@Lou

Quote:

If typing "schwarzschild proton" into a seach engine is too difficult for you then may whatever you believe in help you

Wow an interesting postulate from Haramein. A proton is a black hole? In measured experiments the proton weighs 1.67x10-24 grams not the 800+Metric Tons postualed by Haramein. And if a Proton is a black hole we can't see into it. In measured experiments when we crash them together we get Quarks ... His paper fails to rectify how observational evidence is divergence from his postulated evidence.

But to play that fiddle again cuz you at listening - postulates are a good starting point, next step is to bring the evidence. And in the case of 'Schwartzschild proton' the evidence at present is opposite to that Haramein postulated.

Last edited by BrianK on 24-Jan-2012 at 02:34 AM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: This would be checkmate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE0z4sHxe9c _ From this video comes the statement "It begins with the quantum vacuum density, which is a measured 5.16x10^93 g/cm3", but there is no explanation of who measured this huge number, or how, or when. Quote: Ah the beauty is that it already has predictive results... The prediction is that the vacuum energy of one proton would equal 4.98x10^55g, which he then glibly tells us is the mass of the entire universe. Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but isn't energy measured in Joules, rather than grammes? So how does the prediction actually compare with the observable universe? This isn't maths, it's merely more numerology from yet another snake oil salesman.

I'm pretty sure every attempt you have at debunking is answered right here: http://theresonanceproject.org/schwarzschild-proton-manifesto
since apparently you suffer from googlitis like BrianK...

Quote:

Quote: Recall that Northern Lights are an EM phenomenon... Correct, which explains a rise in failures of sensitive electronic equipment in such events. You will notice however that increased EM activity does not deflect telecommunication satellites from their predetermined orbits.

Sorta just like you will notice that when using an antenna for TV reception you can get an interference pattern but the image still comes thru, right?

And if you are wondering about this account, I quickly changed my password when the breach was announced and subsoquently forgot it over the weekend and yes I have PM'd a site admin about this as my old email address is no longer active so I can't receive it in the mail.

Lou

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: If typing "schwarzschild proton" into a seach engine is too difficult for you then may whatever you believe in help you Wow an interesting postulate from Haramein. A proton is a black hole? In measured experiments the proton weighs 1.67x10-24 grams not the 800+Metric Tons postualed by Haramein. And if a Proton is a black hole we can't see into it. In measured experiments when we crash them together we get Quarks ... His paper fails to rectify how observational evidence is divergence from his postulated evidence. But to play that fiddle again cuz you at listening - postulates are a good starting point, next step is to bring the evidence. And in the case of 'Schwartzschild proton' the evidence at present is opposite to that Haramein postulated.

Clearly you as a debunker don't care about the details of his paper so his facts are irrelevant to you.

Regardless, I will spell it out for you:
The strong force, when calculated is quivalent to the gravitational force of a mini-black hole. His calculation for the mass of a proton is the accepted mass of a proton + the mass of a black hole that would fit within a radius of a proton. So indeed Strong force is actually gravity.

You will ignore it all like usual but it's spelled out for you in simple terms that even the great debunker can understand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH6a6BGHl8k
Re: the standard model is stupid...

Last edited by All_EM on 24-Jan-2012 at 05:48 AM.

Interesting archaological finds that once again prove we had contact with advanced space-travelling civilations:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cawZBMrGkTQ


Are sun spots natural worm holes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvKB3fAAr_Y
FYI, sun spots are sun HOLES! ...and the sun spits out water from sun spots...
And no, worm holes don't just exist in Star Trek: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole

Why is the sun's corona hotter than it's surface?

Last edited by All_EM on 24-Jan-2012 at 05:58 AM.

Apparently in November 2002, a comet twice the size of Jupiter passed our solar system...recorded by SOHO in Feb 2003...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwQbya-5uNU

Perhaps that explains the "two suns" phenomenon of the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2002_V1_(NEAT)
Seems to be some controversy surrounding it...
Interesting how there were no announcements made about it until after it left. LOL they thought we were done for.

@All_EM

Quote:

You will ignore it all like usual but it's spelled out for you in simple terms that even the great debunker can understand

As usual? So tell us with this new account are you someone that needed to make a new account here and what was your old one? Or you just lurking in the shadows.

