Quote:

It doesn'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.

+1

_________________
Wanna try a wonderfull magical Amiga strategy game?
Total Chaos AGA

@Lou

Quote:

I posted an actual SOHO video of the comet being hit by a CME where you can see how large it really is.

What the SOHO video shows is an event that is clearly inadequate to explain the '2nd sun in China. First the shape is wrong. It's comet streak of a line not circular in shape likea sun. Second the shape is far too small at this distance to make the'2nd sun' object seen in the videos. And we have further confirmation of the second point here mathematically and with earth based telescopes.

Quote:

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?

No it's not a strawman. Why is self evident if you understand the definition of strawman. Taking your earlier points - earth sized objects diving into the sun have nothing to do with the 2nd sun either. Math is necessary to demonstrate the 2nd sun object, ~3/4 sun size seen in earth, and your postulate, NEAT, align with one another. If they were a few percentage off I'd demand further proof. However, Neat is nearly 1/2 (you do the math for a change) the necessary size to make the 2nd sun sized earth observed object. NEAT's issues clearly rule it out as the cause.

EDIT - Oh further math lack. You failed to demonstrate the position of the earth, the sun, NEAT, and China at the specified date and time align in such a way we can be confident NEAT could be seen. You'll note I'm giving your postulate the benefit of the doubt by assuming NEAT was the smaller of the '2 suns'. If the alignment is such that the larger object, ~1.25 sun sized, is 'NEAT' then your data fits even less. Though I'm not sure what's less than not at all except not at all.

Last edited by BrianK on 29-Jan-2012 at 02:09 PM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @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.

Scientists are working with/on anti-gravity and LENR. Why is this so hard for you to believe? Oh yeah, you're an engineer and until if makes it into a school book, it's not real.

Quote:

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

I gave you a mathematical definition for the gravitational constant which you have still failed to read.

Quote:

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.

Yes, QED is so inaccurate that none of our wireless communications actually work... /fail

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: I posted an actual SOHO video of the comet being hit by a CME where you can see how large it really is. What the SOHO video shows is an event that is clearly inadequate to explain the '2nd sun in China. First the shape is wrong. It's comet streak of a line not circular in shape likea sun. Second the shape is far too small at this distance to make the'2nd sun' object seen in the videos. And we have further confirmation of the second point here mathematically and with earth based telescopes.

It doesn't matter what I post, you will always twist it to the mundane.

Quote:

Quote: 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? No it's not a strawman. Why is self evident if you understand the definition of strawman. Taking your earlier points - earth sized objects diving into the sun have nothing to do with the 2nd sun either.

Right there. Where did I say earth-sized objects had something to do with a 2nd sun, Mr. Twist?

It was merely so show a relative size to Comet NEAT.

@Lou

Quote:

It doesn't matter what I post, you will always twist it to the mundane.

Lou, note you cited the mundate - a Comet!

And it matters what you post because you have failed to demonstrate the two events are in fact the same. You claimed that the 2nd Sun was really Comet Neat. We asked you to demonstrate this claim. Your response essentally amounts to Comet Neat was, at one time, as big as 2 Saturns and very bright.

What you have failed to demonstrate is the position, size, and timing of Comet Neat could produce a circular event, like the sun, which is as big as the sun. This sort of information goes a very long way to demonstrating validity of the claim. Without out confirmation all you can say is you have guess.

What I provided was some quicky math which clearly demonstrates this cannot be true. In addition, I provided photographic evidence of Neat from earth that was only capable of being taken through telescopes. This further confirms that Neat was far too small and too distant to be the 2nd Sun event in China.

Quote:

Right there. Where did I say earth-sized objects had something to do with a 2nd sun, Mr. Twist?

Your are defending yourself against a claim I never made. Mr. Strawman.

Last edited by BrianK on 30-Jan-2012 at 04:17 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: It doesn't matter what I post, you will always twist it to the mundane. Lou, note you cited the mundate - a Comet! And it matters what you post because you have failed to demonstrate the two events are in fact the same. You claimed that the 2nd Sun was really Comet Neat. We asked you to demonstrate this claim. Your response essentally amounts to Comet Neat was, at one time, as big as 2 Saturns and very bright. What you have failed to demonstrate is the position, size, and timing of Comet Neat could produce as image nearly as big as the sun. This sort of information goes a very long way to demonstrating your claim is true. What I provided was some quicky math which clearly demonstrates this cannot be true. In addition, I provided photographic evidence of Neat from earth that was only capable of being taken through telescopes. This further confirms that Neat was far too small and too distant to be the 2nd Sun event in China.

