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
22 crawler(s) on-line.
 122 guest(s) on-line.
 0 member(s) on-line.



You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 Comi:  22 mins ago
 Gunnar:  25 mins ago
 amigakit:  43 mins ago
 vox:  1 hr 8 mins ago
 zipper:  1 hr 11 mins ago
 kolla:  1 hr 18 mins ago
 OneTimer1:  1 hr 32 mins ago
 BigD:  2 hrs 15 mins ago
 OlafS25:  2 hrs 17 mins ago
 NutsAboutAmiga:  2 hrs 48 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
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 1-Feb-2012 0:38:03
#1361 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@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.

Perhaps you missed the references in the gravity modification paper...oh yes, you actually did. Japanese scientists reduced gravity. This was reproduced by german scientists but I don't believe that reference is given.

Quote:

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.

Let me get this straight. So what you are saying that because of YOUR religious belief in ancient school books, you can't accept this newer science that [I linked multiple references to prove how it is becoming accepted by scientists] hasn't made it to the lowly school book yet, so you will not change your religion.

Ok, all makes sense now.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 1-Feb-2012 14:38:42
#1362 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@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.
Quote:
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.
Here's the point of discussion. In the middle of your statements about how SOHO proves math is unnecessary you have a point that the sun is being hit by earth sized objects. How does that point support your arguement? Or if a side note it's fairly unclear in your paragraph, because it falls in the middle of your argument that it's a side note. Yes I did indeed say Earth sized objects diving into the sun can't be seen from earth. And the reason for that is it appears you are trying to insert into the middle of your evidence other examples that support your notion.

Though, I'd like to note that 'earth sized objects' were 1 sentence and at no time did I depend upon that to disprove your claims. Instead I focused many posts on size of object, shape of object, distance, and timing. You focusing on this point is missing the larger discussion. Though again -- Thanks for finally realizing that when you pull those things together Comet Neat could not possibly be the 2nd sun effect in China.

Quote:
Meanwhile, despite the post # 1351 being directed at Nimrod, feel free to address it.
Papers good! Papers are postulates, a starting point. Now we need real world experimentation that confirm predictions of the papers. That's how science measures alignment with reality. (Think back to my example of the pretty proof of a 1 dimensional universe but how much it can't make good predictions within ours.) In the science model we accept these and wait to see what further observational predictions align, or not, with the papers.

Additionally, application is even more impressive. So if we see one of those guys make us anti-gravity cars then WOW! Now you have something with overwhelming proof positive nature. Please let me know how long I should save up for one. I'd love it and be first in line.

Quote:
Yes, and despite specific searching, no Higgs boson.
Yes and No. As the LHC team noted there is enough data to continue further research. So, it wasn't a complete lack either, such as the complete lack of Blackholes.

Quote:
Your problem seems to be that you don't realize it's all relative.
You clearly are not understanding this in relation to a black hole. Relative or not doesn't mean a damn thing. The condition of a black hole is based upon density. What is density? Mass within a volume of space. Now make that mass whatever you want (kittens for all I care) and you have a specific kitten within a volume condition that would be sufficent to create a blackhole. The density has to be sufficent that even light cannot escape, eg c is insufficently fast.

So from this description we can take c and apply it to a region of space to figure out what density is a necessary condition that light going in, won't come out. This resultant density can then be applied to the conditions of a proton. We can do this a couple of ways. We can front end it and see if mass of proton + size of proton is equal too or greater than then necessary density. Or we can backend it and take the density and break out the size of the proton to see what mass must be a necessary condition. And then we compare the proton mass to see if they are the same, or is the proton either greater.

Let's do a simple example to explain why mass being relative is unimport. Let's take some other body as our mass unit. How about the moon. If you took Earth's Moon we'd need to blast it with a shrink ray until it shrunk down to about .1mm to make a black hole. This condition would give you the necessary density (moon per volume) to make a black hole. We can say the necessary density for a black hole must be our relative unit of measure in our volume; or in this case 1 moon per .001meters. Go ahead and take the size of the proton 10-15m and figure out what fraction of the moon you'd need for the proton to be a black hole. That's 10-12ths moon. So now measure your proton mass and compare it to 10-12 of the moon mass. These are no where near equivalent. In truth your proton is much much less. 1 proton clearly does not make up 10-12s of the moon. A proton is about a trillon*trillon*million times smaller than that.

Again if we use the relative mass of 1 moon or grams it really doesn't matter. Your relative mass problem is simply a unit of measure conversion. Density is how much stuff in how much volume and that's what defines a black hole. We can see using the relative mass of the moon that the condition doesn't change the size difference between the density in a proton and the density necessary for a black hole is consistent.


Quote:
Once again, observation matches Nassim H's theory.
Using relative mass of the moon the proton is clearly insufficent in mass to be a blackhole. As is the sun, as is the earth - all claimed by Haramein and all wrong. Not only does the density not work out for these 3 to be sufficently large enough for a black hole the observed characteristics of these 3 objects are inconsitent with blackholes. For example none of them has an event horizon.

Quote:
please not the references to ZPF...
Great link and I will post one of the most important points from the link you posted -- "Because it is the lowest energy state possible, it can only absorb energy. " -- Zero Point is definitionally defined as this! We cannot get any more energy out of that state. If we do get more energy out, by definition, the system is not at the Zero Point. So these claims of using Zero-Point Energy in making perpetual motion machines or powering the earth for eons are very clearly wrong. Why again? Because Zero Point is defined is a condition that no more energy can be extracted.

Last edited by BrianK on 01-Feb-2012 at 02:57 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 01-Feb-2012 at 02:49 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 1-Feb-2012 15:22:36
#1363 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@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.
Quote:
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.
Here's the point of discussion. In the middle of your statements about how SOHO proves math is unnecessary you have a point that the sun is being hit by earth sized objects. How does that point support your arguement? Or if a side note it's fairly unclear in your paragraph, because it falls in the middle of your argument that it's a side note. Yes I did indeed say Earth sized objects diving into the sun can't be seen from earth. And the reason for that is it appears you are trying to insert into the middle of your evidence other examples that support your notion.