As for the video there was exactly nothing to show the postulate was evidenced. Calculations are pretty and all but the new weight of a black hole at the center of every atom was not observed. (I'll add to date as no one knows the future.) But, in short no actual weighing of a proton to make it tons exists.

So as we ask Lou please bring not just a pretty postulate but repeatable validated experimentation and/or observation.

@All_EM

Quote:

Apparently in November 2002, a comet twice the size of Jupiter passed our solar system...recorded by SOHO in Feb 2003... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwQbya-5uNU

Yeah you're talking about Comet Neat 2002 . It's size is a few miles across. The large size was, like most comets, the dust cloud that is emitted as these objects approach the sun and heat up. Which also explains how a 'Jupiter sized' object had 0 effect on earth. If it really had the mass of Jupiters something would have happened.

Quote:

Perhaps that explains the "two suns" phenomenon of the time

Perhaps do you have any time and coordinate coorelations to show this is anything more than a guess.

Quote:

Interesting how there were no announcements made about it until after it left. LOL they thought we were done for.

Appears to not have left but destroyed by a CME.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @All_EM Quote: You will ignore it all like usual but it's spelled out for you in simple terms that even the great debunker can understand As usual? So tell us with this new account are you someone that needed to make a new account here and what was your old one? Or you just lurking in the shadows.

Or you could have read my reply to Nimrod and realized I am Lou.

Quote:

As for the video there was exactly nothing to show the postulate was evidenced. Calculations are pretty and all but the new weight of a black hole at the center of every atom was not observed. (I'll add to date as no one knows the future.) But, in short no actual weighing of a proton to make it tons exists.

Actually, I don't know that anyone has ever observed any atomic particles ever directly.

Quote:

So as we ask Lou please bring not just a pretty postulate but repeatable validated experimentation and/or observation.

Strong force was assigned a value that it would need to overcome the repulsive EM forces required to hold two protons together and it works out to two mini-black holes that fill the volume that two protons is thought to have that orbit each other at the speed of light seems to be the solution.

The observation follows the math. This is a semi-classical solution to what was once the voodoo of Quantum theory...where previously there was no math. No need to search for a mythical (Higgs) particle.

For any doubts you have, you too can refer to the link I gave Nimrod where all the traditional debunker's questions were answered...

Last edited by All_EM on 24-Jan-2012 at 01:56 PM.
Last edited by All_EM on 24-Jan-2012 at 01:55 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @All_EM Quote: Apparently in November 2002, a comet twice the size of Jupiter passed our solar system...recorded by SOHO in Feb 2003... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwQbya-5uNU Yeah you're talking about Comet Neat 2002 . It's size is a few miles across. The large size was, like most comets, the dust cloud that is emitted as these objects approach the sun and heat up. Which also explains how a 'Jupiter sized' object had 0 effect on earth. If it really had the mass of Jupiters something would have happened.

If it can be seen near the sun during the day, it's alot bigger than "a few miles across". Do use common sense...

Quote:

Quote: Perhaps that explains the "two suns" phenomenon of the time Perhaps do you have any time and coordinate coorelations to show this is anything more than a guess.

There are some youtube videos from around that time...

Quote:

Quote: Interesting how there were no announcements made about it until after it left. LOL they thought we were done for. Appears to not have left but destroyed by a CME.

No, it was not destroyed as anticipated again signalling its much larger size. You provided no evidence for "a few miles across" by the way.

@All_EM

Quote:

Or you could have read my reply to Nimrod and realized I am Lou.

I haven't been reading every post you make. So thanks.

Quote:

Actually, I don't know that anyone has ever observed any atomic particles ever directly

We've done so for decades with Scanning Tunneling Microscopy Though even with indirect observation an atom weighs no where near the hundreds and hundreds of metric tons Haramein claims.

Quote:

Strong force was assigned a value that it would need to overcome the repulsive EM forces required to hold two protons together and it works out to two mini-black holes that fill the volume that two protons is thought to have that orbit each other at the speed of light seems to be the solution.

