@Lou

Nimrod laid this out well. I had used some example temps on earth to illustrate the phase changes. It's clear that phase changes did indeed take place.

Quote:

Here is the temperature of the Sun's photosphere:

You seem to not understand the Comet did not enter the photosphere. The photosphere of the sun is considered to be the opaque surface from where light is omitted. The Comet traveled about 75,000 miles away from the surface of the sun and, at most, through the corona. It didn't make it through the corona into the chromosphere. Nor did it make it through the chromosphere into the photosphere. Stating temps, by science not your religion I might add, really amount to sidestepping conversation by claiming things that are non-influencing factors here.

Why should the comet have disengrated when it lost 90% of it's mass? What predictive models have you created to ascertain the structuraly integrity of the object? Doesn't really matter. What we can say about your models is when reality hit they were proven wrong.

@Lou

Quote:

At the top of mount Everest water boils at 65 degrees Celcius, hence in a vacuum it will "boil" at an even lower temperature.

The principle that you are groping towards here is called sublimation where the boiling point of the substance is below its triple point. Accepting the fact that the boiling point of water is much reduced in the part of the solar atmosphere called the corona, due to atmospheric pressure the boiling point of water still exceeds its triple point, so no sublime short cuts there I'm afraid.

Quote:

and when it lost 90% of it's mass, it should not have escaped the Sun.

Had the comet been 10% smaller, closer, or slower, then it would indeed have been boiled away during its close pass, but it wasn't, so it wasn't.
If you see what I mean.
And the remaining fragment had sufficient velocity to escape from the immediate vicinity of the sun, but, to misquote the former governor of California, "It'll be back"
The reason for this is because it does not have, and never did have sufficient velocity to escape the orbit of the sun.

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

So let me get this straight...

Elenin goes no closer than just insider Mercury's orbit and gets whacked by the sun but Lovejoy gets to within 124,000km and is fine...

It's funny to hear the big-banger excuse: "oh it must have been bigger than we thought".

You two are a joke, your 'accepted' science is a joke. When something doesn't agree with it you alter the parameters. "Oh the mass was bigger" "Obviously".



Oh and FYI:

Perhpas what I did see in the sky was a 2nd sun.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/tatooines-twin-suns-coming-to-a-planet-near-you-just-as-soon-as-betelgeuse-explodes/story-fn5fsgyc-1225991009247

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou I thought you might like this. Dark Flow

...slowly the walls come tumbling down...

@Lou

Quote:

So let me get this straight... Elenin goes no closer than just insider Mercury's orbit and gets whacked by the sun but Lovejoy gets to within 124,000km and is fine

It appears Elenin was destroyed by the solar storm. And Lovejoy met with much calmer journey. For a comparision consider why the 92K ton Derbyshire was lost to an Atlantic ocean storm versus 38K pound boats which have travelled successfully across the Atlantic.

Quote:

You two are a joke,

Personal insults are unnecessary.

Quote:

When something doesn't agree with it you alter the parameters

What actually goes on is we start with a set of postulates and once evidence shows us the postulates are wrong we have no choice but to reanalyze and try to figure out what was wrong. Sometimes one doesn't know the starting point to a sufficent degree. This is called learning. And it's clearly superior view of the world. WHY? It's changeable based on evidence. The highly open system accepts all comers and weighs them equally on how well they are supported in evidence and make predictions. This is very much unlike 'EM is all' -- here you simply cherry pick the items that support your theory. Your system is unalterable, inflexible and closed.

Quote:

Perhpas what I did see in the sky was a 2nd sun

Great! You have a postulate - you saw a 2nd sun. You have an experimental claim - based upon a remote star exploding. Now you can evidence - contact various astronomical agencies aroung the world and see who was watching that part of the sky for say 48 hours surrounding the event. ...

.. There are 3 possible outcomes I can think of. Perhaps no telescopes were watching that part of the sky. Your postulate stands as unevidenced and we can't prove it true or false. The telescopes failed to detect changes in light or neutrinos and if the telescopes were operational and the event within telescope's ability to detect then your claim is false. Else if the Telescopes did detect something there may be something to your claim. It's likely true. Though we'd have to work out with the light and neutrino changes if it could create an object as large as the one you claim it to be and do more research.

Last edited by BrianK on 19-Dec-2011 at 03:53 PM.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLlm8UWDNe4

amazing what magnetic fields can so...in a sense, you could say the outside of that cover is orbiting the electric field...hmmm...or maybe that's why planets rotate...hmmm...

Nah! That would defy the laws of swiss cheese science!

Last edited by Lou on 20-Dec-2011 at 06:46 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: So let me get this straight... Elenin goes no closer than just insider Mercury's orbit and gets whacked by the sun but Lovejoy gets to within 124,000km and is fine It appears Elenin was destroyed by the solar storm. And Lovejoy met with much calmer journey. For a comparision consider why the 92K ton Derbyshire was lost to an Atlantic ocean storm versus 38K pound boats which have travelled successfully across the Atlantic. Quote: You two are a joke, Personal insults are unnecessary. Quote: When something doesn't agree with it you alter the parameters What actually goes on is we start with a set of postulates and once evidence shows us the postulates are wrong we have no choice but to reanalyze and try to figure out what was wrong. Sometimes one doesn't know the starting point to a sufficent degree. This is called learning. And it's clearly superior view of the world. WHY? It's changeable based on evidence. The highly open system accepts all comers and weighs them equally on how well they are supported in evidence and make predictions. This is very much unlike 'EM is all' -- here you simply cherry pick the items that support your theory. Your system is unalterable, inflexible and closed. Quote: Perhpas what I did see in the sky was a 2nd sun Great! You have a postulate - you saw a 2nd sun. You have an experimental claim - based upon a remote star exploding. Now you can evidence - contact various astronomical agencies aroung the world and see who was watching that part of the sky for say 48 hours surrounding the event. ... .. There are 3 possible outcomes I can think of. Perhaps no telescopes were watching that part of the sky. Your postulate stands as unevidenced and we can't prove it true or false. The telescopes failed to detect changes in light or neutrinos and if the telescopes were operational and the event within telescope's ability to detect then your claim is false. Else if the Telescopes did detect something there may be something to your claim. It's likely true. Though we'd have to work out with the light and neutrino changes if it could create an object as large as the one you claim it to be and do more research.

What you are doing here is taking a guess to please your quest for the mundane.
That's what's funny about your science. When the math doesn't add up, you change the mass until it works. Solar flares happen 'all the time' but magically not when Lovejoy was 'passing thru'.

I mean, I find it amusing that a 'gas giant' like Jupiter can maintain such a uniformly round shape... You would think with all that 'mass' that it wouldn't actually be a 'gas giant'. One thing for certain is that there is a lot of hot air in your science.

Swiss cheese science...

PS,
Last time I checked, you don't stare thru a telescope during the day.

Last edited by Lou on 20-Dec-2011 at 06:44 PM.

@Lou

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLlm8UWDNe4 amazing what magnetic fields can so...in a sense, you could say the outside of that cover is orbiting the electric field...hmmm...

"It's not really a motor it's actually a spinner" -- the definition of a motor is something that converts energy into motion. Seems he doesn't understand this. And doesn't quite get that the reverse of this is what is used to generate power that keeps the lights on the object he's filming.

@Lou

Quote:

That's what's funny about your science. When the math doesn't add up, you change the mass until it works

Where does the fault lie? You've failed to demonstrate the scientists have the wrong fault here.

BTW - proving science 'wrong' doesn't prove Lou right. You still have to do the work to demonstrate you are right. There is the case that both have it wrong.


Quote:

Solar flares happen 'all the time'

Solar flares have a periodic nature of about 11 years. They happen with varying frequency and at a different parts of the sun. This is indicative of the records that have been kept on this event since the telescope was invented.

