Oh my, what have we here?
Is that Brandenburg's theory being reviewed?

About the publisher:
Quote:

The Astronomical Review publishes papers covering recent research and discoveries in the fields of astronomy and cosmology. We publish only exceptional quality papers that have gone through our extensive peer-review process.

@BrianK and any other rocket scientists come lately...

It is further amusing that you deny that light has mass despite the fact that you have posted many times about gravity bending the path of light. Perhaps gravity has a magical property call BKF, an acronymn for BrianK fudge...I mean force, which allows it to bend the path of photons in space.

Yep, I think I will publish my BrianK Fudge theory. It will be universally accepted because clearly this CRAP force exists as we can demonstrate that the course of photons can be altered by gravity. It totally needs a new name because clearly it's couldn't possibly be 'gravity'... Perhaps those 'standard model' rocket scientists will call it the 'brown/Briank color force'.

@Lou

Quote:

You love spinning wheels, don't you? http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html 4.6% vs. 95.4% = NOT A MAJOR PLAYER IN THE UNIVERSE

Did you happen to read this page? Here's something you appear to have missed.
" If 72% of the energy density in the universe is in the form of dark energy, which has a gravitationally repulsive effect, it is just the right amount to explain both the flatness of the universe and the observed accelerated expansion. Thus dark energy explains many cosmological observations at once. "
72% of the energy with a GRAVITAIONAL effect sounds very much counter to your claim that gravitational effects are neglible.

Quote:

I do not feel the need to prove anything to any of you especially when none of you have proven what I believe to be wrong and only put the onus on me

There are some serious points of order here. First it is LOU who is espousing all this is the real truth. Thereby the onus is on LOU to demonsrate his view isn't faith but proven. You are the best violator of your own rule #5. Second, Nimrod and myself, along with others (olegie?) have indeed proven your sources to be wrong on many occasions. EXAMPLE: Just one recently was the gent you cited in your sources as blackholes at the center of atoms, the earth, and the sun. NONE of those 3 objects have been observational properties that align with a blackhole.

Quote:

You claim I have failed, when it is indeed SCIENCE who has failed to answer the mystery that is dark energy.

What the heck are you talking about. I've repeatedly said that the Dark Energy math works very well. I also have admitted that people do not have proof of Dark Energy. I've also provided alternatives to Dark Energy.

See the problem here is you demand and accept an answer today. Instead of an open system that says 'unknown here let's figure it out'. You've already figured out all the unknowns. The problem is you've concluded before you've evidenced. "Truth" is something we cannot establish with leaps of faith.

Quote:

Gravity's been unified in GEM theory by Brandenburg

Words in print do not denote truth. One must demonstrate them to be true. Brandenburg is one of many people that claim to have solved the ultimate answer in physics. To date 0 have demonstrated true. I'm all open to Brandenburg being true. However, I refuse to make a leap of faith and claim truth when there's a severe lack of evidence and
error checking to back up that claim.

Quote:

Funny, that sounds alot like all scientific theories to me

No doubt the problem lies in your misunderstanding of what a Scientific Theory is. And no doubt you don't get how theories are not facts.

Quote:

I have linked plenty of articles where scientists complain about the system in place

I think you skipped over my blames of humans for being humans in that post. And of course those previous posts of mine explaining any endeavor of more than 1 person is innately political. If you can find how to get politics out of the person let us know.

Quote:

Ah yes, the old 'best we have' complacency issue.

Not so strangely science continues to tick along. Complacency means we'd do nothing. And yet you, yourself cite evidence against your own idea here. As Brandenburgh's work is being reviewed by scientists. Someday you'll figure out when you're sticking that index finger out blaming science that all the other fingers are pointing back at the real problem.

@Lou

Quote:

You claim to 'embrace' but in practice you are lying.

Do you have any evidence for this claim, or are you just being offensive?
Quote:

EM is many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.

Do you have any evidence for this claim, or are you just repeating your tired old mantra?
Quote:

Attention Nimrod: how does your 99% accurate science posted by you and BrianK look being off by 13 orders of magnitude?

So have you any evidence that your postulates are more accurate? If so why have you not posted it?
Quote:

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/envia-claims-breakthrough-in-lithium-ion-battery-cost-and-energy-density/

Somebody spends time and effort studying how to get more energy out of a battery and the answer turns out to be related to EM. What a surprise! You do know that EM stands for ElectroMagnetism, and batteries are a source of electrical energy, don't you?
Quote:

Gravity has already been proven to NOT be the major player in the universe

Do you have any evidence for this claim, or are you just trying to resurrect your EM is GOD religion?
Quote:

I have expressed openness to new science where as you and Nimrod claim to champion science

No Lou, you champion any new statement as "true" until proven beyond all logical and illogical dispute to be false. If science followed this model we would still be discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or phlogiston chemistry, while believing that JFK was shot by his driver. The 4% accuracy you postulate for the scientific method is infinitely more accurate than the unproven postulates that you champion, including the fantasies of Sitchin that started this thread.
Quote:

Gravity's been unified in GEM theory by Brandenburg, oops!