This goes back to our previous discussion on what's pretty math and what's reality. I can postulate a single dimensional universe and the math is very pretty and works oh so very well. However, when one applies OBSERVATIONAL data we can all quickly see that the model of a single dimension universe and our universe are incompatible. As such the model is great but unrepresentative or reality.

This, for the millionth time, is why we have postulates and observations before the conclusions. You are again concluding someone is prefectly right about the universe when in fact Observational Data shows them to be oh so very wrong. Haramein, perhaps, has pretty math but his model ends up being so very unrespresentative of reality.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @All_EM Quote: Actually, I don't know that anyone has ever observed any atomic particles ever directly We've done so for decades with Scanning Tunneling Microscopy Though even with indirect observation an atom weighs no where near the hundreds and hundreds of metric tons Haramein claims.

By "atomic particles" I meant protons, electrons, neutrons. This only views atoms. I stand by my statement.

Quote:

Quote: Strong force was assigned a value that it would need to overcome the repulsive EM forces required to hold two protons together and it works out to two mini-black holes that fill the volume that two protons is thought to have that orbit each other at the speed of light seems to be the solution. This goes back to our previous discussion on what's pretty math and what's reality. I can postulate a single dimensional universe and the math is very pretty and works oh so very well. However, when one applies OBSERVATIONAL data we can all quickly see that the model of a single dimension universe and our universe are incompatible. As such the model is great but unrepresentative or reality. This, for the millionth time, is why we have postulates and observations before the conclusions. You are again concluding someone is prefectly right about the universe when in fact Observational Data shows them to be oh so very wrong. Haramein, perhaps, has pretty math but his model ends up being so very unrespresentative of reality.

http://theresonanceproject.org/schwarzschild-proton-manifesto
Again, every debunking thought you may have is mostly answer in this response to another doubter named "Bob-a-thon"

...

It's nice to be myself again.

@Lou

Quote:

By "atomic particles" I meant protons, electrons, neutrons. This only views atoms. I stand by my statement.

So you don't take particle accelerators as crashing protons or crashing electrons together as a direct view of the proton, and actually what's inside of it. If the proton is a blackhole we can't get it's guts out so no quarks could be directly or indirectly observed.

Remember that whole E=mc2 formula? It applies to things like CERN's LHC. Strangely their energy usage is only enough to move trillonths of trillonths of kg at speeds close to C and not 800+ Metric Ton weights. Hmm..

I know you hate debunking but it wouldn't be necessary if you didn't post so much bunk.

Last edited by BrianK on 24-Jan-2012 at 05:49 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: By "atomic particles" I meant protons, electrons, neutrons. This only views atoms. I stand by my statement. So you don't take particle accelerators as crashing protons or crashing electrons together as a direct view of the proton, and actually what's inside of it. If the proton is a blackhole we can't get it's guts out so no quarks could be directly or indirectly observed.

You do realize the data they sift thru is in eV, right? I mean, depending on the direct angle of impact and spin of the charged protons, any voltage difference is possible which is why there is so much noise in their data. They simply look for some that they've found more than others and proudly[foolishly] proclaim they've found a new particle.
It's a joke, really as it does more to prove the schwartzchild proton theory than the standard model.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122126297197130483.html
Quote:

Third, these mini black holes are unstable and decay much too quickly to do any damage. These subatomic black holes simply evaporate away (via something called Hawking radiation) faster than the blink of an eye.

So all that's happening are stable protons(mini black holes) ram each other becoming unstable mini black holes which decay emitting all sorts of energy...

Quote:

I know you hate debunking but it wouldn't be necessary if you didn't post so much bunk.

Actully, I hate puppets more. Especially puppets that in another time and place would have believed the earth was flat just because that was the best and most mundane theory accepted at the time. Their belief was the real bunk yet people were crucified for believing otherwise.

So again, before you standard "it's not accepted" answer, why don't you simply follow the link I provided where all your typical debunking attempts have already been answered directly by the author of the paper. A paper which has won him awards vs. what you have produced, mind you.

@All_EM

Quote:

If it can be seen near the sun during the day, it's alot bigger than "a few miles across". Do use common sense...

It's me using Comet Sense (hahah) . If you really believe China saw Comet Neat then DO THE MATH and show us it's true.

Quote:

There are some youtube videos from around that time...

Assuming unadulterated videos we can safely conclude the Chinese saw a 2nd image of a sun in the sky. The real question is what made this image. The math was done and it's Optical refraction. Single sun, double image . I know you hate the mundane but they DO THEIR MATH!

Quote:

You provided no evidence for "a few miles across" by the way

Really are we going to do this dance again? A comet is an dirty snowball or perhaps you perfer snowy dirtball. Either way the events that happen is the observational 'size' increases as a Comet reaches the sun. It's because the object heats up, releases gases and this gas burns off. A cloud of gas around the object is only the size of the object when it gets close enough to the sun to make such a cloud. Neat is 2x Jupiter by it's evaporative gases only. Comet Neat evaporating gasses as it comes near the sun is simply a standard activity of a Comet. Comet Neat Perhaps that's why it's not Planet Neat.

Last edited by BrianK on 24-Jan-2012 at 08:06 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 24-Jan-2012 at 08:05 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 24-Jan-2012 at 07:31 PM.

@Lou

Welcome back Lou!

Quote:

http://theresonanceproject.org/schwarzschild-proton-manifesto Again, every debunking thought you may have is mostly answer in this response to another doubter named "Bob-a-thon"

The prime function of this site seems to be a launch pad for a long winded ad hominem against somebody, ostensibly because of comments that he didn't like.

From the claims on this site about the Wright brothers and how they proved the experts wrong, I would suggest that their maths was valid, drawing on earlier experiments in unpowered flight (gliders), and they produced a working prototype of their powered aircraft. Neither of these statements can honestly be made by the cold fusion fantasists. As T-J pointed out "They all laughed at Charlie Chaplin", it doesn't mean Chaplin was a scientific genius.

Quote:

Sorta just like you will notice that when using an antenna for TV reception you can get an interference pattern but the image still comes thru, right?

Yes, I noticed a reduction in picture quality, but the increased EM still didn't manage to shove the TV across the room.

Quote:

You are again concluding someone is prefectly right about the universe when in fact Observational Data shows them to be oh so very wrong.

This is a particularly humorous comment from somebody whose every postulate has totally failed to match up to real world observations. What is the mass of one proton, compared to the mass this daydream claims for a proton?

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

@Lou

Quote:

the data they sift thru is in eV, right? I mean, depending

Take 2 steps back. Before they sift through data they first crash protons into each other. And in order to crash protons into each other they need to accelerate them to nearly the speed of light, what 1x10-7th less or so. In order to do that one must accelerate mass to the speed desired. The energy used for acceleration depends upon the desired speed and the weight of the object. The Schwartzchild proton, is claimed, to weigh about 885 Metric Tons. About a thousand * a trillion * a trillon more then the observed mass of a proton. The energy used at LHC is massive yet very minor compared to that which would accelerate the near 1000 tons to c. Observation breaks Schwartzchild before it even gets off the ground (pun intended.)

You link says it best. Haramein intends to address the problem of mass in an upcoming paper. So, you are trusting a postulate, not even written for you to review, and it's evidence, which clearly can't exist yet, as the truth. You have the gall to imply other people are puppets?

As for your puppets. Don't forget there is a set of "puppets" which say bring the better observational data and we'll change our mind. Typically these are scientists not priests or politicans. Do your math, bring the valid observational supporting data and we'll change. Heck even the postulate of the Schwarzchild mass problem would be more than you have now. Haramein isn't there yet. You can believe whatever you want, I don't care, but proclaiming it the truth at present is nothing less than a religious statement.

Quote:

A paper which has won him awards vs. what you have produced, mind you

Appeal to Authority fallacy rearing it's ugly head. Sorry award or not one still needs observational evidence to demonstrate truth proposition of the postulate. A plaque with pretty paper is not validity.

Last edited by BrianK on 24-Jan-2012 at 08:17 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 24-Jan-2012 at 08:08 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @All_EM Quote: If it can be seen near the sun during the day, it's alot bigger than "a few miles across". Do use common sense... It's me using Comet Sense (hahah) . If you really believe China saw Comet Neat then DO THE MATH and show us it's true. Quote: There are some youtube videos from around that time... Assuming unadulterated videos we can safely conclude the Chinese saw a 2nd image of a sun in the sky. The real question is what made this image. The math was done and it's Optical refraction. Single sun, double image . I know you hate the mundane but they DO THEIR MATH!

