Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6071 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
» Home
» Features
» News
» Forums
» Classifieds
» Links
» Downloads
Extras
» OS4 Zone
» IRC Network
» AmigaWorld Radio
» Newsfeed
» Top Members
» Amiga Dealers
Information
» About Us
» FAQs
» Advertise
» Polls
» Terms of Service
» Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
15 crawler(s) on-line.
 127 guest(s) on-line.
 3 member(s) on-line.


 NutsAboutAmiga,  amigakit,  kolla

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 kolla:  52 secs ago
 amigakit:  1 min ago
 NutsAboutAmiga:  4 mins ago
 OlafS25:  12 mins ago
 Gunnar:  42 mins ago
 Frank:  48 mins ago
 MickJT:  1 hr 27 mins ago
 A1200:  1 hr 51 mins ago
 outlawal2:  2 hrs 25 mins ago
 AndreasM:  2 hrs 28 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Free For All
      /  Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 Next Page )
PosterThread
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 25-Jan-2012 15:32:30
#1321 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Sun cleans Space Junk - Awesome! Changes in the sun are changing the location of debris in outerspace. Remember one of the 'experiments' I was looking for was how satellites change their position due to the sun? Turns out that expanding atmosphere of earth is causing satellites to drop into the atmosphere and burn up sooner. More EM isn't pushing satellites in, it's more radiation heating the planet, pushing molecules out, causing friction (gravity) on the debris which falls into the planet.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 25-Jan-2012 18:33:11
#1322 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@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!

In post 1305 to which you replied to in post 1307, but clearly didn't watch the video. Skip to 10:15 if you want.

Quote:

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.

You mentioned the tail first, Mr. Twist. The tail alone spanned 1 AU. At perihelion the comet was only 0.099258 AU (14,848,800 km; 9,226,600 mi) from the Sun. Keep on twisting...

Quote:

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.

Well, it the energy of a proton/neutron is so small, then nuclear explosions should not be possible. Apparently, many scientists have already "done the math" and we have small volumes(not masses) of hydrogen producing large devastating explosions. Hence, I cannot accept your award because you yourself have earned it by failing to see how the schwartzchild proton does match observation.
Quote:
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.

Are you saying nuclear bombs don't exist? Because that's what your saying.

Quote:

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!

Brian "Jack The Twister" K, has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? Ask the Japanese in 1945 how little energy is in less matter than would fit in a football.

Quote:
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.

Jack the Twister at it again. TNT? Who mentioned TNT? You are on the ropes. FYI, all chemical reactions are EM reactions since all that is happening are electrons moving around atoms creating new magnetic attractions between atoms, regardless, the issue here is NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Do try to stay with the program.

Quote:
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.

And you've trumped nothing. You've prove or disproven nothing. You simply think or just state that Nassim H. has proven nothing. You statements don't make anything real. Hiroshima 1945. There's your evidence, Mr. Twist.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 25-Jan-2012 19:24:38
#1323 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
In post 1305 to which you replied to in post 1307, but clearly didn't watch the video. Skip to 10:15 if you want.
Test and verify. Does what Haramein says chart true for the measurements? Could the actual sizes and distances make the object appear the same size as the Sun? Do the math.

Quote:
At perihelion the comet was only 0.099258 AU (14,848,800 km; 9,226,600 mi) from the Sun. Keep on twisting...
I posted ' Neat was supposedly .1AU from the Sun. ' -- I have to assume you are attempting some sort of a joke to see a 'twist' as a difference of .000742. And especially since my thousandths of an error put the object closer to earth which would in turn give the '2nd Sun sized object was really Comet Neat' postulate the favor. Again I want to give you the favor of the doubt so I will assume your statement here was meant as a joke.

Quote:
Are you saying nuclear bombs don't exist? Because that's what your saying.
The Atomic Bomb was confirmation of Einstein's Theories being correct in that area. Not sure where you're getting the bomb makers ran around crying OMG E=mc2 is totally wrong. But it didn't happen!

Quote:
FYI, all chemical reactions are EM reactions since all that is happening are electrons moving around atoms creating new magnetic attractions between atoms
You're getting there now you just to understand how a nuclear reaction differs from that.

Oh and ways predicted and predictable in other than the 885 Million Ton mass of a blackhole at the center of the Atom that even Haramein himselfs knows is a problem for him to work on in the future, whenever he gets around to it. Again amazing how you know this to be correct. Next time you're in the time machine please bring back the papers from Haramein explaining the problems in his own postulate which he knows to exist.

Quote:
Hiroshima 1945
E=mc2, welcome to 1905.

Last edited by BrianK on 25-Jan-2012 at 08:12 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 25-Jan-2012 22:56:15
#1324 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
I noticed your reply contain no scientific counter-evidence...just typical rule #3 (bash the source) debunking...
There was no science there to refute, merely an ad hominem against somebody who knows some physics, and the assertion that because the Wright brothers were correct, then by some strange fantasy, so was he.

Quote:
You like going around in circles don't you. I guess you already forgot that gravity is an EM side effect.
I have not forgotten that you keep making this assertion. What you have still failed to do is produce one protons worth of evidence to support your fantasy, not even an 800 tonne Scwartschild proton.