Do you have any evidence for this claim, or are you just hoping to get an unsupported postulate accepted as fact? A new theory has to be more accurate than the ones it is trying to supplant, not merely newer.
Quote:

As far as relativity goes, GEM theory is the new 'best we have'

Is it really? And your evidence for this claim is... non-existent. The book is an unsupported reiteration of his postulate, coupled with grievances about how "the establishment" keeps ignoring his genius.
Quote:

Oh my, what have we here? Is that Brandenburg's theory being reviewed?

One of the opening statements in the article you linked to
"GEM uses the concept of gravity fields as Poynting fields to postulate that the non-metric portion of the EM stress tensor becomes the metric tensor in strong fields"
Did you notice the key word here, or are we back to accepting the conclusion and ignoring the need for evidence? IF Brandenburgs postulates become acceped scientific ideas, it will be because of evidence rather than faith, and as soon as Brandenburg becomes accepted somebody somewhere will start trying to supplant him, and prove him wrong.
Quote:

clearly this CRAP force exists as we can demonstrate that the course of photons can be altered by gravity.

Yes, you are right, gravitational lensing does occur. Just not on the scale that Znidarsic claims in his particular piece of CRAP where he claims light is slowed to 0.3% of its normal speed by the proximity of an atoms nucleus.

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

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: You love spinning wheels, don't you? http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html 4.6% vs. 95.4% = NOT A MAJOR PLAYER IN THE UNIVERSE Did you happen to read this page? Here's something you appear to have missed. " If 72% of the energy density in the universe is in the form of dark energy, which has a gravitationally repulsive effect, it is just the right amount to explain both the flatness of the universe and the observed accelerated expansion. Thus dark energy explains many cosmological observations at once. " 72% of the energy with a GRAVITAIONAL effect sounds very much counter to your claim that gravitational effects are neglible.

The irony of you accepting this gravitationally repulsive effect is that now you agree with the possibility that ufos use anti-gravity ... and that anti-gravity exists.
Hypocracy re-confirmed.

Quote:

Quote: I do not feel the need to prove anything to any of you especially when none of you have proven what I believe to be wrong and only put the onus on me There are some serious points of order here. First it is LOU who is espousing all this is the real truth. Thereby the onus is on LOU to demonsrate his view isn't faith but proven. You are the best violator of your own rule #5. Second, Nimrod and myself, along with others (olegie?) have indeed proven your sources to be wrong on many occasions. EXAMPLE: Just one recently was the gent you cited in your sources as blackholes at the center of atoms, the earth, and the sun. NONE of those 3 objects have been observational properties that align with a blackhole.

1) the source was attacked because he didn't have a PhD (good old boys club) 2) I showed examples of it being observed, which of course you naturally deny or disbelieve 3) failed to understand what mass is even though I showed that photons despite having 1 rest 'mass', can have a large 'mass' due to mass-energy equivalence

Quote:

Quote: You claim I have failed, when it is indeed SCIENCE who has failed to answer the mystery that is dark energy. What the heck are you talking about. I've repeatedly said that the Dark Energy math works very well. I also have admitted that people do not have proof of Dark Energy. I've also provided alternatives to Dark Energy.

Stop the presses! BrianK accepts alternative theories...I call shenmanigans!
So, I as well have provided alternatives. It is only your ego that classifies the ones provided by you as more acceptable.

Quote:

See the problem here is you demand and accept an answer today. Instead of an open system that says 'unknown here let's figure it out'. You've already figured out all the unknowns. The problem is you've concluded before you've evidenced. "Truth" is something we cannot establish with leaps of faith.

That's funny, that's exactly how you view your Bin-O-Beliefs.

Quote:

Quote: Gravity's been unified in GEM theory by Brandenburg Words in print do not denote truth. One must demonstrate them to be true. Brandenburg is one of many people that claim to have solved the ultimate answer in physics. To date 0 have demonstrated true. I'm all open to Brandenburg being true. However, I refuse to make a leap of faith and claim truth when there's a severe lack of evidence and error checking to back up that claim.

Perhaps you should read his book, like I did. It's explain quite simply as the reviews have said and that's why it is gaining acceptance...and being PUBLISHED.

Quote:

Quote: Funny, that sounds alot like all scientific theories to me No doubt the problem lies in your misunderstanding of what a Scientific Theory is. And no doubt you don't get how theories are not facts.

Pot, kettle anyone?

Quote:

Quote: I have linked plenty of articles where scientists complain about the system in place I think you skipped over my blames of humans for being humans in that post. And of course those previous posts of mine explaining any endeavor of more than 1 person is innately political. If you can find how to get politics out of the person let us know. Quote: Ah yes, the old 'best we have' complacency issue. Not so strangely science continues to tick along. Complacency means we'd do nothing. And yet you, yourself cite evidence against your own idea here. As Brandenburgh's work is being reviewed by scientists. Someday you'll figure out when you're sticking that index finger out blaming science that all the other fingers are pointing back at the real problem.

Here is your fallacy. Talk about science 2 ways but refer to it as one. I refer to things separately.

What you refer to as 'science' is your subset of accept beliefs published by the controlling establishment that governs what is and is not 'acceptable' and that establishment itself.

What I refer to as 'science' is merely the subject. When I refer to 'accepted science' am referring to the establishment. 'Your science/bin-o-beliefs' is the sub-set of what the establishment has released that you actually have studied and believe. So to summarize:
Science is cool.
The establishment sucks.
Your beliefs are biased.