Though, I'd like to note that 'earth sized objects' were 1 sentence and at no time did I depend upon that to disprove your claims. Instead I focused many posts on size of object, shape of object, distance, and timing. You focusing on this point is missing the larger discussion. Though again -- Thanks for finally realizing that when you pull those things together Comet Neat could not possibly be the 2nd sun effect in China.

I mentioned earth-sized objects in the same demonstration of SOHO video to so a frame of reference to: the size of the sun, the size of the earth and finally the size of Comet V1/Neat. Nothing more, nothing less. You twisted that into me saying that earthsized objects can FROM EARTH be seen colliding with the sun.

Quote:

Quote:
Meanwhile, despite the post # 1351 being directed at Nimrod, feel free to address it.
Papers good! Papers are postulates, a starting point. Now we need real world experimentation that confirm predictions of the papers. That's how science measures alignment with reality. (Think back to my example of the pretty proof of a 1 dimensional universe but how much it can't make good predictions within ours.) In the science model we accept these and wait to see what further observational predictions align, or not, with the papers.

Additionally, application is even more impressive. So if we see one of those guys make us anti-gravity cars then WOW! Now you have something with overwhelming proof positive nature. Please let me know how long I should save up for one. I'd love it and be first in line.

If you followed the reference in the gravity modification link to the Japanese paper, you'd see that they did indeed lower gravity. This was reproduced by german scientists as well.

Quote:

Quote:
Yes, and despite specific searching, no Higgs boson.
Yes and No. As the LHC team noted there is enough data to continue further research. So, it wasn't a complete lack either, such as the complete lack of Blackholes.

So what you are saying is you have ZERO evidence of a Higgs boson. OK. Got it.

Quote:

Quote:
Your problem seems to be that you don't realize it's all relative.
You clearly are not understanding this in relation to a black hole. Relative or not doesn't mean a damn thing. The condition of a black hole is based upon density. What is density? Mass within a volume of space. Now make that mass whatever you want (kittens for all I care) and you have a specific kitten within a volume condition that would be sufficent to create a blackhole. The density has to be sufficent that even light cannot escape, eg c is insufficently fast.

So from this description we can take c and apply it to a region of space to figure out what density is a necessary condition that light going in, won't come out. This resultant density can then be applied to the conditions of a proton. We can do this a couple of ways. We can front end it and see if mass of proton + size of proton is equal too or greater than then necessary density. Or we can backend it and take the density and break out the size of the proton to see what mass must be a necessary condition. And then we compare the proton mass to see if they are the same, or is the proton either greater.

Let's do a simple example to explain why mass being relative is unimport. Let's take some other body as our mass unit. How about the moon. If you took Earth's Moon we'd need to blast it with a shrink ray until it shrunk down to about .1mm to make a black hole. This condition would give you the necessary density (moon per volume) to make a black hole. We can say the necessary density for a black hole must be our relative unit of measure in our volume; or in this case 1 moon per .001meters. Go ahead and take the size of the proton 10-15m and figure out what fraction of the moon you'd need for the proton to be a black hole. That's 10-12ths moon. So now measure your proton mass and compare it to 10-12 of the moon mass. These are no where near equivalent. In truth your proton is much much less. 1 proton clearly does not make up 10-12s of the moon. A proton is about a trillon*trillon*million times smaller than that.

Again if we use the relative mass of 1 moon or grams it really doesn't matter. Your relative mass problem is simply a unit of measure conversion. Density is how much stuff in how much volume and that's what defines a black hole. We can see using the relative mass of the moon that the condition doesn't change the size difference between the density in a proton and the density necessary for a black hole is consistent.

You problem is you are stuck on relativity when you should be thinking at the quantum level.

Does a proton emit photons: no. Then it could be a black hole. An electron orbits a proton, hence it is not in its event horizon and does indeed emit photons. You keep failing when you keep applying reletavistic masses to quantum structures.

Quote:

Quote:
Once again, observation matches Nassim H's theory.
Using relative mass of the moon the proton is clearly insufficent in mass to be a blackhole. As is the sun, as is the earth - all claimed by Haramein and all wrong. Not only does the density not work out for these 3 to be sufficently large enough for a black hole the observed characteristics of these 3 objects are inconsitent with blackholes. For example none of them has an event horizon.

You problem is you are stuck on relativity when you should be thinking at the quantum level.

Quote:

Quote:
please not the references to ZPF...
Great link and I will post one of the most important points from the link you posted -- "Because it is the lowest energy state possible, it can only absorb energy. " -- Zero Point is definitionally defined as this! We cannot get any more energy out of that state. If we do get more energy out, by definition, the system is not at the Zero Point. So these claims of using Zero-Point Energy in making perpetual motion machines or powering the earth for eons are very clearly wrong. Why again? Because Zero Point is defined is a condition that no more energy can be extracted.

You problem is you are stuck on relativity when you should be thinking at the quantum level.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 1-Feb-2012 15:56:27
#1364 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
Nothing more, nothing less
Thanks for the clarification. Hope you could accept my admittance too.

Quote:
If you followed the reference in the gravity modification link to the Japanese paper, you'd see that they did indeed lower gravity. This was reproduced by german scientists as well.
Two is a great start but insufficent to throw everything away. Open and waiting for more, as always.

Quote:
So what you are saying is you have ZERO evidence of a Higgs boson
That is incorrect! So let me rephrase. LHC gives Higgs about a 99% confidence level of it existing. Scientific acceptance comes closer to 99.999%. So there is more than zero evidence and enough to continue the investigation. OTOH LHC blackholes are in the 0% range.

Quote:
Does a proton emit photons: no. Then it could be a black hole. An electron orbits a proton, hence it is not in its event horizon and does indeed emit photons.
And while you don't believe protons emit photons they do. Photon is a type of exchange for the Electromagnetic force. Just as gluons are the exchange for the strong forces and Bosons for the weak. And you know the graviton. So if a photon didn't emit or absorb a photon it couldn't have an EM force. Oh and BTW you need photons to emit and absorb photons for your EM_is_God postulate.