Quote:
Most people don't know what the definition of mass is.
Despite your attempt to hint that some village is missing its idiot, I actually do understand what mass is, and that it doesn't just go away when it is inconvenient. That is why I can state that the EM levels measured in the various points you have raised are too low to achieve what you claim.

Quote:
because of the mass-energy equivalence it can also function as a unit of mass.
The numbers used in a mass-energy equivalence equation are the mass of the object and the speed of light (c) which is 299792458 m/s, not the 1094000 quoted by F. Znidarsic in his reworking of Plancks constant. to simplify matters for you 1Joule has a mass equivalence of 11.1 femtogrammes (11.1x10e-15g)

Quote:
It's amusing that you and BrianK argue that a proton does not have that much "mass"
Using Avogadros number on 1g of Hydrogen, the weight of a single atom can be calculated to 1.674x10e-24g, and by subtracting the mass of its electron you are left with the mass of its nucleus, one proton at 1.673x10e-24g. this is noticeably less than the calculated 800000000g for the Schwartschild proton.

Quote:
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.

Nuclear fission is indeed a result of splitting the atom, but not the proton. As can be seen in the diagram the unstable nucleus is disrupted and splits into two smaller nuclei, and in the case of U235, three "spare" protons which produce the chain reaction. At no point in this cycle is there need to smash the neutrons, nor do places such as CERN make a habit of having nuclear explosions. Incidentally the energy released by the fissioning of a single U235 nucleus is 34 picoJoules, which is less than the 150.3picoJoules that would be produced by converting one proton to energy. Multiplying this energy by the number of atoms in a gramme of U235 gives us an energy level of 88 GigaJoules per gramme. The total energy release from the Fat Man bomb was 88TeraJoules, and the theoretical mass-energy of 1g of matter is 90 TeraJoules.
A Hydrogen bomb adds a fusion reaction similar to the one at the heart of the Sun to increase the efficiency of the bomb, and therefore its energy output. Just a fusion reaction, not a black hole, or any approximation of such a thing.

Quote:
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?
Actually yes, I have learned two things. I have learned that you regurgitate all sorts of Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Proposals, and also you have absolutely no understanding of basic mathematics.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Zontrox 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 26-Jan-2012 2:16:27
#1325 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 7-Mar-2005
Posts: 684
From: Matrix Collective

Well, since the world is going to end this year, i'm not worried as to how it's going to end but i am worried that i'm not close to the person that i like the most, even if sometimes i don't show it but she knows that i do. Who? My grandmother. When it ends, let me be hugged to her while it's ending. At least we'll both go in peace... and that my favorite soccer club are, at least, national champions before it ends.

_________________
"Would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom?!?" William Wallace (Mel Gibson in Braveheart

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 26-Jan-2012 15:37:21
#1326 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
In post 1305 to which you replied to in post 1307, but clearly didn't watch the video. Skip to 10:15 if you want.
Test and verify. Does what Haramein says chart true for the measurements? Could the actual sizes and distances make the object appear the same size as the Sun? Do the math.

No, in the videos I saw in the ealier thread, one was smaller. the actual Sun was bigger...and it wasn't a lens flare despite the mundane accusations that it was. Now we have a verifyable extremely large and bright comet that fits the observation...that also fits the SOHO video. Yeah, I know, just another co-incidence, right?

Quote:
Quote:
At perihelion the comet was only 0.099258 AU (14,848,800 km; 9,226,600 mi) from the Sun. Keep on twisting...
I posted ' Neat was supposedly .1AU from the Sun. ' -- I have to assume you are attempting some sort of a joke to see a 'twist' as a difference of .000742. And especially since my thousandths of an error put the object closer to earth which would in turn give the '2nd Sun sized object was really Comet Neat' postulate the favor. Again I want to give you the favor of the doubt so I will assume your statement here was meant as a joke.

You accused me of a strawman fallacy where I made none. You are the one who wants me to materialize a comet that is no longer in our star system. The SOHO video is pretty undeniable. If you watched the earlier SOHO video in that same youtube video, you'd see smaller "objects" impacting the sun. Understanding SOHO's viewpoint provides a frame of reference with regards to the size of Comet NEAT. If this is too complicated for you, I recommend Geometry 101.

Quote:

Quote:
Are you saying nuclear bombs don't exist? Because that's what your saying.
The Atomic Bomb was confirmation of Einstein's Theories being correct in that area. Not sure where you're getting the bomb makers ran around crying OMG E=mc2 is totally wrong. But it didn't happen!

You're not connecting the dots. All physicists know about ZPF and the vaccuum density, they just don't know what to do with/about it...so they normalized it. According to the "standard model" a proton cannot have alot of energy because it doesn't have alot of mass (again for the fourth time, recall the mass-energy equivalence). A nuclear bomb does not use lot of [standard model] mass to create an extremely large force. So yes, E=Mc^2 and schwartzchild proton agree where as the "standard model" proton is weak and feeble and does not agree with E=Mc^2.

Co-incidentally, I watched "The Big Bang"(2011) last night. (It stars Antonio Banderas). It actually has alot of physics in the movie, including a particle collider. They mentioned how slamming two protons together could create a black hole. So if 2 protons could be a black hole, why couldn't 1 be a black hole? In fact, let me as a better question... What is the requirement of a black hole for it's existence? Let me anwer that for you: density. Let me clarify that for you: not mass. Let me further clarify that for you: a black hole is a dense volume. So a black hole can have any amount of mass as long as the volume it occupys is adjusted accordingly. So yes, a proton can indeed be a black hole if it is dense enough. This is what Nassim H. proves with his math, his paper and his video that I linked below. This is why he won an award for it in Belgium.