So please don't lecture me how 'science' moves on, etc...because you are not open to all of science, just what you believe because you read it in a book published by the establishment some 30-odd years ago. Mmmmk?

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: You claim to 'embrace' but in practice you are lying. Do you have any evidence for this claim, or are you just being offensive?

Just review this thread. If you are offended, color me not caring.

Quote:

Quote: EM is many orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. Do you have any evidence for this claim, or are you just repeating your tired old mantra?

Ah yes, the old 'onus is on Lou to prove everything mantra'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction
Let this be my bid for you to smarten up.

Quote:

Quote: Attention Nimrod: how does your 99% accurate science posted by you and BrianK look being off by 13 orders of magnitude? So have you any evidence that your postulates are more accurate? If so why have you not posted it?

Perhaps your faith prevents you from following links and seeing for yourself?

Quote:

Quote: http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/envia-claims-breakthrough-in-lithium-ion-battery-cost-and-energy-density/ Somebody spends time and effort studying how to get more energy out of a battery and the answer turns out to be related to EM. What a surprise! You do know that EM stands for ElectroMagnetism, and batteries are a source of electrical energy, don't you? Quote: Gravity has already been proven to NOT be the major player in the universe Do you have any evidence for this claim, or are you just trying to resurrect your EM is GOD religion?

Well, it certainly didn't involve gravity, or strong/color force did it?

Quote:

Quote: I have expressed openness to new science where as you and Nimrod claim to champion science No Lou, you champion any new statement as "true" until proven beyond all logical and illogical dispute to be false. If science followed this model we would still be discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or phlogiston chemistry, while believing that JFK was shot by his driver. The 4% accuracy you postulate for the scientific method is infinitely more accurate than the unproven postulates that you champion, including the fantasies of Sitchin that started this thread.

"Champion" is a strong word. I said I believe his ideas that this planet was seeded and that ancient structures are more logically explained as being built advanced technology than wood and sting like some pudnits suggest.

JFK was shot by his driver. He was shot from the front not the back. If you, living across the pond, haven't been privy to all the details, that's not my problem.

The rest of that quote is just angry garbage that you like to post.

Quote:

Quote: Gravity's been unified in GEM theory by Brandenburg, oops! Do you have any evidence for this claim, or are you just hoping to get an unsupported postulate accepted as fact? A new theory has to be more accurate than the ones it is trying to supplant, not merely newer. Quote: As far as relativity goes, GEM theory is the new 'best we have' Is it really? And your evidence for this claim is... non-existent. The book is an unsupported reiteration of his postulate, coupled with grievances about how "the establishment" keeps ignoring his genius. Quote: Oh my, what have we here? Is that Brandenburg's theory being reviewed? One of the opening statements in the article you linked to "GEM uses the concept of gravity fields as Poynting fields to postulate that the non-metric portion of the EM stress tensor becomes the metric tensor in strong fields" Did you notice the key word here, or are we back to accepting the conclusion and ignoring the need for evidence? IF Brandenburgs postulates become acceped scientific ideas, it will be because of evidence rather than faith, and as soon as Brandenburg becomes accepted somebody somewhere will start trying to supplant him, and prove him wrong. Quote: clearly this CRAP force exists as we can demonstrate that the course of photons can be altered by gravity. Yes, you are right, gravitational lensing does occur. Just not on the scale that Znidarsic claims in his particular piece of CRAP where he claims light is slowed to 0.3% of its normal speed by the proximity of an atoms nucleus.

As any theory, it will be at some point replaced by a better one. So you can forever call something a postulate, however its a working one as it CLEARLY defines big G where as 'big G', plank's constant, fine structure constant, etc... were things measured but the 'why' they are what they are was never established. I have shown you NEW science that has gone beyond the science of the early 1900's and answered those "why's" and provided some "how's". Only your ego prevents you from accepting them.

@Lou

Quote:

The irony of you accepting this gravitationally repulsive effect is that now you agree with the possibility that ufos use anti-gravity ... and that anti-gravity exists.

It's an open system it's always open to all possiblities. The devil is in the details. So where can board this anti-gravity ufo you claim to exist?

Oh and back to the point now that your own links didn't support you in the way you wanted do you still think what you? Or simpler do you still believe gravity to be a very minor effect at best even when your link assigns it a dominate 72% in the universe?

Quote:

Stop the presses! BrianK accepts alternative theories

Hello open system! Always open to any possibility. Though accepting that theory as true depends on evidence. Perhaps this is why you see it as a personal attack? It's not Lou's arguements need evidence it's all arguements need evidence.

Quote:

That's funny, that's exactly how you view your Bin-O-Beliefs

My "belief" is that demonstratable truth is more valuable than blind faith.

Quote:

It's explain quite simply as the reviews have said and that's why it is gaining acceptance...and being PUBLISHED

Again I request you watch and take to heard understandings of fallcies. 'Gaining acceptance' is an argument from popularity. Just because a group of people believe something to be true doesn't make it true. Truth comes from demonstrability.

Which again we're open to Brandenburg's postulates of GEM Theory. At this point in time there is simply inadequate evidence to either confirm or deny. That's the problem I'm having with your view. You confirm without evidence - you made a religious leap of faith. EM_is_God is a great way to summarize that concept without long paragraphs explaining it time and again.