Quote:
You problem is you are stuck on relativity when you should be thinking at the quantum level.
With that idea the proton sized blackhole could only exist if the density of quantum level blackholes is trillons of times less than the density necessary on the macro level. There is nothing to date to show this. NOTE- you can't use the same scientist to prove himself right. That's circular logic and we need external confirmation and observation.

As for the earth and sun your point of 'relativistic vs quantum' is moot! These are not quantum level items we're talking but macro level. For them to have a blackhole they'd need the same density as one's at the center of galaxies. Clearly neither sun nor earth have that property.

And as for Zero-Point it is definitionally established as the point at which a system cannot give up any more energy and only can absorb. Quantum level or not this is the same. It is a scientifically established term by definition. If you get energy out then you're not at Zero-Point. Because this is a definition (not a postulate, proof, or theory) it's that simple.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 1-Feb-2012 19:47:58
#1365 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK
Quote:

BrianK wrote:
Quote:
So what you are saying is you have ZERO evidence of a Higgs boson
That is incorrect! So let me rephrase. LHC gives Higgs about a 99% confidence level of it existing. Scientific acceptance comes closer to 99.999%. So there is more than zero evidence and enough to continue the investigation. OTOH LHC blackholes are in the 0% range.

Sorry, but what they "believe" and what they "have proved" is not the same thing. In your quest for the mundane, this should count as ZERO evidence.
Now you are sounding like a hypocrit...

Quote:

Quote:
Does a proton emit photons: no. Then it could be a black hole. An electron orbits a proton, hence it is not in its event horizon and does indeed emit photons.
And while you don't believe protons emit photons they do. Photon is a type of exchange for the Electromagnetic force. Just as gluons are the exchange for the strong forces and Bosons for the weak. And you know the graviton. So if a photon didn't emit or absorb a photon it couldn't have an EM force. Oh and BTW you need photons to emit and absorb photons for your EM_is_God postulate.

"EM_is_God postulate" is more of you putting words in my mouth.

Well another name for a single proton is hydrogen. With the electron it is an hydrogen atom and without it is an hydrogen ion. You cannot get two protons together without adding some neutrons. So the closest you can get to pure protons would be an ionized hydrogen gas. This can be found in interstellar space but it is usually detected by the light that is given off when it encounters electrons. So you see, it is not the pRoton that is credited with emitting pHotons. As for pRotons themselves, all particles have dipoles. By arranging them with some neutrons, you can get their charge to cancel out in the nucleus so you can see that it is gravity that holds a nucleus together and not the mythical strong force since the EM force can be cancelled out. If protons were the opposite of electrons, they would have the same mass but differ only in charge and spin. We have particles for that already. Protons are stable. Electrons are not nor are, depending on the situation, neutrons.
So it is neutrons and electrons that emit/absorb photons, not the proton.

Quote:

Quote:
You problem is you are stuck on relativity when you should be thinking at the quantum level.
With that idea the proton sized blackhole could only exist if the density of quantum level blackholes is trillons of times less than the density necessary on the macro level. There is nothing to date to show this. NOTE- you can't use the same scientist to prove himself right. That's circular logic and we need external confirmation and observation.

There are plenty of others. Feel free to dot around this website: http://milesmathis.com/ for one.

Quote:
As for the earth and sun your point of 'relativistic vs quantum' is moot! These are not quantum level items we're talking but macro level. For them to have a blackhole they'd need the same density as one's at the center of galaxies. Clearly neither sun nor earth have that property.

You do understand that density = mass/volume, right? Hence the to maintain the same density, something has to grow proportionally in BOTH mass and volume or shrink in both. Hence there is no lower limit to the volume of a black hole as long as the mass doesn't shrink disproportionally. An electron sits outside the event horizon of the proton, hence it can absorb and emit light. When something knocks it in, it becomes a neutron. It's actually quite logical...

Quote:
And as for Zero-Point it is definitionally established as the point at which a system cannot give up any more energy and only can absorb. Quantum level or not this is the same. It is a scientifically established term by definition. If you get energy out then you're not at Zero-Point. Because this is a definition (not a postulate, proof, or theory) it's that simple.

Recall that the energy of the ZPF was normallized because no one knew what to do about it. In QED, there is plenty of energy at the zero point. The website I linked in this post talks about this fallacy that happened in physics a long time ago...as do many other physicists...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 1-Feb-2012 21:51:05
#1366 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
Sorry, but what they "believe" and what they "have proved" is not the same thing. In your quest for the mundane, this should count as ZERO evidence.
Now you are sounding like a hypocrit...
Unfortunately things in the world aren't as easily black and white as you'd like them. If all the answers were ready up front we wouldn't need science at all. Science is one of following trails and see where they lead. I've fully agreed that Higgs is incomplete. But, so were various things like Evolution and Germ Theory and the planet Vulcan. Now in some of these cases we find those trails lead to a workable idea (evolution) and sometimes to dead-ends Vulcan. But, science as the most open system we have is still the best way to capture this adventure.

Quote:
So it is neutrons and electrons that emit/absorb photons, not the proton.
Don't we have gamma-rays which change nucleus into other nucleus? This is a change of EM energy via the photon. Quarks are components of protons and have a charge so therefore must be able to absorb and emit photons as they change energy levels.

Quote:
"EM_is_God postulate" is more of you putting words in my mouth.
Not really you claim it's all EM, just as others claim it's all God. So I simply combined the two ideas of 'it's all'. And you claim that it's all EM is the beat all final answer when we don't yet have all the evidence. Your activity is a matter of faith like a religion except you don't have to read any books. At least with science we don't start with such a conclusion, our conclusion is open and accepting depending on where the evidence leads, as that evidence becomes available. There's no preset belief. Which is great it avoids those nasty problems of cherry picking and self deception that keeping a belief encounters. Science says 'we don't know the answer yet' so we go into work each day and continue to work on identification of the conclusion.