Quote:

Quote:
FYI, all chemical reactions are EM reactions since all that is happening are electrons moving around atoms creating new magnetic attractions between atoms
You're getting there now you just to understand how a nuclear reaction differs from that.

Again, stick to the subject, we were talking about a nuclear reaction and you inserted a chemical reaction. While the mechanisms are different, the means (EM) is the same. Regardless, this side topic of yours is un-necessary.

Quote:
Oh and ways predicted and predictable in other than the 885 Million Ton mass of a blackhole at the center of the Atom that even Haramein himselfs knows is a problem for him to work on in the future, whenever he gets around to it. Again amazing how you know this to be correct. Next time you're in the time machine please bring back the papers from Haramein explaining the problems in his own postulate which he knows to exist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y5bXdx5UrE
Watch that video and you will see he is right. It's simple enough for anyone to follow. Your problem seems to be the concept of mass.

Quote:
Quote:
Hiroshima 1945
E=mc2, welcome to 1905.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 26-Jan-2012 16:02:25
#1327 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@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
Trying to watch this again. This video is a whole mess of wrong. Not sure if you wanted to go into that detail...

'If you were a society who had spaceships the size of the earth you wouldn't be able to go into any small blackholes, like the earth'. WTF? The earth is not in any way,shape, or form a black hole. Then he claims the sun is the 'next fractal level of blackhole' -- again sun not a black hole.

Later he claims volcanoes are 'sunspots of the earth'. Wrong again. And if it's not clear why the viewer needs to go understand some basics of science.

Now you asked I view 10:50. He makes the statement that they released the data at the last minute and the news didn't even talk about it. First, the data wasn't released at the last minute. I'm not even sure what the last minute was as NEAT came no where near earth to be a 'last minute'. Which he claims this is because "they" thought we were done. Clearly an unsupported conjecture. Haramein clearly doesn't understand scientific validation of data should occur before release of the data. He's failed to demonstrate this was abnormally long or that his conjecture of fear of global destruction was in any way true.

He then makes the claim an object twice the size of Jupiter is extremely massive. Perhaps, it depends upon composition. But clearly Neat wasn't extremely massive in the manner Haramein is implying. He definitely doesn't do his math either.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 26-Jan-2012 17:04:32
#1328 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
No, in the videos I saw in the ealier thread, one was smaller. the actual Sun was bigger...and it wasn't a lens flare despite the mundane accusations that it was. Now we have a verifyable extremely large and bright comet that fits the observation...that also fits the SOHO video. Yeah, I know, just another co-incidence, right?
You are claiming the 2nd sun object is actually Comet Neat. As you continually FAIL to do any sort of math let's do a bit of scratchings so you can see how this isn't the case.

Comet Neat was an object whose cloud was roughly 2x larger than Jupiter. This object would be 1/5th the size of the sun. It's distance from the sun was .1AU or more properly from earth was .9AU. Or if you want feel free to use the number you provided, a bit more accurate perhaps and farther from earth than my number. Now the video shows a 2nd sun that was, at the smallest about 3/4 the size of the sun. Do a bit of quickie math do you believe an object that is 1/5th the size of the sun that's 10% closer would appear to be 3/4 the size of the sun to the observer? The answer is.. NO the math doesn't work. Therefore we can reject Neat as the object seen by the Chinese.

Now we can also look at other observational evidence to see if this is the case. The video from the Chinese was in Feb 2003. If you go back to one of my Neat posts you will find pictures or the Comet Neat taken in Feb 2003 from various places on earth. In NONE of them is a camera unaided. All come through a telescope. And all show an object that is no where near 3/4 the size of the sun, even with that extra magnification.

So we have your postulate - 2nd Sun is Neat. We have data (sizes and distances). We have mathematical view of the details - nope can't be Neat the sizes don't match. And we have observation evidence, earth based telescopic photographs, to see that the 'no' answer indeed is consistent with other observed data. The only logical choice with everything we have is to conclude your postulate is an incorrect representation as reality. Reality trumps, always. Comet Neat was not the 2nd sun in the video.

Quote:
They mentioned how slamming two protons together could create a black hole.
Yes it 'could'. Though it's not by merging two black holes as Haramein would have you believing.

Quote:
So yes, a proton can indeed be a black hole if it is dense enough
I agree anything COULD be a black hole and it's dependent upon it's density. The observational reality is protons are not dense enough. Nor is the sun, nor is the earth - both other things Haramein claims.

Quote:
Again, stick to the subject, we were talking about a nuclear reaction and you inserted a chemical reaction
You were asking why nuclear reactions were so powerful explosions. To get that answer you must undertand other types of explosions and how they differ. That is why I asked you to compare the way TNT explosions work versus atomic bomb explosions. There are different things going on. As for the 'means are the same, via EM' I'd like to note of your EM_God postulate continues to have a scalar problems.

Quote:
Watch that video and you will see he is right.
That's some very circular logic there using Haramein to prove himself true. Unfortunately that's not the way it works. He has to align by observational evidence and he has various fails including black holes in the Sun, the Earth, and every Atom.