Quote:

What you refer to as 'science' is your subset of accept beliefs published by the controlling establishment that governs what is and is not 'acceptable' and that establishment itself.

Not true. I never said nor implied this.

And in fact I've tried to accept your conclusion. The problem often is you leave your audience hanging by breaking your own rule #5. You never have to show your work. That leaves your readers accepting only through faith in Lou, as they have nothing else.

Personally I've never accepted or rejected anything through faith in Lou. I've accepted the postulates and demonstrated how wrong many of them are. I've actually done most of your work for you. You just didn't like it because it didn't back your faith based conclusion.


Quote:

What I refer to as 'science' is merely the subject

Are you meaning we could replace 'science' with 'the study of'? If so that certainly short sells what science is. I'd recommend you read Kuhn and Popper. It seems like some good work on views on how this all works that you missed out on.

Last edited by BrianK on 02-Mar-2012 at 09:47 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

I said I believe his ideas that this planet was seeded and that ancient structures are more logically explained as being built advanced technology than wood and sting like some pudnits suggest.

Aliens Vs Humans
Unknown existence, direct and indirect evidence of existence
Unknown origin, Indirect evidence of origin
Unknown transportation, Indirect evidence of transportation
Unknown tools, Direct and indirect evidence of tools
Unknown methods, Direct testing of tools leads to possible methods
Unknown skills handling rocks, unknown skills handling rocks

So what we see is the logical explainations for aliens is fairly easy. The alien excuse allows the accepter to assign whatever fanciful properties they want, not prove it, and yet claim it to be true.

Though I'd argue Sprites and Fairies are more logical than aliens. Since they were naturally occurring on earth they didn't need need to build a space craft to travel interstellar distances to go move a few rocks. They used thier magic to make it all happen. They all died out and bodies have decayed so we no longer fing them building stone structures. Certainly we have people who have photographed, believe in, and claim them to be real. Far better evidence than anything alien related.

Last edited by BrianK on 03-Mar-2012 at 01:05 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Just review this thread. If you are offended, color me not caring.

I am not the one calling other people liars. Nor am I the one claiming to be persecuted, or having my words twisted, or whining about being the victim of personal attacks.

Quote:

Ah yes, the old 'onus is on Lou to prove everything mantra' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction Let this be my bid for you to smarten up.

No Lou the onus is on anybody who has a new idea to prove that it is an improvement. The alternative is that we scrap science and go back to religious faith, followed by religious fundamentalism and burning heretics at the stake. I may disagree with Brandenburg and Znidarsic, but I am not calling for a fatwa.
Taken from your attempt to "smarten me up" is the following comment that seems to be too difficult for you to understand. Quote:

Nothing "cancels" gravity, since it is only attractive, unlike electric forces which can be attractive or repulsive. On the other hand, all objects having mass are subject to the gravitational force, which only attracts. Therefore, only gravitation matters on the large scale structure of the universe.

This is precisely the same point that I and BrianK have made to you on more than one occasion, and as yet you have done nothing but throw up all kinds of ridiculous, unsupported fantasies to try and avoid. Your entire "Gravity doesn't exist" rant began when it was pointed out that your invisible planet had no gravitational influence on the orbits of planets in the solar system.

Quote:

Perhaps your faith prevents you from following links and seeing for yourself?

This is a remarkable comment, coming from the same person who previously posted a complaint that I had read one of his posts, watched the video and shown it to be pure unadulterated CRAP. Does the phrase "I would never delve that deeply into something someone posted on the internet." stir any memories?

Quote:

"Champion" is a strong word. I said I believe his ideas that this planet was seeded and that ancient structures are more logically explained as being built advanced technology than wood and sting like some pudnits suggest.

The key term in this statement is "I believe". Your religious faith is of no interest to me. As I have previously pointed out, Belief is irrelevant, only evidence based, mathematically consistent ideas can contribute to scientific advance. All else is fantasy, and your space invaders are an unnecessary construct to explain something that needs no explanation. One of the statements used to support the "aliens built it" idea is that scientists cannot explain the stoneworking methodology. Maybe they can't, but stonemasons can. Ask the right trade and you will get a better answer.

Quote:

JFK was shot by his driver. He was shot from the front not the back. If you, living across the pond, haven't been privy to all the details, that's not my problem.

The "evidence" for this claim is six frames of blurred cine footage. Cine cameras run at 18 frames per second. The so called gun is in fact the reflection of sunlight off the brylcreem used by the front seat passenger to keep his hair pasted down. I already listed a frame by frame account of this footage, but is was clearly too complicated for you to follow, unless of course we are back to the "I would never delve that deeply into something someone posted on the internet." principle of Lou.

Quote:

As any theory, it will be at some point replaced by a better one.

Well spotted. The problem is that you have yet to produce this "better theory", and not merely a whole steaming pile of self contradictory, mutually exclusive Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Proposals.

You seem to be on a quest to prove that mainstream science has got just one tiny point wrong, which will mean that everything else, that anybody ever thought is wrong, and Lou is the sole arbiter of all that is right. I have some bad news for you. It doesn't work like that.

Last edited by Nimrod on 03-Mar-2012 at 03:58 PM.

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

@Lou

Quote:

It is further amusing that you deny that light has mass despite the fact that you have posted many times about gravity bending the path of light. Perhaps gravity has a magical property call BKF, an acronymn for BrianK fudge...I mean force, which allows it to bend the path of photons in space.