Quote:
There are plenty of others
An idea cannot be proven true by a vote. The universe cares nothing of your desire for Democracy.

Quote:
Hence there is no lower limit to the volume of a black hole as long as the mass doesn't shrink disproportionally
A black hole is an volume so dense that not even light can escape. You just told us protons can't aborb photons (light). So how does an object that can absorb light not absorb it? Looks to me you have some internal inconsistencies to work out.

Quote:
Recall that the energy of the ZPF was normallized because no one knew what to do about it. In QED, there is plenty of energy at the zero point
The condition of no energy and the condition of zero point energy are two different situations. Zero-Point is DEFINED as the state where no energy can be emitted only absorbed. If you emit energy you are not at the true Zero-Point. Now there may be energy in space and that energy may be extractable, but if so that space is not at a true Zero-Point. It's like saying you went beyond 0K and acheived -10K.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 1-Feb-2012 23:42:57
#1367 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Sorry, but what they "believe" and what they "have proved" is not the same thing. In your quest for the mundane, this should count as ZERO evidence.
Now you are sounding like a hypocrit...
Unfortunately things in the world aren't as easily black and white as you'd like them. If all the answers were ready up front we wouldn't need science at all. Science is one of following trails and see where they lead. I've fully agreed that Higgs is incomplete. But, so were various things like Evolution and Germ Theory and the planet Vulcan. Now in some of these cases we find those trails lead to a workable idea (evolution) and sometimes to dead-ends Vulcan. But, science as the most open system we have is still the best way to capture this adventure.

Ok, hypocracy confirmed. Got it!

Quote:

Quote:
So it is neutrons and electrons that emit/absorb photons, not the proton.
Don't we have gamma-rays which change nucleus into other nucleus? This is a change of EM energy via the photon. Quarks are components of protons and have a charge so therefore must be able to absorb and emit photons as they change energy levels.

But a quark is not a proton. I'm made of 1/2 my mother's dna but it doesn't make me a woman.

Quote:

Quote:
"EM_is_God postulate" is more of you putting words in my mouth.
Not really you claim it's all EM, just as others claim it's all God. So I simply combined the two ideas of 'it's all'. And you claim that it's all EM is the beat all final answer when we don't yet have all the evidence. Your activity is a matter of faith like a religion except you don't have to read any books. At least with science we don't start with such a conclusion, our conclusion is open and accepting depending on where the evidence leads, as that evidence becomes available. There's no preset belief. Which is great it avoids those nasty problems of cherry picking and self deception that keeping a belief encounters. Science says 'we don't know the answer yet' so we go into work each day and continue to work on identification of the conclusion.

yes, thanks for more evidence of how you like to twist things....

Quote:

Quote:
There are plenty of others
An idea cannot be proven true by a vote. The universe cares nothing of your desire for Democracy.

The universe cares nothing of your skews to the mundane as well.
Actually if you look at 'accepted' science it is by democracy in hopes of reason.

Quote:

Quote:
Hence there is no lower limit to the volume of a black hole as long as the mass doesn't shrink disproportionally
A black hole is an volume so dense that not even light can escape. You just told us protons can't aborb photons (light). So how does an object that can absorb light not absorb it? Looks to me you have some internal inconsistencies to work out.

I just told you a proton can absorb an electron and become a neutron, Mr. Trwister.
The electron did all the photon emission/absorbtion.

Quote:

Quote:
Recall that the energy of the ZPF was normallized because no one knew what to do about it. In QED, there is plenty of energy at the zero point
The condition of no energy and the condition of zero point energy are two different situations. Zero-Point is DEFINED as the state where no energy can be emitted only absorbed. If you emit energy you are not at the true Zero-Point. Now there may be energy in space and that energy may be extractable, but if so that space is not at a true Zero-Point. It's like saying you went beyond 0K and acheived -10K.

You are equating absolute zero temperature with zerp-point energy. This is a fallacy. For example, liquid helium does not freeze under atmospheric pressure at any temperature because of its zero-point energy.

Last edited by Lou on 01-Feb-2012 at 11:43 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 2-Feb-2012 0:26:00
#1368 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
Ok, hypocracy confirmed. Got it!
Egads grow up!
I'm here telling you postulates and evidence point toward Higgs so let the research continue. I'm here telling you some of your postulates have unevidenced sources so let the research continue. Higgs research is simply many more steps along the journey to full discount or full account.

Quote:
But a quark is not a proton. I'm made of 1/2 my mother's dna but it doesn't make me a woman.
Quarks make up a proton. They do not make up an electron. Quarks are an EM force carrier which therefore emits and absorbs photons. Zap one with Gamma Rays and the result is a lower level proton with emission of a photon from the proton.

As for you being a woman you might well be I have no knowledge to prove or disprove that.

Quote:
Actually if you look at 'accepted' science it is by democracy in hopes of reason.
Preponderance of evidence is not preponderance of opinion. Certainly science is done by people and therefore always will have an element of the politic. But so far, better evidence has always triumphed.

Quote:
You are equating absolute zero temperature with zerp-point energy
I clearly did not equate the two as the same thing. I made a comparison that ZPE state is one where no further energy can be extracted. Just as 0K is as cold is possible that can never be made colder. The point you note is important because people do confuse the two. So at best it's a similarity that needs to be called out carefully so the reader (such as yourself) doesn't get the false impression that the presenter thinks them the same thing.

Perhaps you don't get what a definition is? They aren't postulates which depend upon evidence. They are definitionally accepted as a part of the system. If you have a system which you extract energy you, by definition, didn't start from the Zero Point.