Again, no math is necessary when looking at actual sun, objects and comets in SOHO video. Considering perihelion was Feb 18, 2003.
For once you might be right. I can't find any 2nd sun videos from 2003. However it was visible at night with the naked eye in February 2003: http://cometography.com/lcomets/2002v1.html

Quote:

Quote: Right there. Where did I say earth-sized objects had something to do with a 2nd sun, Mr. Twist? Your are defending yourself against a claim I never made. Mr. Strawman.

You make an absurb statement out of what I said and your twist all the time. That's all I'm pointing out. Then you expect me to prove your twisted absurd statement. Surely this deserves it's own debunking rule: #5 warp their words to sound absurd.

@Lou

Quote:

Again, no math is necessary when looking at actual sun, objects and comets in SOHO video.

The SOHO video confirms Neat existed. It does not confirm the appearance of Neat as a large round 2nd sun from China. There's a not so subtle difference there.

Quote:

However it was visible at night with the naked eye in February 2003

Thanks for that. Though still note that it was not as large as a '2nd sun in China' else night time would be illuminated by the object.

Quote:

You make an absurb statement out of what I said and your twist all the time.

Perhaps... But, you'd go farther explaining why it's absurb instead of trying to disprove something no one said.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: You make an absurb statement out of what I said and your twist all the time. Perhaps... But, you'd go farther explaining why it's absurb instead of trying to disprove something no one said.

Does that even make any sense?

@Lou

Quote:

Quote: You'd go farther explaining why it's absurb instead of trying to disprove something no one said. Does that even make any sense?

Explaining why you preceive something is absurb makes perfect sense. It's called communication and it's how we build an understanding of each other.

Defending yourself against something that was never said makes no sense at all. It's akin to shooting yourself in the foot.

@BrianK

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:

Quote: You'd go farther explaining why it's absurb instead of trying to disprove something no one said. Does that even make any sense?

Briank then wrote:
Quote:

Explaining why you preceive something is absurb makes perfect sense. It's called communication and it's how we build an understanding of each other. Defending yourself against something that was never said makes no sense at all. It's akin to shooting yourself in the foot.

I did explain it. You just continuously side-track the issue.

Last edited by Lou on 30-Jan-2012 at 08:12 PM.

@Nimrod

A THEORETICAL VALUE FOR THE NEWTON GRAVITATION CONSTANT FROM THE GEM THEORY OF FIELD UNIFICATION AND THE KURSUNOGLU-BRANDENBURG HYPOTHESIS OF MASSIVE GAMMA-RAY BURSTERS

http://eproceedings.worldscinet.com/9789812701992/9789812701992_0013.html
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009APS..OSS.C4001B
http://www.konfluence.org/CalculatingG.pdf
http://astroreview.com/issue/2012/article/the-gem-theory-of-the-unification-of-gravitation-and-electro-magnetism
Oh look! Gravity modification:
http://ias-spes.org/SPESIF2011/AGENDA/Abstracts/23_Brandenburg_abs.pdf

Are you happy yet??? Consider this a formula POSTED!

John E. Brandenburg is a plasma physicist at Orbital Technologies in Madison Wisconsin, working on space plasma technologies and space propulsion. He also performed research on the MET(Microwave Electro-Thermal) plasma thruster for space propulsion, Rocket Plume-Regolith Interactions on the Moon and Mars, Vortex theory of Rocket engine design, and Kaluza-Klein theory of Field Unification for purposes of space propulsion. He also performed an architecture study for a Human Mars Mission using solar electric propulsion. Before coming to ORBITEC he was performing research on air plasmas and plasma propulsion at Florida Space Institute. He is a pioneer in creating electrodeless atmospheric pressure plasmas in air using microwaves. Before this he was at The Aerospace Corporation, where one of his duties was as principle investigator of the MET propulsion project. Before coming to Aerospace corporation Dr. Brandenburg was a researcher at Research Support Instruments (RSI) where he specialized in making controlled laboratory plasmas for uses ranging from air plasmas for surface sterilization , Fusion research and the MET thruster. He also worked as an independent consultant on Space Missile Defense, Directed Energy Weapons, and space rocket plume phenomenology, and also at Mission Research Corporation and Sandia National Laboratories on plasmas for controlled fusion and similar topics.