You've nearly figured out the answer to your question. EM and Gravity are different in their interactions. Gravity is the bending of space. Since photons are traveling in space they must follow this bent path of space.

Start of Thought Exercise: Think of spacetime as a road. All cars must travel on the roads. When the road is straight the cars go straight. But, a road through a mountain (aka Mass) is influenced by the mountain (results in gravity). The road goes up, down, and curves around. Consequently the car goes up, down, and curves around because it must follow the road. Now you might think the car could go straight when the road curves down. To do this the car could leave the road. (Example: Jumping General Lee from the Dukes of Hazzard) Similarily an object in spacetime could ignore the curve of spacetime if it could do a General Lee jump out of spacetime. It appears photons can't do jumps like the General Lee. : End thought exercise

The problem in your thought appears to lay with an innate assumption of your premise. You are assuming the mass of an object attracts a photon and therefore photons must have mass. It doesn't work that way. EM and Gravity is different. EM directly impacts EM. Like charges repell and dislike charges attract. Mass directly impacts spacetime. It does not directly impact other objects.

How does gravity work? Mass curves spacetime. Another object traveling in spacetime must abide to the rules of spacetime. The traveling object follows the curve. It doesn't matter if the other object has mass or not. The property that matters of the other object is the object must exist within spacetime and cannot exist outside of spacetime. If that's the case the rules of the road are adhered to and the object follows the dips and curves of the road. The result is an indirect attraction on the other object, even if that object has no mass.

Your thought can be fairly rephrased as masses attract other masses. Photons are attracted. Therefore photons have mass. As shown above it's not that mass attracts mass it's that mass changes the available paths of travel in spacetime. It's that change in path in spacetime that causes an attraction of everything that exists within spacetime, independent of mass.

What you cited as the BrianK fudge is really an application of gravity as defined by Einstein. Not as misdefined by Lou. So thanks for the labeling but since Einstein came first it's wholely unfair for you to rename his work after me.

In summary you're right. It's the path of light that's bent (spacetime)and light follows the path. Though light doesn't need the property of mass to follow the spacetime. If you want photons to have mass you can't there by this thought.

Last edited by BrianK on 03-Mar-2012 at 09:57 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: I said I believe his ideas that this planet was seeded and that ancient structures are more logically explained as being built advanced technology than wood and sting like some pudnits suggest. Aliens Vs Humans Unknown existence, direct and indirect evidence of existence Unknown origin, Indirect evidence of origin Unknown transportation, Indirect evidence of transportation Unknown tools, Direct and indirect evidence of tools Unknown methods, Direct testing of tools leads to possible methods Unknown skills handling rocks, unknown skills handling rocks So what we see is the logical explainations for aliens is fairly easy. The alien excuse allows the accepter to assign whatever fanciful properties they want, not prove it, and yet claim it to be true. Though I'd argue Sprites and Fairies are more logical than aliens. Since they were naturally occurring on earth they didn't need need to build a space craft to travel interstellar distances to go move a few rocks. They used thier magic to make it all happen. They all died out and bodies have decayed so we no longer fing them building stone structures. Certainly we have people who have photographed, believe in, and claim them to be real. Far better evidence than anything alien related.

Feel free to build me a pyramid with wood and string then. Let me know when you're done.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Just review this thread. If you are offended, color me not caring. I am not the one calling other people liars. Nor am I the one claiming to be persecuted, or having my words twisted, or whining about being the victim of personal attacks.

Would you like some cheese?

Quote:

Quote: Ah yes, the old 'onus is on Lou to prove everything mantra' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction Let this be my bid for you to smarten up. No Lou the onus is on anybody who has a new idea to prove that it is an improvement. The alternative is that we scrap science and go back to religious faith, followed by religious fundamentalism and burning heretics at the stake. I may disagree with Brandenburg and Znidarsic, but I am not calling for a fatwa.

So in other words you finally accept that EM is 39 (wait for it) orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. Good.

Quote:

Taken from your attempt to "smarten me up" is the following comment that seems to be too difficult for you to understand. Quote: Nothing "cancels" gravity, since it is only attractive, unlike electric forces which can be attractive or repulsive. On the other hand, all objects having mass are subject to the gravitational force, which only attracts. Therefore, only gravitation matters on the large scale structure of the universe. This is precisely the same point that I and BrianK have made to you on more than one occasion, and as yet you have done nothing but throw up all kinds of ridiculous, unsupported fantasies to try and avoid. Your entire "Gravity doesn't exist" rant began when it was pointed out that your invisible planet had no gravitational influence on the orbits of planets in the solar system.

Here is where you and the wiki are out-dated. Gravity can be cancelled out as several scientists have shown.

Quote:

Quote: Perhaps your faith prevents you from following links and seeing for yourself? This is a remarkable comment, coming from the same person who previously posted a complaint that I had read one of his posts, watched the video and shown it to be pure unadulterated CRAP. Does the phrase "I would never delve that deeply into something someone posted on the internet." stir any memories?

Today's crap is tomorrow's science. You can only live in denial for so long.

Quote:

Quote: "Champion" is a strong word. I said I believe his ideas that this planet was seeded and that ancient structures are more logically explained as being built advanced technology than wood and sting like some pudnits suggest. The key term in this statement is "I believe". Your religious faith is of no interest to me. As I have previously pointed out, Belief is irrelevant, only evidence based, mathematically consistent ideas can contribute to scientific advance. All else is fantasy, and your space invaders are an unnecessary construct to explain something that needs no explanation. One of the statements used to support the "aliens built it" idea is that scientists cannot explain the stoneworking methodology. Maybe they can't, but stonemasons can. Ask the right trade and you will get a better answer.

"Scientists" aka archeologist explain with theories not facts.

Quote:

Quote: JFK was shot by his driver. He was shot from the front not the back. If you, living across the pond, haven't been privy to all the details, that's not my problem. The "evidence" for this claim is six frames of blurred cine footage. Cine cameras run at 18 frames per second. The so called gun is in fact the reflection of sunlight off the brylcreem used by the front seat passenger to keep his hair pasted down. I already listed a frame by frame account of this footage, but is was clearly too complicated for you to follow, unless of course we are back to the "I would never delve that deeply into something someone posted on the internet." principle of Lou.

Clearly you missed the details of his wound...not to mention the exiting blood from the back of his head. It seems you need to check the prescription on your bifocals...

Quote:

Quote: As any theory, it will be at some point replaced by a better one. Well spotted. The problem is that you have yet to produce this "better theory", and not merely a whole steaming pile of self contradictory, mutually exclusive Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Proposals.

Actually, scientists produced a better theory. I am merely presenting it to you. So please take your CRAP somewhere else.

Quote:

You seem to be on a quest to prove that mainstream science has got just one tiny point wrong, which will mean that everything else, that anybody ever thought is wrong, and Lou is the sole arbiter of all that is right. I have some bad news for you. It doesn't work like that.

Keep putting words in my mouth. It is a fact that science is censored. Science led to the nuclear bomb. That was 80 years ago and only now is a country like Iran trying to build a nuclear power plant to elevate its country. You and BrianK seem to view science with rose-colored glasses. I do not.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: It is further amusing that you deny that light has mass despite the fact that you have posted many times about gravity bending the path of light. Perhaps gravity has a magical property call BKF, an acronymn for BrianK fudge...I mean force, which allows it to bend the path of photons in space. You've nearly figured out the answer to your question. EM and Gravity are different in their interactions. Gravity is the bending of space. Since photons are traveling in space they must follow this bent path of space. Start of Thought Exercise: Think of spacetime as a road. All cars must travel on the roads. When the road is straight the cars go straight. But, a road through a mountain (aka Mass) is influenced by the mountain (results in gravity). The road goes up, down, and curves around. Consequently the car goes up, down, and curves around because it must follow the road. Now you might think the car could go straight when the road curves down. To do this the car could leave the road. (Example: Jumping General Lee from the Dukes of Hazzard) Similarily an object in spacetime could ignore the curve of spacetime if it could do a General Lee jump out of spacetime. It appears photons can't do jumps like the General Lee. : End thought exercise The problem in your thought appears to lay with an innate assumption of your premise. You are assuming the mass of an object attracts a photon and therefore photons must have mass. It doesn't work that way. EM and Gravity is different. EM directly impacts EM. Like charges repell and dislike charges attract. Mass directly impacts spacetime. It does not directly impact other objects. How does gravity work? Mass curves spacetime. Another object traveling in spacetime must abide to the rules of spacetime. The traveling object follows the curve. It doesn't matter if the other object has mass or not. The property that matters of the other object is the object must exist within spacetime and cannot exist outside of spacetime. If that's the case the rules of the road are adhered to and the object follows the dips and curves of the road. The result is an indirect attraction on the other object, even if that object has no mass. Your thought can be fairly rephrased as masses attract other masses. Photons are attracted. Therefore photons have mass. As shown above it's not that mass attracts mass it's that mass changes the available paths of travel in spacetime. It's that change in path in spacetime that causes an attraction of everything that exists within spacetime, independent of mass. What you cited as the BrianK fudge is really an application of gravity as defined by Einstein. Not as misdefined by Lou. So thanks for the labeling but since Einstein came first it's wholely unfair for you to rename his work after me. In summary you're right. It's the path of light that's bent (spacetime)and light follows the path. Though light doesn't need the property of mass to follow the spacetime. If you want photons to have mass you can't there by this thought.

Who are you to tell me photons don't have mass? What are your credentials?
I have linked you scientific papers that say they do. So your thought exercise is meaningless. Your evidence = 0

@Lou

Quote:

Would you like some cheese?

??? What is your fascination with offering me rancid cow juice? I will presume that it is some form of primitive colonial ritual and leave it at that.

Quote:

Gravity can be cancelled out as several scientists have shown.

What scientists, when and where. Just because somebody claimed an achievement, it doesn't mean that they are correct and the whole world has to fall at their feet worshipping their genius.

Quote:

Clearly you missed the details of his wound...not to mention the exiting blood from the back of his head. It seems you need to check the prescription on your bifocals...

First a point about gunshot injuries. Blood will exit from the entry wound as well as the exit wound. As to my eyesigt, it is checked annually, and I do not use bifocals. I will admit that I am slightly shortsighted, but there is none so blind as one tat will not see.
A trained combat pistol shooter can draw and shoot at a target in front, in a quarter of a second. He then has a gun clearly in his hand. The images that you interpret as a gun are on four of six frames taken at intervals of one eighteenth of a second. that implies that this "shooter" drew, turned, aimed, fired, and then returned his weapon to a concealed location in one third of a second without being seen by nearby spectators. If you actuaslly open your eyes and look at the images you will see that the white line that you call a gun is the reflection off the brylcreemed hair of the front seat passenger and the "arm" is reflections off the top of the drivers door. Unfortunately this would require more investigation than you would, by your own admission, be willing to do, and as a result you continue to perpetuate the fantasy presented to you by some conspiracy theorist nutjob.

Quote:

Actually, scientists produced a better theory.

Once again, what scientists, where, and when. Your current offerings are one who thinks light slows to a crawl every time it encounters an atom, another who thinks protons have a mass of several tons, and one who theorised a whole race of alien lifeforms from a blurred image. A. J. Rimmer?

Quote:

It is a fact that science is censored. Science led to the nuclear bomb.

So do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing that nuclear secrets were kept secret. The problem is that once people know that something can be done they will try to find a way to do it themselves., which means that censorship will always fail in the end. Science is all about finding the truth, and the truth is rarely, if ever, nice. If you are interested in how "not nice" just take a look at this. The old boy rambles on a bit but he explains just how bad things are going to get. And there is no need for any conspiracy, or aliens, just the unpleasant algebra of survival, and the exponential function.

Quote:

You and BrianK seem to view science with rose-colored glasses. I do not.

Rose tinted spectacles, like your cosy system of belief, is irrelevant. You believe that the universe is run by EM, but you are wrong. It is run by mathematics, and there is no mathematical symbol for "nice"

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

@Lou

Quote:

Feel free to build me a pyramid with wood and string then. Let me know when you're done.

It's equally fair to rephrase your flippant response to apply to your own thought. Feel free to phone ET, request they fly back and and repeat their work. Let me know when you're done.

Quote:

Who are you to tell me photons don't have mass?

You are the one who asked the question. I gave you the present state of understanding of science. Again - science on the question is not settled, we have inadequate evidence. You then cited the bending of light as your evidence. I rephrased the current scientific understanding of how it works, why it's different than your view, and as to why your example doesn't mean what you believe it to me.

Quote:

I have linked you scientific papers that say they do. So your thought exercise is meaningless. Your evidence = 0

The Theory of Gravity via Einstein hasn't been evidenced? Wow time for you to go to the library and do some research.

Last edited by BrianK on 04-Mar-2012 at 09:16 PM.

@Lou

Dark Matter core and Largest map of Dark Matter
: Certainly we agree that Dark Matter and Dark Energy has no direct observation. It's effect is seen through indirect measures. What we have though is a good idea where to look for it. We're building tools to look there.

And certainly there are other postulates on the table to what the answer could be. Though because science is open to all postulates we must evidence and see where it leads us. Not finding, or finding, Dark Matter will give us a hint of what comes next in our quest in understanding the operation of the universe.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Gravity can be cancelled out as several scientists have shown. What scientists, when and where. Just because somebody claimed an achievement, it doesn't mean that they are correct and the whole world has to fall at their feet worshipping their genius.

Short memories. Reread this thread. Brandenburg linked a study done in Japan. Zidnarsic also has references to studies done by NASA and this guy.

Quote:

Quote: Clearly you missed the details of his wound...not to mention the exiting blood from the back of his head. It seems you need to check the prescription on your bifocals... First a point about gunshot injuries. Blood will exit from the entry wound as well as the exit wound. As to my eyesigt, it is checked annually, and I do not use bifocals. I will admit that I am slightly shortsighted, but there is none so blind as one tat will not see. A trained combat pistol shooter can draw and shoot at a target in front, in a quarter of a second. He then has a gun clearly in his hand. The images that you interpret as a gun are on four of six frames taken at intervals of one eighteenth of a second. that implies that this "shooter" drew, turned, aimed, fired, and then returned his weapon to a concealed location in one third of a second without being seen by nearby spectators. If you actuaslly open your eyes and look at the images you will see that the white line that you call a gun is the reflection off the brylcreemed hair of the front seat passenger and the "arm" is reflections off the top of the drivers door. Unfortunately this would require more investigation than you would, by your own admission, be willing to do, and as a result you continue to perpetuate the fantasy presented to you by some conspiracy theorist nutjob.

Get them checked again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q91RZko5Gw
He was wounded from the grassy knoll shots in the throat but that didn't kill him. The driver and other passenger were there finishing the job. His head falls back against the seat and is clearly blown off from the front. See about 4:45 for an extreme close up. Just before that in slow motion you can see a shiny object aiming from the drive to the back then back into his jacket. The first Lady saw exactly who shot her husband and attemted to run 180 degrees from him...as would be natural.

Quote:

Quote: Actually, scientists produced a better theory. Once again, what scientists, where, and when. Your current offerings are one who thinks light slows to a crawl every time it encounters an atom, another who thinks protons have a mass of several tons, and one who theorised a whole race of alien lifeforms from a blurred image. A. J. Rimmer?

Once again, your short memory is baffling.
It's almost like having the same conversation with someone with Alzheimer's...

Someone, perhaps you, linked this video in this thread seried: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q91RZko5Gw
If you skip to about 20 minutes in, you'll see how even he tells you that the energy of empty space is greater than matter and that 90% of the energy of a proton is in its empty space. Co-incidence?

Quote:

Quote: It is a fact that science is censored. Science led to the nuclear bomb. So do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing that nuclear secrets were kept secret. The problem is that once people know that something can be done they will try to find a way to do it themselves., which means that censorship will always fail in the end. Science is all about finding the truth, and the truth is rarely, if ever, nice. If you are interested in how "not nice" just take a look at this. The old boy rambles on a bit but he explains just how bad things are going to get. And there is no need for any conspiracy, or aliens, just the unpleasant algebra of survival, and the exponential function.

If knowledge was available to all, then all would be equal and perhaps mankind couldl elevate itself as a whole instead of the constant warring of its history.

Quote:

Quote: You and BrianK seem to view science with rose-colored glasses. I do not. Rose tinted spectacles, like your cosy system of belief, is irrelevant. You believe that the universe is run by EM, but you are wrong. It is run by mathematics, and there is no mathematical symbol for "nice"

And mathematics is what I provided you courtesy of Brandenburg and others and of course you still refuse to play nice.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Feel free to build me a pyramid with wood and string then. Let me know when you're done. It's equally fair to rephrase your flippant response to apply to your own thought. Feel free to phone ET, request they fly back and and repeat their work. Let me know when you're done.

If ET is more advances then us, how can I control ET? However, sticks and strings are below us and so should then the pyramids be easy to replicate under the same theoretical conditions. But, ofcourse, keeping with the mantra 'the onus is always on Lou', you will in fact produce nothing.

Quote:

Quote: Who are you to tell me photons don't have mass? You are the one who asked the question. I gave you the present state of understanding of science. Again - science on the question is not settled, we have inadequate evidence. You then cited the bending of light as your evidence. I rephrased the current scientific understanding of how it works, why it's different than your view, and as to why your example doesn't mean what you believe it to me.

I REPEAT: Current scientific evidence is that photons have mass. Your thought experiment was not evidence.

Quote:

Quote: I have linked you scientific papers that say they do. So your thought exercise is meaningless. Your evidence = 0 The Theory of Gravity via Einstein hasn't been evidenced? Wow time for you to go to the library and do some research.

Perhaps you have Alzheimer's too?
I have linked Brandenburg who goes beyond Einstein and describes big G and what it represents just as Frank Znidarsic established how to derive the Fine-structure constant...
Like I said, the holes are being filled in. You only link the original stuff with holes and say 'good enough'.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Dark Matter core and Largest map of Dark Matter : Certainly we agree that Dark Matter and Dark Energy has no direct observation. It's effect is seen through indirect measures. What we have though is a good idea where to look for it. We're building tools to look there. And certainly there are other postulates on the table to what the answer could be. Though because science is open to all postulates we must evidence and see where it leads us. Not finding, or finding, Dark Matter will give us a hint of what comes next in our quest in understanding the operation of the universe.

Again, let's look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q91RZko5Gw
which someone linked in an earlier thread.
90% of the energy of a proton comes from its empty space, not its quarks. The same #'s here in this video are what Nassim used.
So you see, empty space has more energy than matter apparently...

@Lou

Quote:

Get them checked again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q91RZko5Gw

Try seeing an optician yourself. then look at this to learn a bit about gunshot injuries, then watch this pay special attention to the reflection on the top of the front seat passengers head from frames 309 to 312 as it straightens. Also in frame 312 you can clearly see the drivers hand below the level of the door, and the bright sunshine on the forehead of the front seat passenger, and on the top of his hair. This is the "bright object" that in the next frame you call the gun, and the top of the doorframe is the object that you refer to as his arm holding the gun. Of course it is easier to spread cowardly lies, defaming a man who is not in a position to defend himself than it is to actually accept the truth, that there was no great conspiracy, merely some idiot who thought that he was right, and all of the rest of the world was wrong.

Quote:

It's almost like having the same conversation with someone with Alzheimer's... Someone, perhaps you, linked this video in this thread seried: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q91RZko5Gw If you skip to about 20 minutes in, you'll see how even he tells you that the energy of empty space is greater than matter and that 90% of the energy of a proton is in its empty space. Co-incidence?

Can I suggest you follow the link you just quoted, and then tell me who it is that has Alzheimers?

Quote:

If knowledge was available to all, then all would be equal and perhaps mankind couldl elevate itself as a whole instead of the constant warring of its history.

And you say that I look at the world through rose tinted glasses? Your original religion will tell you that the meek will inherit the earth, and this is sort of true. They inherit six foot plots. As Bartlett pointed out in the long and tedious video sequence I linked to we have a growing population wit growing expectations, coupled with diminishing resources. Technology and oil has so far postponed Malthus, but we cannot put off the inevitable for much longer.

Quote:

And mathematics is what I provided you courtesy of Brandenburg and others and of course you still refuse to play nice.

It's not that I don't want to be nice, it's just that there is no mathematical function called "nice" and the so called mathematics of Brandenburg, Znidarsic, and Haramein simply does not add up. C does not equal 1x10^6, a proton does not have a multi ton mass, and the correctness of the conclusions reached by Brandenburg relies solely on the conclusions reached by Brandenburg being correct. There is no valid supporting mathematical evidence.

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