That was a fail job using a 2011 image to disprove 2003 observations...

Quote:

Quote: You provided no evidence for "a few miles across" by the way Really are we going to do this dance again? A comet is an dirty snowball or perhaps you perfer snowy dirtball. Either way the events that happen is the observational 'size' increases as a Comet reaches the sun. It's because the object heats up, releases gases and this gas burns off. A cloud of gas around the object is only the size of the object when it gets close enough to the sun to make such a cloud. Neat is 2x Jupiter by it's evaporative gases only. Comet Neat evaporating gasses as it comes near the sun is simply a standard activity of a Comet. Comet Neat Perhaps that's why it's not Planet Neat.

Yes we will dance this dance because a comet's visible tail is an electrical phenomenon which is why it always points away from the sun and not simply left behind as a trail of the path of the comet. You are still living in 1980's comet theory it seems.
One of the videos I linked a few posts ago where a younger Nassim Haramein (does that name ring a bell?) is giving a lecture in 2003, he show us the original SOHO video of this HUGE (2x Jupiter) comet that did not disintegrate. And in that video we clearly see the CME hit the comet.

Last edited by Lou on 24-Jan-2012 at 08:41 PM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Welcome back Lou! Quote: http://theresonanceproject.org/schwarzschild-proton-manifesto Again, every debunking thought you may have is mostly answer in this response to another doubter named "Bob-a-thon" The prime function of this site seems to be a launch pad for a long winded ad hominem against somebody, ostensibly because of comments that he didn't like. From the claims on this site about the Wright brothers and how they proved the experts wrong, I would suggest that their maths was valid, drawing on earlier experiments in unpowered flight (gliders), and they produced a working prototype of their powered aircraft. Neither of these statements can honestly be made by the cold fusion fantasists. As T-J pointed out "They all laughed at Charlie Chaplin", it doesn't mean Chaplin was a scientific genius.

I noticed your reply contain no scientific counter-evidence...just typical rule #3 (bash the source) debunking...

Quote:

Quote: Sorta just like you will notice that when using an antenna for TV reception you can get an interference pattern but the image still comes thru, right? Yes, I noticed a reduction in picture quality, but the increased EM still didn't manage to shove the TV across the room.

You like going around in circles don't you. I guess you already forgot that gravity is an EM side effect.

Quote:

Quote: You are again concluding someone is prefectly right about the universe when in fact Observational Data shows them to be oh so very wrong. This is a particularly humorous comment from somebody whose every postulate has totally failed to match up to real world observations. What is the mass of one proton, compared to the mass this daydream claims for a proton?

Again, your counter argument is the real day dream. Most people don't know what the definition of mass is. This is where people like you and BrianK get confused.
Weight is the gravitational force acting on a given body, while mass is an intrinsic property of this body. Weight depends on its environment, while its mass does not: an object with a mass of 50 kilograms weighs 491 Newtons on the surface of the Earth; on the surface of the Moon, the same object still has a mass of 50 kilograms but weighs only 81.5 Newtons. So your concept of mass is what's confusing you.
The electronvolt (eV) is primarily a unit of energy, but because of the mass-energy equivalence it can also function as a unit of mass. So you see mass is an elementary charge or energy that all particles have.

It's amusing that you and BrianK argue that a proton does not have that much "mass" but yet splitting the atom is the basis of nuclear weapons. To me a proton does indeed have the energy of a mini black hole as is OBSERVED IN ALL NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS.

Infact, I told you that a hydrogen bomb uses a nuclear explosion to compress a small mass of hydrogen into a small white/black hole which then becomes unstable and gives us our hydrogen bomb. Have you learned nothing?

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: the data they sift thru is in eV, right? I mean, depending Take 2 steps back. Before they sift through data they first crash protons into each other. And in order to crash protons into each other they need to accelerate them to nearly the speed of light, what 1x10-7th less or so. In order to do that one must accelerate mass to the speed desired. The energy used for acceleration depends upon the desired speed and the weight of the object. The Schwartzchild proton, is claimed, to weigh about 885 Metric Tons. About a thousand * a trillion * a trillon more then the observed mass of a proton. The energy used at LHC is massive yet very minor compared to that which would accelerate the near 1000 tons to c. Observation breaks Schwartzchild before it even gets off the ground (pun intended.)

So explain to me given the mass-energy equivalence how can such a small mass produce such powerful explosions like from the hydrogen bomb?
Oh wait, is this where your observation does not match reality and where the schwartzchild proton does?

Quote:

You link says it best. Haramein intends to address the problem of mass in an upcoming paper. So, you are trusting a postulate, not even written for you to review, and it's evidence, which clearly can't exist yet, as the truth. You have the gall to imply other people are puppets?

Yes, because of your obvious stance to only defend the status quo of science despite all the blatant shortcomings. Atleast he seems to have an explanation. For you see this papaer was unfunded. Hence it was kept deliberately short. Apparently you only skimmed or you would have known that...

Quote:

Quote: As for your puppets. Don't forget there is a set of "puppets" which say bring the better observational data and we'll change our mind. Typically these are scientists not priests or politicans. Do your math, bring the valid observational supporting data and we'll change. Heck even the postulate of the Schwarzchild mass problem would be more than you have now. Haramein isn't there yet. You can believe whatever you want, I don't care, but proclaiming it the truth at present is nothing less than a religious statement.

So if the hydrogen atom contains negligible mass (mass-energy equivalence), how is it that a hydrogen bomb is the most destructive force human have built?

Quote:

Quote: A paper which has won him awards vs. what you have produced, mind you Appeal to Authority fallacy rearing it's ugly head. Sorry award or not one still needs observational evidence to demonstrate truth proposition of the postulate. A plaque with pretty paper is not validity.

Or... Apparently, someone is pretty clever, what you got?

@Lou

Quote:

That was a fail job using a 2011 image to disprove 2003 observations...

We have varied observation evidence of optical phenomena that produces duplicate images, including suns.

As to your claim that it was really Comet Neat, again do the math! I think if you follow the link to Comet Neat I posted that has Feb 2003 images taken by telescopes where it's a dot is going to be fairly good evidence that the object didn't suddenly burst onto the scene as big as the sun. So while Comet Neat may be 2x Jupiter it's still 1/5th the size of the sun. Show us the position in realtive to the earth and that it image would be sun-sized as seen in Japan. Ya got a problem here as Neat was supposedly .1AU from the Sun. The optics don't work the way you dream they do. Again do the math and show your evidence!

Quote:

Yes we will dance this dance because a comet's visible tail is an electrical phenomenon

We're discussing size of the object. Discussing path of tail and electricalness has next to nothing. I said nothing about the tail nor direction. You'll have to get a Strawman Fallacy award for this one.

Quote:

So explain to me given the mass-energy equivalence how can such a small mass produce such powerful explosions like from the hydrogen bomb? Oh wait, is this where your observation does not match reality and where the schwartzchild proton does?

DO THE MATH - Show us this cannot be true and only schwartzchild can. Oh wait first you need to wait for the future paper dealing with schwartchild's mass problems before you can proceed. We'll just call you Mr. Fail for now and pray for the future of the Schwartzchild God.

Quote:

Yes, because of your obvious stance to only defend the status quo of science despite all the blatant shortcomings. Atleast he seems to have an explanation

Having an explanation and demonstration truthfulness are related but very different things.

Quote:

Hence it was kept deliberately short.

Which perhaps is why it's short of workable within our universe. So again you're left praying the future of the Schwartzchild God papers work. You're hoping and proven jack!

Quote:

how is it that a hydrogen bomb is the most destructive force human have built?

TNT reaction is a chemical one not a nuclear one. Learn the diffferences.

Quote:

Apparently, someone is pretty clever, what you got?

Observational evidence that Haramein's postulates are worse at explaining reality, and often just wrong. Reality always trumps cleverness. Again a pretty math postulate doesn't mandate reality. You must show the EVIDENCE.

Last edited by BrianK on 25-Jan-2012 at 02:29 PM.