Oh and why the 'stupid' sign - please tell me what rule # was that of yours? #2 perhaps (I dont' remember) where instead of discussions you insult. Violating your own rules doesn't win you any knowlege or brownie points.


Last edited by BrianK on 26-Jan-2012 at 05:15 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 26-Jan-2012 17:43:55
#1329 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
I noticed your reply contain no scientific counter-evidence...just typical rule #3 (bash the source) debunking...
There was no science there to refute, merely an ad hominem against somebody who knows some physics, and the assertion that because the Wright brothers were correct, then by some strange fantasy, so was he.

...so in otherwords, more #3, ok, got that...

Quote:

Quote:
You like going around in circles don't you. I guess you already forgot that gravity is an EM side effect.
I have not forgotten that you keep making this assertion. What you have still failed to do is produce one protons worth of evidence to support your fantasy, not even an 800 tonne Scwartschild proton.

Actually, I told you a book name and a page where this formula exists that shows you G is an elementary force between all particles being pushed on against the ZPF. FYI, the Casimir effect is proof that the ZPF exists and that EM exerts pressure. It's not my fault you haven't done your homework.

However, if you keep repeating something to me, then I guess you think that makes it true.../fail

Quote:

Quote:
Most people don't know what the definition of mass is.
Despite your attempt to hint that some village is missing its idiot, I actually do understand what mass is, and that it doesn't just go away when it is inconvenient. That is why I can state that the EM levels measured in the various points you have raised are too low to achieve what you claim.

When you consider the energy in the vaccuum (EM mind you), any two objects in space will shadow each other and that's why they attract. The "light box" with two "dark" spheres example should have showed you this. Manipulating EM is what can change that pressure in a space. This is directly how "antigravity"/gravity can be made, by creating an EM pressure difference in a given direction.

Quote:

Quote:
because of the mass-energy equivalence it can also function as a unit of mass.
The numbers used in a mass-energy equivalence equation are the mass of the object and the speed of light (c) which is 299792458 m/s, not the 1094000 quoted by F. Znidarsic in his reworking of Plancks constant. to simplify matters for you 1Joule has a mass equivalence of 11.1 femtogrammes (11.1x10e-15g)

Again you don't get it. 1094000 is the speed of sound in the nuclear structure that induces the quatum transition. It has nothing to do with the speed of light.

Quote:

Quote:
It's amusing that you and BrianK argue that a proton does not have that much "mass"
Using Avogadros number on 1g of Hydrogen, the weight of a single atom can be calculated to 1.674x10e-24g, and by subtracting the mass of its electron you are left with the mass of its nucleus, one proton at 1.673x10e-24g. this is noticeably less than the calculated 800000000g for the Schwartschild proton.

weight does not equal mass

Quote:

Quote:
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.

Nuclear fission is indeed a result of splitting the atom, but not the proton.

Which is why I said atom. 2 protons are held together in a nucleus by gravity due to their black hole nature. This is equivalent to the mythical "strong force". My EM is used to tip the edge in favor of the repulsive nature of protons repelling each other but being held together by gravity/(your mythical strong force). When protons move, electrons move and emit photons. This photon energy is THE energy release by an atomic bomb. The trigger for an atomic bomb is a high EM voltage.

Quote:
As can be seen in the diagram the unstable nucleus is disrupted and splits into two smaller nuclei, and in the case of U235, three "spare" protons which produce the chain reaction. At no point in this cycle is there need to smash the neutrons, nor do places such as CERN make a habit of having nuclear explosions.

The excess protons is what causes a backlash in the opposite charge of the initial trigger and thus a chain reaction ensues in the rest of the mass since those extra protons add more repelling force to the no-so-stable uranium nucleas due to excessive positive charge. Now tell me what "nuclear fallout" is...or what you think it is...

Quote:
Incidentally the energy released by the fissioning of a single U235 nucleus is 34 picoJoules, which is less than the 150.3picoJoules that would be produced by converting one proton to energy. Multiplying this energy by the number of atoms in a gramme of U235 gives us an energy level of 88 GigaJoules per gramme. The total energy release from the Fat Man bomb was 88TeraJoules, and the theoretical mass-energy of 1g of matter is 90 TeraJoules.

In decay, photons are emitted. This is where the energy is coming from. A nuclear explosion is a high photon emission, an explosion of light(EM). Protons are not getting converted to energy. What's being overcome is the mythical "strong force" holding them together coutesy of additional external EM influences to start the chain reaction. Since protons are moving, electrons undergo a quantum transition. This is the energy that is released. Heavy metals have more flux, this is why Uranium is used. Thorium can be used as well. So all your clever math here is useless here since you are relating that energy to the mythical mass of the proton. The initial EM wave is used to overcome the gravity that holds the nucleus together.

Quote:
A Hydrogen bomb adds a fusion reaction similar to the one at the heart of the Sun to increase the efficiency of the bomb, and therefore its energy output. Just a fusion reaction, not a black hole, or any approximation of such a thing.

You are going by ancient/public theory of what an H-bomb does that was put there so that not anyone could build one. It has recently been de-classified. Your publicly held theory is wrong.

Quote:

Quote:
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?
Actually yes, I have learned two things. I have learned that you regurgitate all sorts of Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Proposals, and also you have absolutely no understanding of basic mathematics.