Last edited by BrianK on 02-Feb-2012 at 12:49 AM.
Last edited by BrianK on 02-Feb-2012 at 12:30 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 2-Feb-2012 16:11:49
#1369 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Thought you might like this. http://i.imgur.com/aYCpm.jpg It's poof positive of aliens constructing a Halo around the moon.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 2-Feb-2012 16:29:31
#1370 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Ok, hypocracy confirmed. Got it!
Egads grow up!
I'm here telling you postulates and evidence point toward Higgs so let the research continue. I'm here telling you some of your postulates have unevidenced sources so let the research continue. Higgs research is simply many more steps along the journey to full discount or full account.

You throw out everything piece of evidence I've given you because it's not proven beyond reasonable doubt but when I do the same for you, you tell me to grow up?
GROW UP BRIANK! You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Higgs boson is UNCONFIRMED! Until it is confirmed, it doesn't exist according to YOUR mundane view of the universe. Either stand by your views or be labelled a hypocrit.

Quote:
Quote:
But a quark is not a proton. I'm made of 1/2 my mother's dna but it doesn't make me a woman.
Quarks make up a proton. They do not make up an electron. Quarks are an EM force carrier which therefore emits and absorbs photons. Zap one with Gamma Rays and the result is a lower level proton with emission of a photon from the proton.

So now you get to state theories as facts? The whole 'standard model' doesn't make alot of sense, so don't argue with me about it. A proton is considered a stable particle. Protons don't jump quantum levels hap-hazzardly like electrons. I'm only pointing out the rules your 'standard model' religion says they are. I have found no documentation about "protons jumping quantum levels" so perhaps it is your POSTULATE that you need to prove.

Quote:

Quote:
Actually if you look at 'accepted' science it is by democracy in hopes of reason.
Preponderance of evidence is not preponderance of opinion. Certainly science is done by people and therefore always will have an element of the politic. But so far, better evidence has always triumphed.

You should take off those rose colored glasses.

Quote:

Quote:
You are equating absolute zero temperature with zerp-point energy
I clearly did not equate the two as the same thing. I made a comparison that ZPE state is one where no further energy can be extracted. Just as 0K is as cold is possible that can never be made colder. The point you note is important because people do confuse the two. So at best it's a similarity that needs to be called out carefully so the reader (such as yourself) doesn't get the false impression that the presenter thinks them the same thing.

So I did.

Quote:
Perhaps you don't get what a definition is? They aren't postulates which depend upon evidence. They are definitionally accepted as a part of the system. If you have a system which you extract energy you, by definition, didn't start from the Zero Point.

And when you don't like the #'s you change the definition. Zero point in one system is not Zero Point in another. I'm trying to be consistent with what I mean by mine...clearly that doesn't suit you when attempting to debunk...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 2-Feb-2012 17:35:34
#1371 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
You throw out everything piece of evidence I've given you because it's not proven beyond reasonable doubt
I think you will note I've never fully rejected anything. I have said EVIDENCE because often you don't provide anything more then a postulate. You have an uncanny knack of misidentifying postulates as Theories or Evidence when they clearly are ideas that don't have support. And if you read what I wrote about your EM_is_God stuff it is RESEARCH SHOULD CONTINUE.

As for Higg's I've said - not found but evidence is strong it exists and RESEARCH SHOULD CONTINUE. No different than what I wrote about your ideas.

Quote:
So now you get to state theories as facts?
The proton being comprised of quarks an EM particle has been established. As is protons releasing photos during events such as exposures to gamma rays which degrade their condition. Up, Down, Strange, Charm, Top, Bottom doesn't matter if you don't know what a quark is it don't matter you still got'em.

Quote:
Zero point in one system is not Zero Point in another. I'm trying to be consistent with what I mean by mine.
Your proposal is to rework a definition to a new definition. IMO bad idea. It renders old usages confusing and adds confusion to what is being talked about. Instead I propose you add a new term into the definitions that conveys the state you mean.

For example, what we see is the claim of limitless power coming from the Zero Point Fields and Zero Point Energies within atoms in the universe. Definitionally they are wrong because Zero Point is defined as a state where no energy is available for extraction. Without extraction one can't use it because they have nothing to use. .. There perhaps is some limitless power out there. But, by definition it doesn't come at the Zero Point.

Last edited by BrianK on 02-Feb-2012 at 05:35 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 3-Feb-2012 0:51:54
#1372 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
As for Higg's I've said - not found but evidence is strong it exists and RESEARCH SHOULD CONTINUE. No different than what I wrote about your ideas.

A search for evidence is not evidence.

Quote:

[quote] So now you get to state theories as facts?
The proton being comprised of quarks an EM particle has been established. As is protons releasing photos during events such as exposures to gamma rays which degrade their condition. Up, Down, Strange, Charm, Top, Bottom doesn't matter if you don't know what a quark is it don't matter you still got'em.

The sum of the parts is not equal to the whole. A proton is stable. If you want to discuss sub-atomic particles then those SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLES ARE NOT A PROTON. Just like a sperm is not a zygote. The mass of the proton is about eighty times greater than the sum of the rest masses of the quarks that make it up. This is your religion I'm quoting here....and you wonder why unified field theory physicists have issues with 'the standard model'. I mean, poop, it's the best we got so it must be true, right?
Quote:

Quote:
Zero point in one system is not Zero Point in another. I'm trying to be consistent with what I mean by mine.
Your proposal is to rework a definition to a new definition. IMO bad idea. It renders old usages confusing and adds confusion to what is being talked about. Instead I propose you add a new term into the definitions that conveys the state you mean.

For example, what we see is the claim of limitless power coming from the Zero Point Fields and Zero Point Energies within atoms in the universe. Definitionally they are wrong because Zero Point is defined as a state where no energy is available for extraction. Without extraction one can't use it because they have nothing to use. .. There perhaps is some limitless power out there. But, by definition it doesn't come at the Zero Point.

I never made claims of limitless power, let's get that straight becase outsiders reading this thread may assume that from your comment. What I said is that the field is there and interactions with this field is what we perceive as matter. It's 'the standard model' that chooses to ignore this field... The standard model is a joke. It's like cavemen saying there is a god of fire and a god of wind, etc... There's a particle for this and a particle for that. The website I linked a few posts ago critiques it quite nicely.