Yep, a nobody...

Last edited by Lou on 30-Jan-2012 at 09:13 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 30-Jan-2012 at 08:34 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

I did explain it

I agree you did let us know why you shot your own foot. I still arrgue shooting your own foot is a bad idea.

@Lou

Millennium Falcon on the bottom of the ocean Ooh mystery no one knows what it is. The conclusion is -- wait there is no conclusion we have insufficent evidence. That's why they are going to get a closer look to see what this object really is.

Thought you might like it though as it's being billed as an alien craft. But, really we don't know if it even flew, it clearly sunk. It's an USO - Undentified Sunken Object.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: I did explain it I agree you did let us know why you shot your own foot. I still arrgue shooting your own foot is a bad idea.

Fact: I made no referece to earth-sized objects colliding with the Sun AND being visible from earth, though you say I did.

Keep on twisting...

Meanwhile, despite the post # 1351 being directed at Nimrod, feel free to address it.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Millennium Falcon on the bottom of the ocean Ooh mystery no one knows what it is. The conclusion is -- wait there is no conclusion we have insufficent evidence. That's why they are going to get a closer look to see what this object really is. Thought you might like it though as it's being billed as an alien craft. But, really we don't know if it even flew, it clearly sunk. It's an USO - Undentified Sunken Object.

I agree, its a USO.

@Lou

Quote:

Fact: I made no referece to earth-sized objects colliding with the Sun AND being visible from earth, though you say I did.

Again I never said such a thing. As always I'm open to your evidence. So please cite my post on this board with #____ . For example you recently asked me to look at #1351. Evidence #_____ for review.

@BrianK

Post #1342

@Lou

Quote:

Post #1342

Thank you! I want to take time to follow previous posts and reread.

I came across this I thought you might like. LHC missing exotics -- Microblackholes (aka Haramein) were among those not found.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou I came across this I thought you might like. LHC missing exotics -- Microblackholes (aka Haramein) were among those not found.

Yes, and despite specific searching, no Higgs boson.
So, does that mean that the standard model is bonk? Because as it standands, the standard model does not provide for mass since it hasn't been found. I prefer to live in a universe where we have mass, that's a personal preference. Your problem seems to be that you don't realize it's all relative. So we've assigned mass and energy arbitrary units then do some math and realize that the proton fits the definition of a black hole based on "mass density" and the electron does not...which makes sense since it's the electron that is responsible for photon absorbtion and emission, not the proton. Once again, observation matches Nassim H's theory.

In quantum physics, the act of measuring/observing changes things. Think about that for a while... Here's a good demonstration on it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc

Notice what they say about the mass of multiple universes at the end...

On a side note...
If you noticed a link on the side, you'd see: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328495.200-first-quantum-jiggles-detected-in-solid-object.html and please not the references to ZPF...

Last edited by Lou on 31-Jan-2012 at 08:57 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Scientists are working with/on anti-gravity and LENR. Why is this so hard for you to believe?

In science belief is irrelevant]/b] I do not doubt that there are people trying to square the circle and get something for nothing. What there is [b]no evidence of is any notable success. If I am wrong then please feel free to post up the co-ordinates (longitude and latitude) of a productive cold fusion reactor, and explain why all of the examples cited need a power input. If they were real they would simply recycle some of the output power back to the input to keep running forever, as opposed to a few hours (until the concealed chemical reaction runs out of fuel and ceases). Likewise for the anti-gravity machines that you keep claiming to be sufficiently common for an electrical engineer to be able to detect the transition time of an electron.

Quote:

Are you happy yet??? Consider this a formula POSTED!

These five links, while they do contain a lot of equations all lead to the same postulate. They provide no evidence of being correct, they require you to accept them as a matter of faith. Real physics, such as the laws of aerodynamics do not require such a faith based approch. An A380 airbus will still fly, even if you do believe that it is too big to get off the ground, simply because the wings provide a greater amount of lift than the total weight of the aircraft

Why is it so hard for you to understand the fundamental difference between science and religion. You haven't turned away from religious worship, you have merely changed the name on the church door.

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