The only thing that is clearly ridiculous is your out-dated knowledge base.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 26-Jan-2012 20:35:23
#1330 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
When you consider the energy in the vaccuum (EM mind you),
I have already shown the maths that demonstrates how feeble the ZPF energy is compared to the gravitational forces at work. Manipulating an energy level of one nanojoule will have negligible effect on even a single atom, let alone masses like moons, planets, and suns. It is all due to mathematics, but it's not my fault you haven't done your homework.


Quote:
Again you don't get it. 1094000 is the speed of sound in the nuclear structure that induces the quatum transition. It has nothing to do with the speed of light.
And again you have failed to actually read the words that I used in my reply to your earlier post. In Znidarsics inane ramblings he uses the equation Vt=λf, and then says that Vt is the speed of sound inside an atom. This claim has no scientific basis at all, and has no backing from observations. One of the basics that you seem to have no understanding of is the equation fλ=c. By simple substitution of the values for fλ, we get the result that Vt=c where c=3x10e8, not the 1.094x10e6 that Znidarsic reverse engineered to give the appearance that he had actually achieved something. This line Znidarsic gives about quantium transition is verbal prestidigitation worthy of P. T. Barnum at his best.

Quote:
weight does not equal mass
Yes Lou, I know. You set this particular straw man up before but since I was a little slack in my use of language I will rephrase my response so that you cannot deliberately misunderstand. "Using Avogadros number on 1g of Hydrogen, the MASS of a single atom can be calculated to 1.674x10e-24g, and by subtracting the MASS of its electron you are left with the MASS of its nucleus, one proton at 1.673x10e-24g. this is noticeably less than the calculated MASS of 800000000g for the Schwartschild proton" Happy now? Your proposal still fails due to mathematics.

Quote:
2 protons are held together in a nucleus by gravity due to their black hole nature.
I thought you didn't accept that gravity exists, or are you moving the goalposts again? Protons do not have a mass of hundreds of tons. if they did the 12g of Carbon12 used to specify Avogadros number would not contain 6x10e23 atoms, but would be a subatomic particle.

Quote:
Protons are not getting converted to energy. What's being overcome is the strong force holding them together
Correct, but what you originally claimed was "To me a proton does indeed have the energy of a mini black hole as is OBSERVED IN ALL NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS." Implying that you were of the opinion that the energy release came as a result of splitting the proton. CERN routinely smashes protons in their experiments, and has never yet disappeared in a nuclear conflagration, although you will probably claim otherwise.

Quote:
The only thing that is clearly ridiculous is your out-dated knowledge base.
I am perfectly willing to accept new truths,as a basis for techological advance. What I do not do is fall for tricks, fakes, cons, scams, deceptions, illusions, or any of the other varieties of CRAP that you keep on posting.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 27-Jan-2012 15:13:32
#1331 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
In post 1305 to which you replied to in post 1307, but clearly didn't watch the video. Skip to 10:15 if you want.
Test and verify. Does what Haramein says chart true for the measurements? Could the actual sizes and distances make the object appear the same size as the Sun? Do the math.

Who claimed they appeared the same size?

Quote:

Quote:
Are you saying nuclear bombs don't exist? Because that's what your saying.
The Atomic Bomb was confirmation of Einstein's Theories being correct in that area. Not sure where you're getting the bomb makers ran around crying OMG E=mc2 is totally wrong. But it didn't happen!

Who said E=Mc^2 is wrong?

Quote:

Quote:
FYI, all chemical reactions are EM reactions since all that is happening are electrons moving around atoms creating new magnetic attractions between atoms
You're getting there now you just to understand how a nuclear reaction differs from that.

Fusion or fission? Chemical reactions involves only electrons. Nuclear reactions involve all parts of the atom. In a nuclear reaction, decay is sped up and the act of transmutation cause photons to be emitted and that is where a nuclear explosion gets it's destructive energy/heat from. Encasing that heat from decay and flowing water around it is how your nuclear power plant/steam engine is made.

Quote:
Oh and ways predicted and predictable in other than the 885 Million Ton mass of a blackhole at the center of the Atom that even Haramein himselfs knows is a problem for him to work on in the future, whenever he gets around to it. Again amazing how you know this to be correct. Next time you're in the time machine please bring back the papers from Haramein explaining the problems in his own postulate which he knows to exist.

The issue with mass is that "no one knows where it comes from". There is energy in the vacuum, hence there is mass in the vacuum and an energy/mass density. Like a fish swimming in the ocean doesn't feel the ocean around it, we don't feel the energy in the vacuum. We are surrounded by it. What we feel as matter are fluctuations from it. Matter is a deviation of the energy density of the vacuum. So it doesn't matter that something has mass X because every proton has mass X because mass is an arbitraty thing we've assigned units to because of vacuum normalization. What's more important is distance and density rations. Infact mass is simply the difference from ZPF energy density. What he gave you is an absolute. What the standard model is based on is more of a relative mass. The vacuum state was normalized and that's why some things just don't add up...when he deals with absolutes, he easily derived the speed at which two protons orbit each other, the speed of light.

This is what you and Nimrod fail to see. By only accepting what you were taught in a book year ago, you fail to know the history behind the simplification.