Here's Lou's logic using another example: Accidents happen on the US Freeway system all the time. Therefore if Lou takes the freeway today for 10 minutes with his new VW it is guaranteed to be crashed into by another car and ruined.

Quote:

Last time I checked, you don't stare thru a telescope during the day.

Nor do you use optical telescopes to detect neutrinos from galatic events such as exploding stars would emit.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLlm8UWDNe4 amazing what magnetic fields can so...in a sense, you could say the outside of that cover is orbiting the electric field...hmmm... "It's not really a motor it's actually a spinner" -- the definition of a motor is something that converts energy into motion. Seems he doesn't understand this. And doesn't quite get that the reverse of this is what is used to generate power that keeps the lights on the object he's filming.

Here is the motion of our solar system thru space...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBlAGGzup48
Now you can see the helicoil motion... I guess coming from people who would have believe the earth was flat, it's simpler to view the solar system in terms of 2D orbits...

Pass the swiss cheese, please!

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Last time I checked, you don't stare thru a telescope during the day. Nor do you use optical telescopes to detect neutrinos from galatic events such as exploding stars would emit.

Excuse me but it was your swiss cheese/big banging-based scientists that said we could see a 2nd sun in the sky this month...


Though now that I think about it, there were clouds beyond it, so no, I believe it was something more unidentified...

Last edited by Lou on 20-Dec-2011 at 07:20 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou BTW - proving science 'wrong' doesn't prove Lou right. You still have to do the work to demonstrate you are right. There is the case that both have it wrong.

It proves me potenitally right vs. you definitely wrong.

What I've said all along is that current financial investment is in sustaining swiss cheese science.

When the current establishment admits they are flipping clueless, then perhaps alternate...and more accurate science can be explored. This one is simply falling into a black hole. Yep, if you look at all the black holes in space, I guess it does resemble swiss cheese...

Clearly you are a swiss cheese gormand...

Last edited by Lou on 20-Dec-2011 at 08:31 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLlm8UWDNe4 amazing what magnetic fields can so...in a sense, you could say the outside of that cover is orbiting the electric field...hmmm... "It's not really a motor it's actually a spinner" -- the definition of a motor is something that converts energy into motion. Seems he doesn't understand this. And doesn't quite get that the reverse of this is what is used to generate power that keeps the lights on the object he's filming.

Actually, it's called denial.

Would you like more swiss cheese science with your whine?

Last edited by Lou on 20-Dec-2011 at 09:17 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 20-Dec-2011 at 09:16 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Here is the motion of our solar system thru space...

Similarities are a neat thing to detect. There was a time when medicine had postulated simila simibus curenter. Through evidence it was found to not be the case. It appears you have yet the learn the difference between a postulate and a Theory. Here you have a postulate. It might be promoted to a Theory if you have the evidence to back up your words. So complain about science's swiss cheese if you will. Actual cheese means we can eat today, and do as rockets go beyond the solar system. Since EM hasn't gotten us off this rock it's imaginary cheese has been far less nurishing. But, when you bring it to dinner, (aka evidence) then we can actually have a bite.

Quote:

Excuse me but it was your swiss cheese/big banging-based scientists that said we could see a 2nd sun in the sky this month...

Yes they did. But it was you that claimed perhaps that glowing object in the sky you saw was a 2nd sun. So I asked you to not bring me a plate (aka postulate) but bring me the cheese too (aka evidence) so I might taste (aka validate) that you have something reflecting reality.

Quote:

Though now that I think about it, there were clouds beyond it, so no, I believe it was something more unidentified

Clouds you say? Such as ones that exist within smoke machines at music concerts that create images which are reflections which aren't really there. That's not a bad guess you have... evidence?

Quote:

It proves me potenitally right vs. you definitely wrong.

Sorry nope. You don't get to automatically be right if something else is wrong. Instead we have you still unproven and something proven wrong. (Though I disagree that you proved anything wrong as you provided no cheese again!)

Quote:

Actually, it's called denial

Yeah I'd agree that your example denied he built a motor when in actuality he did.

I'm glad people are eating cheese. At least they're alive and moving forward. That empty plate you brought isn't making any food contributions to the party.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Here is the motion of our solar system thru space... Similarities are a neat thing to detect. There was a time when medicine had postulated simila simibus curenter. Through evidence it was found to not be the case. It appears you have yet the learn the difference between a postulate and a Theory. Here you have a postulate. It might be promoted to a Theory if you have the evidence to back up your words. So complain about science's swiss cheese if you will. Actual cheese means we can eat today, and do as rockets go beyond the solar system. Since EM hasn't gotten us off this rock it's imaginary cheese has been far less nurishing. But, when you bring it to dinner, (aka evidence) then we can actually have a bite.

Yes we have rockets, just like we have canoes. What we need to get to is the speed boat of space...

Quote:

Quote: Excuse me but it was your swiss cheese/big banging-based scientists that said we could see a 2nd sun in the sky this month... Yes they did. But it was you that claimed perhaps that glowing object in the sky you saw was a 2nd sun. So I asked you to not bring me a plate (aka postulate) but bring me the cheese too (aka evidence) so I might taste (aka validate) that you have something reflecting reality.

I tried to offer you a possible big-banging explanation, then you say I'm wrong for it. I didn't say it was the explanation. Perhaps you are trying to feed me the shredded cheese?

Quote:

Quote: Though now that I think about it, there were clouds beyond it, so no, I believe it was something more unidentified Clouds you say? Such as ones that exist within smoke machines at music concerts that create images which are reflections which aren't really there. That's not a bad guess you have... evidence?

Oh yes, I can see it now, it was a travelling circus act that only performs miles high in the sky... /fail

Quote:

Quote: It proves me potenitally right vs. you definitely wrong. Sorry nope. You don't get to automatically be right if something else is wrong. Instead we have you still unproven and something proven wrong. (Though I disagree that you proved anything wrong as you provided no cheese again!)

So what you're saying is you can't prove me wrong but I can prove you wrong. Gotcha!

Quote:

Quote: Actually, it's called denial Yeah I'd agree that your example denied he built a motor when in actuality he did.

Perhaps you are getting confused with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_motor
Clearly what you are doing here is some primitive association that goes on when animals in the wild are faced with manmade technology for the first time... :P

Quote:

I'm glad people are eating cheese. At least they're alive and moving forward. That empty plate you brought isn't making any food contributions to the party.

Ha good try. The dishes I brought were too exotic for you....clearly...

@Lou

Quote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLlm8UWDNe4 amazing what magnetic fields can so...in a sense, you could say the outside of that cover is orbiting the electric field.

Yes indeed, it is amazing what magnetic fields can do. They can run an electric motor. The claver thing about this particular motor is that by enclosing the electrical source inside the motor, he has been able to fix the inner portion that is normally the rotor and output shaft, and allow the outer section that is usually the stator to rotate freely.
The man just invented the battery powered drum motor

Quote:

or maybe that's why planets rotate...hmmm...

Yes very nice, but if that were the case, wouldn't the earth rotate on its magnetic axis, instead of the magnetic north pole being about eight degrees off the axis of rotation? Please pay attention at the back of the class.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLlm8UWDNe4 amazing what magnetic fields can so...in a sense, you could say the outside of that cover is orbiting the electric field. Yes indeed, it is amazing what magnetic fields can do. They can run an electric motor. The claver thing about this particular motor is that by enclosing the electrical source inside the motor, he has been able to fix the inner portion that is normally the rotor and output shaft, and allow the outer section that is usually the stator to rotate freely. The man just invented the battery powered drum motor

Given that you are in your 50's and probably have poor eyesight, can you show me this motor you speak of? In the video, the magnets and the battery are not spinning.

Quote:

Quote: or maybe that's why planets rotate...hmmm... Yes very nice, but if that were the case, wouldn't the earth rotate on its magnetic axis, instead of the magnetic north pole being about eight degrees off the axis of rotation? Please pay attention at the back of the class.

Perhaps you didn't pay attention in geology class but the earth is not a solid rock. Yes, it's shell is influenced by it's magnacore but those momentum changes happen over time.

@Lou

Quote:

Yes we have rockets, just like we have canoes. What we need to get to is the speed boat of space...

And through science it's how we've built both and continue to build and improve both. The Speed Boat of Space is even postulated in science. So certainly if you believe in your system you might understand it's importance by it's contribution. Build that 'speed boat' first on your principles you'd have some compelling demonstrable evidence there.

Quote:

I tried to offer you a possible big-banging explanation, then you say I'm wrong for it.

The problem is within your logic. A possibility is not the same as an actuality. Possibility is a postulate. If it's wrong it's because that postulate failed to accurately predict reality. You have to go back to the drawing board and figure out where your error existed. Learn!

Quote:

So what you're saying is you can't prove me wrong but I can prove you wrong. Gotcha!

It seems you're starting to understand you've built an unfalsifiable system. The next step is to understand an unfalsifiable system does mean it's true. There is the 3rd option, and where your system is, that it's unproven. What results here is your system is acceptable on faith similar to the 'religious kooks', as you called them.

Quote:

Perhaps you are getting confused with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_motor

The problem isn't my confusion. It's the presenter's. Either he's unknowledgeable of what makes a motor or is lying. Either way he's wrong. He built a motor.

Flipping back to your belief that this is how the solar system works. Nimrod posed a good question. In actuality an observation that conflicts with the 'It's all EM' belief. For a more significant one look at Uranus which spins sideways. About 60 degrees off from the magnetic pole and perpendictular to the direction of travel. There are many more of these in our solar system. Mars and Venus have unstructured fields, as such shouldn't be spinning. And if your claim of larger objects having larger fields is true the solar system would be lined up by size of the objects. It's clearly not else the asteroids would all be hanging out by the sun and Jupiter would be the furthest object. Planets aren't the same plane. Planets orbit a baryocentric point by mass which is different than the magnetic center point.

Certainly Gravity was wrong as Newton's view would have burned up Mercury. Einstein is better as Mercury exists but that quantum just isn't fitted in. The solar system errors in Netwon, while planet sized , are far smaller and less numerous than using EM for the explaination. We know there's work to do and science continues.

Quote:

The dishes I brought were too exotic for you....clearly

Being an open party I clearly let you introduce their prettiness for all to observe. The plates are lovely. Though when it was time to eat the air sitting on them fulfilled no one. So we keep them for a future party when you might bring food to place on the dishes.

@Lou

Quote:

Given that you are in your 50's and probably have poor eyesight, can you show me this motor you speak of? In the video, the magnets and the battery are not spinning.

First just let me get my glasses on and take a look at the video again.
You may not realise this but electric motors generally come in two parts. The stator (remains static), and the rotor (it rotates!).
In this particular example the magnet and battery, as you point out do in fact remain stationary, but the outer section does seem to quite clearly rotate.
Since this motor has a fixed core, and a rotating outer section, it qualifies as a drum motor

Quote:

Perhaps you didn't pay attention in geology class but the earth is not a solid rock.

You're right, I didn't concentrate on geology, I was too busy studying EM theory, which is why I know what I am talking about when discussing how motors work, and why the Earths magnetic pole would be at, or perpendicular to the spin axis if your idea had any credibility.

If I need to know anything about rocks I can always ask T-J. If you look back over his posts you will see that he knows more than a little bit about geology.

Last edited by Nimrod on 21-Dec-2011 at 02:42 PM.

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

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/12/cluster-of-80-magnitude-earthquakes-doesnt-indicate-earth-is-more-active.ars

Creative statistical reporting at its finest. I am amused that an 8.0 quake three years after an 8.0+ quake is considered just a mere aftershock and not included in the reporting... /epic fail