Last edited by Lou on 03-Feb-2012 at 12:54 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 3-Feb-2012 14:28:29
#1373 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
The sum of the parts is not equal to the whole. A proton is stable. If you want to discuss sub-atomic particles then those SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLES ARE NOT A PROTON. Just like a sperm is not a zygote. The mass of the proton is about eighty times greater than the sum of the rest masses of the quarks that make it up. This is your religion I'm quoting here....and you wonder why unified field theory physicists have issues with 'the standard model'. I mean, poop, it's the best we got so it must be true, right?
When postulates predict discoveries this is some of the best evidence we have that we're on the right path. The Standard model has successfully predicted quarks along with many other sub-atomic particle. The one that's not fully proven directly is Higgs. At our present state of knowledge the Higgs has enough collaborting evidence that it's likely to be correct, so we continue research. (EDIT NOTE: Just a reminder that Higg's isn't a requirement of gravity. It's one postulate of probably causes. Higgs mathematics works very well and could possibly have a different cause with similar properties and there are other postulates for this too. So the look for Higgs is not only testing Higgs but various other non-Higgs type of events.)

I appreciate that the mass of 3 quarks is inadequate to fully explain the mass of a proton. This is where condenstate comes into play and together there do make up a bit more than 99% of the mass. Though if you complain 80x too small is bad. I'd think the blackhole postulate is even worse as predicts a mass thats a trillion*trillion times too big. Well, and the proton itself appears to act nothing like a blackhole. Thus, the observational evidence is even worse for a blackhole than it is for a quark.

Quote:
I never made claims of limitless power
And to be clear to readers I never claimed Lou said this either. I gave an example of the pseudoscience about ZeroPoint that has been expressed.

Quote:
The standard model is a joke
Again note that it has successfully predicted every particle, with exception of Higgs which doesn't have enough evidence to date to fully prove or fully disprove.

Last edited by BrianK on 03-Feb-2012 at 04:46 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 3-Feb-2012 17:05:30
#1374 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
The sum of the parts is not equal to the whole. A proton is stable. If you want to discuss sub-atomic particles then those SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLES ARE NOT A PROTON. Just like a sperm is not a zygote. The mass of the proton is about eighty times greater than the sum of the rest masses of the quarks that make it up. This is your religion I'm quoting here....and you wonder why unified field theory physicists have issues with 'the standard model'. I mean, poop, it's the best we got so it must be true, right?
When postulates predict discoveries this is some of the best evidence we have that we're on the right path. The Standard model has successfully predicted quarks along with many other sub-atomic particle. The one that's not fully proven directly is Higgs. At our present state of knowledge the Higgs has enough collaborting evidence that it's likely to be correct, so we continue research.

The standard model has successfully predicted what?
On 24 May 2011 it was reported that quark–gluon plasma (the densest matter besides black holes) has been created in the LHC. QGP seems like a mini-quasar to me and you know what a quasar will become eventually, right?

Quote:
I appreciate that the mass of 3 quarks is inadequate to fully explain the mass of a proton. This is where condenstate comes into play and together there do make up a bit more than 99% of the mass. Though if you complain 80x too small is bad. I'd think the blackhole postulate is even worse as predicts a mass thats a trillion*trillion times too big. Well, and the proton itself appears to act nothing like a blackhole. Thus, the observational evidence is even worse for a blackhole than it is for a quark.

It sounds to me like you keep getting tripped up over the term 'black hole'. Viewed from outside the universe, our universe is a black hole. So, a proton has not been shown to emit light, however, breaking it apart into smaller masses (with less energy density hence gravity) those smaller particles (which are no longer a proton) do indeed emit energy.

Let's recap. Large black holes trap light from farther away because the large black holes have more mass. A small black hole(with less mass) can trap light only from only closer by. So if you keep removing mass (and volume, to maintain density) from a black hole, the light it traps has to be closer and closer. So the radius of a proton-sized black hole is its event horizon.

Quote:

Quote:
The standard model is a joke
Again note that it has successfully predicted every particle, with exception of Higgs which doesn't have enough evidence to date to fully prove or fully disprove.

I'm sorry but to me, smashing two masses together will produce many particles of all possible sizes and combinations that equal to the sum of the two masses. So they found particles of energy(/mass) X, Y and Z when they were looking for them. Who is suprised by this? What was more suprising was QGP. Think of how much energy is there then go back to the schwartzchild condition..

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 3-Feb-2012 18:53:28
#1375 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
The standard model has successfully predicted what?
The Weak Bosons (W&Z) , Gluons, along with Charm and Top Quarks all were predicted by the Std Model prior to observation. Along with masses, of course. For example the Z Boson prediction was 91.1874 within a .0021 error margin. Observationally measured is 91.1876 within a .0021 error margin. Z Boson decay was also predicted and recently observations at CERN align with predictions. Though I'd note there are still scientific duplication and confirmation to go through before general acceptance. As I've said before 1 experiment can't fully establish something. The more preponderance of collaborating evidence the greater the probability of accuracy.

Quote:
So the radius of a proton-sized black hole is its event horizon.
We know the density must be minimally sufficent to trap light. What's that formula something like Event Horizon = 2*BigG*M/speed of light squared. Insert the radius for a proton and solve for mass. What you will find is observational measurements of weight of an atom is insufficent for M. Let alone the observational weight of a proton is insufficent for M.

Quote:
What was more suprising was QGP
Quark-Gluon Plasma? While I agree the postulates are interesting and a couple of experiments seem to indicate it existed during the 'Big Bang' condition. The mathematics and composition make it fairly difficult to claim it's a natural part of our universe post creation.

Also note QGP is part of the Quantum Chromodynamics which is a subset of... wait for it....you threw it out.... The Standard Model. Ouch that had to hurt.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 4-Feb-2012 10:51:07
#1376 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
Quote:
In science belief is irrelevant I do not doubt that there are people trying to square the circle and get something for nothing. What there is, is no evidence of is any notable success.