When you are taught physics, you are taught to accept certain things and not question them. People were once taught the world was flat and told not to question it as well.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 27-Jan-2012 15:40:20
#1332 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
When you consider the energy in the vaccuum (EM mind you),
I have already shown the maths that demonstrates how feeble the ZPF energy is compared to the gravitational forces at work. Manipulating an energy level of one nanojoule will have negligible effect on even a single atom, let alone masses like moons, planets, and suns. It is all due to mathematics, but it's not my fault you haven't done your homework.

All that you have actually showed me is that you can't see the forest from the trees.

Quote:
Quote:
Again you don't get it. 1094000 is the speed of sound in the nuclear structure that induces the quatum transition. It has nothing to do with the speed of light.
And again you have failed to actually read the words that I used in my reply to your earlier post. In Znidarsics inane ramblings he uses the equation Vt=λf, and then says that Vt is the speed of sound inside an atom. This claim has no scientific basis at all, and has no backing from observations. One of the basics that you seem to have no understanding of is the equation fλ=c. By simple substitution of the values for fλ, we get the result that Vt=c where c=3x10e8, not the 1.094x10e6 that Znidarsic reverse engineered to give the appearance that he had actually achieved something. This line Znidarsic gives about quantium transition is verbal prestidigitation worthy of P. T. Barnum at his best.

You realize that sound waves are kinetic energy and that all he did is identify the amount of energy it takes to induce a quantum transition, right? No, of course not.

Quote:

Quote:
weight does not equal mass
Yes Lou, I know. You set this particular straw man up before but since I was a little slack in my use of language I will rephrase my response so that you cannot deliberately misunderstand. "Using Avogadros number on 1g of Hydrogen, the MASS of a single atom can be calculated to 1.674x10e-24g, and by subtracting the MASS of its electron you are left with the MASS of its nucleus, one proton at 1.673x10e-24g. this is noticeably less than the calculated MASS of 800000000g for the Schwartschild proton" Happy now? Your proposal still fails due to mathematics.

Your proposal fails to take into account what definition of mass is being used.
See my reply to BrianK.

Quote:

Quote:
2 protons are held together in a nucleus by gravity due to their black hole nature.
I thought you didn't accept that gravity exists, or are you moving the goalposts again? Protons do not have a mass of hundreds of tons. if they did the 12g of Carbon12 used to specify Avogadros number would not contain 6x10e23 atoms, but would be a subatomic particle.

You still don't understand what gravity is and what "mass" is. The ZPF/vacuum has an energy density. A fluctuation from that density is your mass[difference, relatively speaking]. There is absolute mass and relative mass. This is part of the normalization that occurred in physics. Avogadro's number is a ratio (aka relative) to be used.

Quote:

Quote:
Protons are not getting converted to energy. What's being overcome is the strong force holding them together
Correct, but what you originally claimed was "To me a proton does indeed have the energy of a mini black hole as is OBSERVED IN ALL NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS." Implying that you were of the opinion that the energy release came as a result of splitting the proton. CERN routinely smashes protons in their experiments, and has never yet disappeared in a nuclear conflagration, although you will probably claim otherwise.

The energy from that collision give off alot of heat. The hope is that the two mini-black holes spinning it opposite directions collide and break apart, not combine. Attempts are made at dicovering the results. Since black holes have [ZOMG!] mass, it is assumed that this mass is made of smaller particles and amusingly enough the results are measured in eV[ZOMG! EM is everywhere!], not grams. If we are all made up of many mini-black holes, why should smashing 2 end the universe as we know it?

Quote:

Quote:
The only thing that is clearly ridiculous is your out-dated knowledge base.
I am perfectly willing to accept new truths,as a basis for techological advance. What I do not do is fall for tricks, fakes, cons, scams, deceptions, illusions, or any of the other varieties of CRAP that you keep on posting.

Then digger deeper than Physics 101.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 27-Jan-2012 17:26:42
#1333 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
Who claimed they appeared the same size?
It was your use of the video. Watch your own link and you will see the '2nd Sun in China' is nearly the same size as our own sun. It's not a point of light as another sun/star would make. Which is why this event is so amazing. And the resultant is even while Neat is large it's 1/5th the size of the sun at nearly the same distance. Ensuring that it's far too small to be the '2nd sun' in the video you posted.

Quote:
Chemical reactions involves only electrons. Nuclear reactions involve all parts of the atom.
Wow I'd say Bingo you explained your own question as to why nuclear exposions are so big. Compared to other explosions they have a larger amount of EM forces. Though still far, far short of what exploding blackholes would have.

Quote:
The issue with mass is that "no one knows where it comes from".
True. Though the problem you seem to be having is assuming we must keep everything on the table until the answer is found. Along the way we can certainly discard postulates that don't fit the evidence. For example we know that 'earth/fire/air/water/ether' are not at the center of protons. Because that postulate in no way makes predictive agreement to reality it can safely be discarded.

Quote:
mass is an arbitraty thing we've assigned units
Units of matter are arbitraty sure. Though we're talking about Haramein's claim that blackholes are in the center of all atoms. Most of your middle is fluff and you seemingly get back to the question with Quote:
What's more important is distance and density rations
Blackholes occur with a certain density of matter. This is mass within a volume. So if Haramein is using a different Unit of Measure, fine do a unit of measure conversion to Metric.

