M&L: Gravity doesn't exist. It is all done by magnets!
Others: OK. If it's all done by magnets, how come the planets do not have magnetic fields all aligned, in fact some planets have no magnetic fields at all.
M&L: Strepulsion proves that Einstein is wrong. It is all magnets.
Others: The inventor of strepulsion is a demonstrable fraud. Here is the evidence. Also his caps lock key is stuck.
M&L: You can't prove the orbits of Sedna, Tyche, or Nibiru, so it must be all magnets.
Others: OK. If its all magnets, show us the maths that proves it.
M&L: It's too complicated. What would the gravity be between the sun and a brown dwarf.
Others: 4.529x10^25 Newtons.
M&L: Wrong! That proves that it is all magnets,and Sitchin is right.
Others: Correction 2.01x10^17 Newtons. Now return the compliment and show your equations and results. Here is an experiment that proves Einstein is right.
M&L: This is done by magnets. electromagnetic field energy contributes to the stress tensor (E=mc2)
Others: Only by the very tiniest amount. Here are the equivalents.
M&L: You're using the wrong kind of mass (UK joke there)

You are determined to "prove " Nibiru regardless of the evidence. You ask for consideration but consistently remain blinkered and refuse to return the compliment.
You have put forward "sources" for your theory that have been discredited. Your "observational evidence" has been discredited by mathematics, so you now attempt to discredit mathematics.
I have no problem with anybody holding religious beliefs, but when they start confusing belief or opinion with science, there can be unintended consequences

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Summary of the debate so far: M&L: Saint Sitchin says the ancient gods were aliens, and they're coming back! Others: Sitchin is wrong M&L: Saint Sitchin translated these Babylonian carvings and texts. Others: Sitchins translations are totally inaccurate, here is the evidence. M&L: Sitchin cannot be wrong because we believe in him. Here are some pictures of Nibiru Others: Those pictures are sundogs, while those pictures are the result of reflection/refraction. M&L: Here are some more pictures and videos, they are not sundogs or reflections. Others: No they are not sundogs or reflections, but here are some identical ones from previous panics going back over a period of years. Most likely an out of focus Venus. M&L: Nibiru is coming, its alignments have caused massive earthquakes. Others: If it was a brown dwarf that has been around all of this time its mass would have changed the orbits of the outer planets, moon, satellites, etc. And it would have had a noticable influence on tides. M&L: Gravity doesn't exist. It is all done by magnets! Others: OK. If it's all done by magnets, how come the planets do not have magnetic fields all aligned, in fact some planets have no magnetic fields at all. M&L: Strepulsion proves that Einstein is wrong. It is all magnets. Others: The inventor of strepulsion is a demonstrable fraud. Here is the evidence. Also his caps lock key is stuck. M&L: You can't prove the orbits of Sedna, Tyche, or Nibiru, so it must be all magnets. Others: OK. If its all magnets, show us the maths that proves it. M&L: It's too complicated. What would the gravity be between the sun and a brown dwarf. Others: 4.529x10^25 Newtons. M&L: Wrong! That proves that it is all magnets,and Sitchin is right. Others: Correction 2.01x10^17 Newtons. Now return the compliment and show your equations and results. Here is an experiment that proves Einstein is right. M&L: This is done by magnets. electromagnetic field energy contributes to the stress tensor (E=mc2) Others: Only by the very tiniest amount. Here are the equivalents. M&L: You're using the wrong kind of mass (UK joke there) You are determined to "prove " Nibiru regardless of the evidence. You ask for consideration but consistently remain blinkered and refuse to return the compliment. You have put forward "sources" for your theory that have been discredited. Your "observational evidence" has been discredited by mathematics, so you now attempt to discredit mathematics. I have no problem with anybody holding religious beliefs, but when they start confusing belief or opinion with science, there can be unintended consequences

Sitchin said Nibiru isn't coming until 2900 as I stated a page or two ago.
This does not lessen the effect of Elenin and Honda's potential effects on the earth do to their magnetosphere...which co-relates to the HOPI prophecy. You need to read more carefully as your summary is inaccurate.

Also, I never said Einstein was wrong, just that you are using simplified special case formulas. Einstein's later formulas on special relativiy use EM. It's like you ignore 1/2 my posts to suit your agenda.

Last edited by Lou on 06-May-2011 at 04:53 PM.

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote: @Lou Quote: The initial problem here is that F1 is not equal to F2 unless F2 = -F1 because force is a vector. But vectors only really care about magnitudes. F1 and -F1 are of equal magnitude.

That statement show utter lack of comprehension.
I saw no "absolute value" declaration. Force is only equal if they are in the same direction. Or is that's one of the leaps of faith you have to take when talking about gravity I guess...just like dark matter. /fail

Quote:

Quote: There are so many problems with the simpleton formulas you base your ramblings on... Propose some better ones, then, and we can test them. Quote: I said pages ago that any orbital simulation of gravity results in a spiral into the larger mass. The fact that you keep saying something does not make it true.

Write your own app to simulate your theory of gravity, send me the source for review. Until then, mine says I'm right. Because: the fact that you keep saying something does not make it true. I'd dig mine out but my C128D doesn't power up anymore and I can't be bothered to reproved something to myself that I learned from my college days.

Last edited by Lou on 06-May-2011 at 04:55 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 06-May-2011 at 04:54 PM.