Perhaps you missed the references in the gravity modification paper...oh yes, you actually did. Japanese scientists reduced gravity. This was reproduced by german scientists but I don't believe that reference is given.
No, I actually didn't miss the reference. But I invite you to compare the evidence of their success with that of the scientists hunting for the Higgs boson. And how do you rate the CERN evidence? I seem to remember the term used was ZERO. If CERN is ZERO, then your big triumph is vastly less than zero

Quote:
Let me get this straight. So what you are saying that because of YOUR religious belief in ancient school books, you can't accept this newer science that [I linked multiple references to prove how it is becoming accepted by scientists] hasn't made it to the lowly school book yet, so you will not change your religion.

Ok, all makes sense now.
No Lou what I am trying to explain to you is that belief is irrelevant. Even if I did actually believe that words written long ago, in some obsolete book was more valid than more recent discoveries, it would not make one iota of difference in the real world. Computers will still work, and cellphones will still ring at the most inconvenient moments. I am not rejecting the CRAP that you post because it is new, I reject it because there is insufficient evidence that it may be correct.

Quote:
By arranging them with some neutrons, you can get their charge to cancel out in the nucleus so you can see that it is gravity that holds a nucleus together and not the mythical strong force since the EM force can be cancelled out.
You need positive and negative to cancel charges, not positive and neutral. Also, I thought you said gravity doesn't exist, now you have moved it around so that gravity occupies the role of strong force while strong force gets dismissed. It is the fact that EM forces cancel out that prevents EM being the dominant force in the universe as you have previously claimed.

Quote:
Hence there is no lower limit to the volume of a black hole as long as the mass doesn't shrink disproportionally.
Leaving aside such concepts as the Planck length, you are possibly correct about the size of black holes, however a proton has a measured size. A black hole with an event horizon measuring 1.5 femtometres, at the density needed to maintain its event horizon will have a mass well in excess of that of a proton. This is the simple mathematics that stops Harameins postulate from advancing.

Quote:
Higgs boson is UNCONFIRMED! Until it is confirmed, it doesn't exist according to YOUR mundane view of the universe. Either stand by your views or be labelled a hypocrit.
.
You really do need to find out what the word "mundane" means. there is no quest for the mundane, things simply become mundane. Once upon a time, horseless carriages were a thing of wonder, now they are mundane. The same applies to colour TV, computers, cellphones etc. One day a four hour trip on warp capable starcruiser to tau ceti may even become mundane, but not yet.
Also despite your complaints about the use of personal attacks instead of looking at the evidence the only person who routinely resorts to such attacks is yourself.

Last edited by Nimrod on 04-Feb-2012 at 04:32 PM.

_________________
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 4-Feb-2012 18:47:27
#1377 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
[quote] In science belief is irrelevant I do not doubt that there are people trying to square the circle and get something for nothing. What there is, is no evidence of is any notable success.

Perhaps you missed the references in the gravity modification paper...oh yes, you actually did. Japanese scientists reduced gravity. This was reproduced by german scientists but I don't believe that reference is given.
No, I actually didn't miss the reference. But I invite you to compare the evidence of their success with that of the scientists hunting for the Higgs boson. And how do you rate the CERN evidence? I seem to remember the term used was ZERO. If CERN is ZERO, then your big triumph is vastly less than zero
[/wrote]
It is totally amusing that I hand you a white egg then see you say its not white.
JAPANESES SCIENTISTS REDUCED GRAVITY, THE WORK WAS THEN REPRODUCED BY GERMAN SCIENTISTS. Who, I just love repeating myself. Meanwhile: evidence for higgs = 0. Also the TR-1B reduces its weight by 89%.

Quote:

Quote:
Let me get this straight. So what you are saying that because of YOUR religious belief in ancient school books, you can't accept this newer science that [I linked multiple references to prove how it is becoming accepted by scientists] hasn't made it to the lowly school book yet, so you will not change your religion.

Ok, all makes sense now.
No Lou what I am trying to explain to you is that belief is irrelevant. Even if I did actually believe that words written long ago, in some obsolete book was more valid than more recent discoveries, it would not make one iota of difference in the real world. Computers will still work, and cellphones will still ring at the most inconvenient moments. I am not rejecting the CRAP that you post because it is new, I reject it because there is insufficient evidence that it may be correct.

I told you your belief system has a 30-year revelancy period. AKA in 30 years when what I've been presenting makes it into a young engineer's school book with an application for the real world, then you will believe it. This is what your religious belief system consists of...

Quote:

Quote:
By arranging them with some neutrons, you can get their charge to cancel out in the nucleus so you can see that it is gravity that holds a nucleus together and not the mythical strong force since the EM force can be cancelled out.
You need positive and negative to cancel charges, not positive and neutral. Also, I thought you said gravity doesn't exist, now you have moved it around so that gravity occupies the role of strong force while strong force gets dismissed. It is the fact that EM forces cancel out that prevents EM being the dominant force in the universe as you have previously claimed.

I told you what gravity was. I told you it's not what you think. I've linked formulas defining big G. You must have a short and selective memory. That much is obvious.

Quote:

Quote:
Hence there is no lower limit to the volume of a black hole as long as the mass doesn't shrink disproportionally.
Leaving aside such concepts as the Planck length, you are possibly correct about the size of black holes

Actually, I am.

Quote:
, however a proton has a measured size. A black hole with an event horizon measuring 1.5 femtometres, at the density needed to maintain its event horizon will have a mass well in excess of that of a proton. This is the simple mathematics that stops Harameins postulate from advancing.

No, it's the standard model mass of the proton that blinds you of this fact. The mass of the schwartzchild proton fits the bill. You and BrianK are fixiated on a broken model.

Quote:

Quote:
Higgs boson is UNCONFIRMED! Until it is confirmed, it doesn't exist according to YOUR mundane view of the universe. Either stand by your views or be labelled a hypocrit.
.
You really do need to find out what the word "mundane" means. there is no quest for the mundane, things simply become mundane. Once upon a time, horseless carriages were a thing of wonder, now they are mundane. The same applies to colour TV, computers, cellphones etc. One day a four hour trip on warp capable starcruiser to tau ceti may even become mundane, but not yet.
Also despite your complaints about the use of personal attacks instead of looking at the evidence the only person who routinely resorts to such attacks is yourself.

For this definition, you can review my conversation with BrianK for the last 15 pages of this thread...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6AAhTw7RA
Hmmm...because Quantum science is way off, right?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 4-Feb-2012 19:08:00
#1378 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
The standard model has successfully predicted what?
The Weak Bosons (W&Z) , Gluons, along with Charm and Top Quarks all were predicted by the Std Model prior to observation. Along with masses, of course. For example the Z Boson prediction was 91.1874 within a .0021 error margin. Observationally measured is 91.1876 within a .0021 error margin. Z Boson decay was also predicted and recently observations at CERN align with predictions. Though I'd note there are still scientific duplication and confirmation to go through before general acceptance. As I've said before 1 experiment can't fully establish something. The more preponderance of collaborating evidence the greater the probability of accuracy.

They found an energy level in a sea of energy where any level is possible. Did they alse see the predicted effect of said particle? No they only measured an energy level, nothing is actually seen literally.

Quote:

Quote:
So the radius of a proton-sized black hole is its event horizon.
We know the density must be minimally sufficent to trap light. What's that formula something like Event Horizon = 2*BigG*M/speed of light squared. Insert the radius for a proton and solve for mass. What you will find is observational measurements of weight of an atom is insufficent for M. Let alone the observational weight of a proton is insufficent for M.

Nassim did all the math for you BrianK.

Quote:
Quote:
What was more suprising was QGP
Quark-Gluon Plasma? While I agree the postulates are interesting and a couple of experiments seem to indicate it existed during the 'Big Bang' condition. The mathematics and composition make it fairly difficult to claim it's a natural part of our universe post creation.

So let's follow the logic here...they smash two mini-black holes together, destablizing them to the point where some mass is broken off, now you see LIGHT FINALLY BEING EMITTED, ZOMG!

It's only your standard model trail of broken logic that is failing here...

Quote:

Also note QGP is part of the Quantum Chromodynamics which is a subset of... wait for it....you threw it out.... The Standard Model. Ouch that had to hurt.

It's a more modern revision of it that accepts vacuum energy. Hence, not quite as broken.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 5-Feb-2012 0:45:45
#1379 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
This is what your religious belief system consists of...
This is rich coming from somebody who stated that "mathematics is not necessary" Without mathematics all you have is opinion, faith, and ultimately ignorance. When will you start to learn the first fundamental principle that belief is irrelevant. One of the reasons why the world has changed since I left school is that engineers like myself made the equipment that enabled scientists to push against the boundaries of human ignorance. Far from clinging to the certainties of the past, I have in some small way helped to contribute to the changes that have taken place.

Quote:
I told you what gravity was.
Correction, you tried to push a pile of CRAP without considering the basic mathematical evidence that disproves your fantasy about the universe being run on EM.

Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6AAhTw7RA
Hmmm...because Quantum science is way off, right?
Just because the illusionist says "quantum" during his presentation, it doesn't mean that the real answer is quantum anything. Bog standard superconducting maglev is not quantum, any more than a stage illusionist really does magic. not quantum, also not anti-gravity, simply mundane

Quote:
The mass of the schwartzchild proton fits the bill.
The mass of a black hole at the scale measured for a proton is far too great and the schwartzchild radius of a mass matching that measured for a proton is far below the Planck length, which if true would totally invalidate any and all quantum. Therefore the mass of the scwartzchild proton definitely does not fit the bill.

Quote:
Nassim did all the math for you BrianK.
Wrong again. No maths, just more numerology. I went back to look at the link you posted in #1311 and fount the article by bobathon that Harameins acolytes found so offensive. How dare bobathon suggest that people should actually think, instead of blissfully accepting the word of their glorious leader.

_________________
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 5-Feb-2012 15:42:27
#1380 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
This is what your religious belief system consists of...
This is rich coming from somebody who stated that [u]"mathematics is not necessary"[/b] Without mathematics all you have is opinion, faith, and ultimately ignorance. When will you start to learn the first fundamental principle that belief is irrelevant. One of the reasons why the world has changed since I left school is that engineers like myself made the equipment that enabled scientists to push against the boundaries of human ignorance. Far from clinging to the certainties of the past, I have in some small way helped to contribute to the changes that have taken place.

Way to take me out of context! Are you trying to earn the Mr. Twist title?

Quote:

Quote:
I told you what gravity was.
Correction, you tried to push a pile of CRAP without considering the basic mathematical evidence that disproves your fantasy about the universe being run on EM.

Yes, I do apologize for smashing your belief system by posting an actual formula!

Quote:

Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6AAhTw7RA
Hmmm...because Quantum science is way off, right?
Just because the illusionist says "quantum" during his presentation, it doesn't mean that the real answer is quantum anything. Bog standard superconducting maglev is not quantum, any more than a stage illusionist really does magic. not quantum, also not anti-gravity, simply mundane

Is that because superconductivity is a relativistic property? ...oh wait!

Quote:

Quote:
The mass of the schwartzchild proton fits the bill.
The mass of a black hole at the scale measured for a proton is far too great and the schwartzchild radius of a mass matching that measured for a proton is far below the Planck length, which if true would totally invalidate any and all quantum. Therefore the mass of the scwartzchild proton definitely does not fit the bill.

An event horizon is not actually part of the mass of a black hole... Geez...

Quote:

Quote:
Nassim did all the math for you BrianK.
Wrong again. No maths, just more numerology. I went back to look at the link you posted in #1311 and fount the article by bobathon that Harameins acolytes found so offensive. How dare bobathon suggest that people should actually think, instead of blissfully accepting the word of their glorious leader.

You read bob-a-thon's post but failed to process Nassim's response to it where every point is answered. Good job...not!

 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