Quote:
What he gave you is an absolute. What the standard model is based on is more of a relative mass.
Your claim here makes no sense whatsoever. Remember again we're working off the claim of Haramein's that protons are really blackholes. We have a minimum established density for a blackhole. We have a known size of the proton. From those two things we can calculate what the mass has to be, were it a blackhole. Haramein's claim of blackhole results in a mass that's roughly a trillion cubed larger than reality. Haramein's postulate of blackhole proton results in a mass that's HUGELY out of alignment with reality.

The same can be said of his claim of the earth and the sun really being blackholes. The density of these objects and the other observed properties are no where near to alignment with Haramein's C.R.A.P. , as Nimrod would label it. And IMO that's more then polite and fair for he's trying to sell you snake-oil because his postulates don't align reality, period.

Quote:
When you are taught physics, you are taught to accept certain things and not question them.
I'd agree if you are talking junior high physics. You're completely wrong if you're talking college and graduate level studies.

Last edited by BrianK on 27-Jan-2012 at 05:30 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 27-Jan-2012 at 05:27 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 27-Jan-2012 21:09:06
#1334 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
all he did is identify the amount of energy it takes to induce a quantum transition.
All he did was reverse engineer Plancks constant and spin a whole load of technobabble to confuse the issue. His references to measured velocity of transition on anti-gravity machines and cold fusion reactors are totally unsubstantiated. His so called mathematics is totally fallacious in its origin. There are no working cold fusion reactors, and there are no working anti-gravity machines. There are lots of people who claim to have made such advances, yet there is still no evidence of success.

Quote:
Your proposal fails to take into account what definition of mass is being used.
Trying to move the goalposts again Lou? So what definition of mass do you want to use? The one that says mass is huge and tiny at the same time? The one that allows 6x10e23 groups of 6 neutrons,each having a MASS of 800 tonnes to have a combined mass of 12g. Mass is mass, and will not go away simply because it is inconvenient to some snake oil salesmans pitch. Harameins postulate fails due not only to its inability to mathematically support its own claims, but because of its inbuilt paradox. Basically he has got it wrong.

Quote:
The ZPF/vacuum has an energy density
Yes Lou, I know. The vacuum energy of free space has been calculated as 1x10e-9 Joules per cubic metre. That is one nanoJoule, not as you seem to think, one GigaJoule. The density of matter in intergalactic space is 20x10e-24 g per cubic metre (primarily Hydrogen) There is simply too much matter to be called simply a fluctuation in the minuscule ZP energy. Claiming that EM dominates mass is akin to claiming that afully laden ocean going oil tanker can be capsized by a one inch magnitude ripple on the surface of the water.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 27-Jan-2012 21:53:48
#1335 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
all he did is identify the amount of energy it takes to induce a quantum transition.
All he did was reverse engineer Plancks constant and spin a whole load of technobabble to confuse the issue. His references to measured velocity of transition on anti-gravity machines and cold fusion reactors are totally unsubstantiated. His so called mathematics is totally fallacious in its origin. There are no working cold fusion reactors, and there are no working anti-gravity machines. There are lots of people who claim to have made such advances, yet there is still no evidence of success.

You mean "Nimrod doesn't believe in cold fusion or antigravity", don't you?

Quote:

Quote:
Your proposal fails to take into account what definition of mass is being used.
Trying to move the goalposts again Lou? So what definition of mass do you want to use? The one that says mass is huge and tiny at the same time? The one that allows 6x10e23 groups of 6 neutrons,each having a MASS of 800 tonnes to have a combined mass of 12g. Mass is mass, and will not go away simply because it is inconvenient to some snake oil salesmans pitch. Harameins postulate fails due not only to its inability to mathematically support its own claims, but because of its inbuilt paradox. Basically he has got it wrong.

No, you have a problem seeing the forest from the trees...

Quote:
Quote:
The ZPF/vacuum has an energy density
Yes Lou, I know. The vacuum energy of free space has been calculated as 1x10e-9 Joules per cubic metre. That is one nanoJoule, not as you seem to think, one GigaJoule. The density of matter in intergalactic space is 20x10e-24 g per cubic metre (primarily Hydrogen) There is simply too much matter to be called simply a fluctuation in the minuscule ZP energy. Claiming that EM dominates mass is akin to claiming that afully laden ocean going oil tanker can be capsized by a one inch magnitude ripple on the surface of the water.

in both Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED), consistency with the principle of Lorentz covariance and with the magnitude of the Planck Constant requires it to have a much larger value of 10^113 Joules per cubic meter.

So it seems it's you moving the goal posts...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 27-Jan-2012 22:03:22
#1336 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Who claimed they appeared the same size?
It was your use of the video. Watch your own link and you will see the '2nd Sun in China' is nearly the same size as our own sun. It's not a point of light as another sun/star would make. Which is why this event is so amazing. And the resultant is even while Neat is large it's 1/5th the size of the sun at nearly the same distance. Ensuring that it's far too small to be the '2nd sun' in the video you posted.

I linked many videos. You decided to pick one and when you linked it, it was posted in 2011. Good job.

Quote:

Quote:
Chemical reactions involves only electrons. Nuclear reactions involve all parts of the atom.
Wow I'd say Bingo you explained your own question as to why nuclear exposions are so big. Compared to other explosions they have a larger amount of EM forces. Though still far, far short of what exploding blackholes would have.

Are you blind? I said it was quantum emission of photons that cause the heat/energy. Are not exploding black holes quasars?

Quote:

Quote:
The issue with mass is that "no one knows where it comes from".
True. Though the problem you seem to be having is assuming we must keep everything on the table until the answer is found. Along the way we can certainly discard postulates that don't fit the evidence. For example we know that 'earth/fire/air/water/ether' are not at the center of protons. Because that postulate in no way makes predictive agreement to reality it can safely be discarded.

By "no one knows where mass comes from" this is the standard model for physics, genius. That's why they normalized mass because they didn't know what to do about it and ZPF.

Quote:

Quote:
mass is an arbitraty thing we've assigned units
Units of matter are arbitraty sure. Though we're talking about Haramein's claim that blackholes are in the center of all atoms. Most of your middle is fluff and you seemingly get back to the question with Quote:
What's more important is distance and density rations
Blackholes occur with a certain density of matter. This is mass within a volume. So if Haramein is using a different Unit of Measure, fine do a unit of measure conversion to Metric.

He is using the values from QED and SED. You are using the simplified highschool stuff.

Quote:

Quote:
What he gave you is an absolute. What the standard model is based on is more of a relative mass.
Your claim here makes no sense whatsoever. Remember again we're working off the claim of Haramein's that protons are really blackholes. We have a minimum established density for a blackhole. We have a known size of the proton. From those two things we can calculate what the mass has to be, were it a blackhole. Haramein's claim of blackhole results in a mass that's roughly a trillion cubed larger than reality. Haramein's postulate of blackhole proton results in a mass that's HUGELY out of alignment with reality.

You are lost.

Quote:
The same can be said of his claim of the earth and the sun really being blackholes. The density of these objects and the other observed properties are no where near to alignment with Haramein's C.R.A.P. , as Nimrod would label it. And IMO that's more then polite and fair for he's trying to sell you snake-oil because his postulates don't align reality, period.

Someday you may have an education. today is not that day.

Quote:
Quote:
When you are taught physics, you are taught to accept certain things and not question them.
I'd agree if you are talking junior high physics. You're completely wrong if you're talking college and graduate level studies.

Enlighten us. Have you taken graduate level physics?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 27-Jan-2012 22:53:25
#1337 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
I linked many videos. You decided to pick one and when you linked it, it was posted in 2011. Good job
I've demonstrated the evidence is clearly against your claims. How about you try to EVIDENCE for a change. Whip our your video and show your math that demonstrates the 2nd sun is Comet Neat. Saying wow bright object! Proves nothing.

Quote:
You are lost.
If lost means I must accept the non-reality of a blackhole at the center of the earth. I'll gladly be lost in reality.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 28-Jan-2012 2:04:59
#1338 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
I linked many videos. You decided to pick one and when you linked it, it was posted in 2011. Good job
I've demonstrated the evidence is clearly against your claims. How about you try to EVIDENCE for a change. Whip our your video and show your math that demonstrates the 2nd sun is Comet Neat. Saying wow bright object! Proves nothing.

I posted an actual SOHO video of the comet being hit by a CME where you can see how large it really is. Earlier in that same demonstration, smaller objects dive into the sun that are earth sized. You are asking for math when none is necessary. The outline of the sun is in the video, everything is in the video. Is this your strawman?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 28-Jan-2012 22:11:23
#1339 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
You mean "Nimrod doesn't believe in cold fusion or antigravity", don't you?
You really don't understand facts do you. It desn't matter whether I believe or not. If I stopped believing in the principles of aerodynamics it will not cause aircraft to fall from the sky. In a scientific environment, belief is irrelevant. If there are such things as anti-gravity machines, or cold fusion reactors, all you need to do is let the rest of the world know where they are. All sorts of people claim to have working examples, yet when it comes to demonstrating them under controlled conditions they suddenly become as elusive as the fairies at the bottom of my garden.

Quote:
No, you have a problem seeing the forest from the trees...
So enlighten me! tell me your definition of mass so that I can apply mathematics to it and find out the real truth that you claim is out there. So far you have been very careful to avoid giving any actual maths because once you do it can be proven to be false in exactly the way that the CRAP put out by F. Znidarsic has been shown to be nothing more than a second rate bit of numerology. Just as the real world equation λf=c shows the failure in Znidarsics equation, so also the claim "It begins with the quantum vacuum density, which is a measured 5.16x10^93 g/cm3", shows the point that the fudged figure is inserted to make a heap of CRAP look like real science. There is no explanation of who measured this number, or where it came from, it simmply appears from nowhere

Quote:
in both Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED), consistency with the principle of Lorentz covariance and with the magnitude of the Planck Constant requires it to have a much larger value of 10^113 Joules per cubic meter.
Yes, I have read the wikipedia article What you are glossing over is that QED is currently being re-evaluated due to innacuracies noted in the measurement for the RMS charge radius of the proton. It is amazing how quickly mathematics can change the validity of an idea. Despite what you claim, scientists really do drop ideas and look for new ones that quickly when the old ones are shown to be obsolete. In the case of Harameins idea it isthe fact that a black hole the size of a proton would require a huge MASS that it quite clearly doesn't have.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
MikeB 
Getting cold feet
Posted on 29-Jan-2012 11:04:47
#1340 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 3-Mar-2003
Posts: 6487
From: Europe

Europe prepares for most extreme/strange winter...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle