@Lou

Quote:

If ET is more advances then us, how can I control ET?

You're stacking more unknowns on top of unknowns? Guesses can't support other guesses you have to prove them all -- 'It's turtles all the way down' so you claim.

Quote:

However, sticks and strings are below us and so should then the pyramids be easy to replicate under the same theoretical conditions.

And again people have demonstrated that pyramids are replicable using the tools of ancient Egyptians. The stones can be cut, moved, and placed all using available technology of that Era.

But, hey if you want me to build you an actual pyramid using those methods that's not a problem. I'll just need to know what timeframe you'd like it built in and your bank numbers for financial payments of the project. Yes a flippant respones to your flippant answer.

Really what you appear to be trying to get at is today while we have direct evidence of the tools available to the Egyptians we only have indirect evidence of how they might have been used. Unless we build a timemachine we'll never have direct evidence. Though just because the evidence is indirect doesn't mean it's false. Nor does it mean that a process with even less evidence, it's aliens, we can accept on logic as being true.

Quote:

I REPEAT: Current scientific evidence is that photons have mass.

The current understanding of science is a disagreement on the ability to measure mass of a photon.

Quote:

Your thought experiment was not evidence.

Strawman fallcy by Lou. I never claimed it was.

The thought experiment was a simplified version of the Einstein Theory of Gravity. Mass causes spacetime to curve and items traveling through spacetime must follow the curve. It illustrated why your idea that masses directly attract masses, such as + attracts -, is not how science has observed Gravity to operate. And thus your example of how an electron must have mass does not valid in the way you hoped it might.

EDIT: Here Lou is a good graphic on how light is thought to interact with spacetime Light spacetime The darker areas are depressions in the 'road' of spacetime. Since light travels on this "road" it must take the dip when the road dips and takes the curve when the road curves. END EDIT

Quote:

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...

The best response to your continued personal attacks is to cut them out. I did it for you here. Perhaps one day you'll have the ability to edit out insults yourself and keep on topic.

Yes indeed Brandbenburg and Znidarsic are but two of many people that have postulated concepts that go beyond Einstein. Many have had ideas that work better. Today, at best, many of those lack sufficent evidence to throw out Einstein. This includes Brandenburg and Znidarsic. Sadly many are outright failures, easily dead ends before they even get off the ground.

Science recognizes there are holes and continue to work at it. So, while you feel comfortable that Brandenburg have filled them and nothing further is requred please let science evidence to see if your faith in the currently unevidenced is justified.

Last edited by BrianK on 05-Mar-2012 at 09:53 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 05-Mar-2012 at 07:35 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

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.

Sorry didn't watch the whole video? Perhaps you can just sum it up for me. How exactly is Nassim derving the energy of the proton from a slayed President? Did the assassin use a blackhole gun that shot proton sized bullets or something?

Last edited by BrianK on 05-Mar-2012 at 06:54 PM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @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.

For the third time, get your glasses checked. When part of his head is blown off, it is blown off backwards.

Quote:

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?

This was a case of fast copy and pasting between multiple windows. Here is the video I was referring to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Quote:

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.

Well excuse me for having the same ideals as most scientists...

Quote:

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.

It has the energy of a multi-ton mass. Nassim Haramein didn't invent mass energy equivalence so don't damn him by it.
And you are wrong, Brandenburg has 100% supporting math, which you of course choose to ignore. This is why Brandenburg is published in peer-reviewed journals, is a published author and worked for the Pentagon and you are here bickering with me.

@Lou

Some Standard Model news about the more precise measurement of mass in the W Boson. How does this relate to the last undiscovered particle of the Standard Model the Higgs?

"The new W mass measurement and the latest precision determination of the mass of the top quark from Fermilab triangulate the location of the Higgs particle and restrict its mass to less than 152 GeV/c2. This is in agreement with the latest direct searches at the LHC, which constrain the Higgs mass to less than 127 GeV/c2, and direct-search limits from the Tevatron, which point to a Higgs mass of less than 156 GeV/c2, before the update of their results expected for next week. "

This is one more piece of evidence that we have the Higgs backed into a corner. LHC work is to resume in about a month. And to repeat my earlier comment we should hopefully know by the end of 2012 if Higgs postulates were or were not accurate.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: If ET is more advances then us, how can I control ET? You're stacking more unknowns on top of unknowns? Guesses can't support other guesses you have to prove them all -- 'It's turtles all the way down' so you claim.

Wait, how many unknowns were stacked when the theory of "sticks, sweat and string can cut and move prefectly cut megalithic stones huge distances placing them with paper-thin accuracy without damaging or distrupting other stones" was formulated?

Quote:

Quote: However, sticks and strings are below us and so should then the pyramids be easy to replicate under the same theoretical conditions. And again people have demonstrated that pyramids are replicable using the tools of ancient Egyptians. The stones can be cut, moved, and placed all using available technology of that Era. But, hey if you want me to build you an actual pyramid using those methods that's not a problem. I'll just need to know what timeframe you'd like it built in and your bank numbers for financial payments of the project. Yes a flippant respones to your flippant answer. Really what you appear to be trying to get at is today while we have direct evidence of the tools available to the Egyptians we only have indirect evidence of how they might have been used. Unless we build a timemachine we'll never have direct evidence. Though just because the evidence is indirect doesn't mean it's false. Nor does it mean that a process with even less evidence, it's aliens, we can accept on logic as being true.

Ok, just prove it.
You can take 10 years. I don't care how many men. I'll pay you the same amount the hypothetical slaves were paid.

You are simply assuming theories to be true, which you accuse me of doing all the time. Pot kettle black.

Quote:

Quote: I REPEAT: Current scientific evidence is that photons have mass. The current understanding of science is a disagreement on the ability to measure mass of a photon.

So your issue is the ABILITY to measure it and not whether or not it has mass?
A photon is never at rest, so its rest mass can't be measured. However, its momentum can be. Its energy can be. If it has momentum then it has mass.

Quote:

Quote: Your thought experiment was not evidence. Strawman fallcy by Lou. I never claimed it was. The thought experiment was a simplified version of the Einstein Theory of Gravity. Mass causes spacetime to curve and items traveling through spacetime must follow the curve. It illustrated why your idea that masses directly attract masses, such as + attracts -, is not how science has observed Gravity to operate. And thus your example of how an electron must have mass does not valid in the way you hoped it might. Quote: 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... The best response to your continued personal attacks is to cut them out. I did it for you here. Perhaps one day you'll have the ability to edit out insults yourself and keep on topic.

Well when you intentionally forget everything I've said before, it's amazing I don't have Tourette syndrome... I particularly like your ability to split paragraphs up and turn one post into 10 rather that take everything in as a whole. Afterall, it is easier to dispute the parts, right debunker?

Quote:

Yes indeed Brandbenburg and Znidarsic are but two of many people that have postulated concepts that go beyond Einstein. Many have had ideas that work better. Today, at best, many of those lack sufficent evidence to throw out Einstein. This includes Brandenburg and Znidarsic. Sadly many are outright failures, easily dead ends before they even get off the ground.

Here's the best part: Brandenburg simply defines big G. Nothing of Einstein's work gets thrown out. As for Znidarsic, again he merely found the link between classical physics and quantum physics. The missing link. Again, nothing is thrown out, just more sense is made of things.

Quote:

Science recognizes there are holes and continue to work at it. So, while you feel comfortable that Brandenburg have filled them and nothing further is requred please let science evidence to see if your faith in the currently unevidenced is justified.

Typical BrianK snide remark that I find insulting when I see it in every post.
In reality, BrianK cannot refute neither Brandenburg nor Znidarsic so it's better to just annoy Lou. A debunker to the end.

@Lou

Quote:

Wait, how many unknowns were stacked when the theory of "sticks, sweat and string can cut and move prefectly cut megalithic stones huge distances placing them with paper-thin accuracy without damaging or distrupting other stones" was formulated?

Okay I'll play along.
Humans discovered these cool pyramids. They wanted to know more so there was an 'infinite' amount of unknowns. Later they began research such as archelogical collection to try and build an understanding. Short version - Indeterminiate.

Quote:

Ok, just prove it.

The tools and materials available at the time have been successfully demonstrated in creating and moving objects of the size used in the Pyramids. It seems you only demand a fully demonstrated pyramid and that inductive logic has no validity?

Quote:

You are simply assuming theories to be true, which you accuse me of doing all the time

Did you miss me posting that we can't be completely certain until we build a time machine? What I did state, and it's true, is there is more than sufficent evidence to not disregard the intelligence and ingenuity of humans. What happens when people claim aliens explain it? It disregards people as too stupid, uncreative, and incapable to using tools of their own era. I never said aliens didn't do it. What I did say is -- There is no evidence to aliens associated with this event and thereby arguing aliens are the best logical choice is not a point made with sound reasoning.

Quote:

So your issue is the ABILITY to measure it and not whether or not it has mass?

You make it sound like I matter, I don't. What I stated is that science has not agreed upon neither the mass of a photon or if it even has one.

If you want one scientific view here's one. E=mc^2 says that for any object that has mass as it approaches the speed of light it becomes infinitely heavy. Since our observational evidence is incongruent with an infinitely heavy object and we're highly confident of the evidence we must assume the mass is not infinite. Well the only other option than an 'object that has mass approaching c' would be an object that doesn't have mass approaching c. Turns out this 0 mass photon postulate is a better fit to the observational evidence. So no a photon doesn't have mass.

There are other ways we might think a photon does have mass. Since we are in a state where we have postulates and evidence that indicate a slight mass and zero mass we must indeed measure photons in a new and better way to help decide which one is true. So indeed as I said science hasn't only not settled on the amount of mass it's not settled on the existence of mass of a photon itself. Good question. Though I understand how frustrated you feel when the answer is we don't know.

Quote:

I particularly like your ability to split paragraphs up and turn one post into 10 rather that take everything in as a whole.

So you don't like my posting style. As I read others here they have a similar style. It probably stems from my approach which is to Quote:

Afterall, it is easier to dispute the parts

. And yes for me having done college level work breaking arguements into their logic structure and noting problems as they happen it is easier. If you don't mind I'd like to get off your diversion to complain about posting style and get back to topic now.

Quote:

Again, nothing is thrown out, just more sense is made of things

Again many have claimed such before and NONE have panned out. Now it doesn't mean that someone might do it someday. However, like any other item we must postulate, evidence, then conclude. And science being skeptical we keep asking why and repeat that infinite loop. Zndarsic and Brandenburg don't get to skip evidence.

You are the one that posted your joy that Physics is finally looking at Brandenburg. If that's the case then we're clearly still in the understanding postulate stage. We haven't had time to builld experiments or dig into it properly. And thus certainly not sufficent quanity nor quality of data to make a safe conclusion that he's answered all the question and brought us the Holy Grail of a working Superunified Theory.

Quote:

Typical BrianK snide remark that I find insulting when I see it in every post.

An insult is a slur, a name, something done to injure the topic by focusing on a supposed negative characteristic of the individual. Some good examples are calling people Mr. Twisty or Debunker or falsely accusing people of having Alzheimers. These are snide and insulting as they focus on the individual and not the arguement.

What we have here is you feel your arguement is mischaracterized. That's not an insult. It's nothing about you personally. And you know what you are completely free to disagree with the respresentation of your arguement. Though that same individual freedom also means I'm also completely free to disagree with your disagreement.

And you may want to look at your own post where you claim science doesn't fill in holes and claims good enough. You'll find that any snideness you assigned to me is just as applicable within your own post. If you really don't like it then don't set the example.

Quote:

In reality, BrianK cannot refute neither Brandenburg nor Znidarsic so it's better to just annoy Lou

I can refute the idea that someone has fairly concluded that Brandeburg has got it right because there is clearly a lack of quality or quantity of evidence on which to draw the conclusion. And that's exactly what I stated. It's an important part so pay attention please - I welcomed the missing evidence being built. That way we might be able to accept or reject their postulates as they apply to reality.

Last edited by BrianK on 06-Mar-2012 at 02:05 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 06-Mar-2012 at 11:52 AM.
Last edited by BrianK on 06-Mar-2012 at 04:47 AM.

@Lou and Nimrod

The Great Attractor

"A huge volume of space that includes the Milky Way and super-clusters of galaxies is flowing towards a mysterious, gigantic unseen mass named mass astronomers have dubbed "The Great Attractor," some 250 million light years from our Solar System....
This motion can only be accounted for by gravitational attraction."

And the same article does note a problem with the EM Energy of the universe comes from the vaccum of space. Within this thread Lou referred to this as the Zero Point Energy.
"But a naïve calculation of the dark energy generated from the vacuum yields a value 10120 times larger than the amount we observe. "
Out of alignment just a bit.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Wait, how many unknowns were stacked when the theory of "sticks, sweat and string can cut and move prefectly cut megalithic stones huge distances placing them with paper-thin accuracy without damaging or distrupting other stones" was formulated? Okay I'll play along. Humans discovered these cool pyramids. They wanted to know more so there was an 'infinite' amount of unknowns. Later they began research such as archelogical collection to try and build an understanding. Short version - Indeterminiate. Quote: Ok, just prove it. The tools and materials available at the time have been successfully demonstrated in creating and moving objects of the size used in the Pyramids. It seems you only demand a fully demonstrated pyramid and that inductive logic has no validity?

Emphasized for truth.
What has not been demonstrate IS INFACT BUILDING A FULL PYRAMID TO THE SAME STANDARDS. Mega-ton stones perfectly cut and placed so that you can't even fit a sheet of paper between them using "stick, string and sweat". There are signs of diamond-cutting on stones, but this was already more tech than the "stick, string and sweat" theory supplied.
If it could be built in 4000BC - 0AD, then it could be replicated now using the same tools, but it isn't. All civil engineers TODAY still call it a monumental task. Its your the theory that you accept that has no validity.

Quote:

Quote: You are simply assuming theories to be true, which you accuse me of doing all the time Did you miss me posting that we can't be completely certain until we build a time machine? What I did state, and it's true, is there is more than sufficent evidence to not disregard the intelligence and ingenuity of humans. What happens when people claim aliens explain it? It disregards people as too stupid, uncreative, and incapable to using tools of their own era. I never said aliens didn't do it. What I did say is -- There is no evidence to aliens associated with this event and thereby arguing aliens are the best logical choice is not a point made with sound reasoning.

Only you are putting words in my mouth calling them stupid. I'm saying it made no sense to build them as such...and in many cases, at all. Hence if they were smart(er), they would have used the smaller stones of the Romans.

Quote:

Quote: So your issue is the ABILITY to measure it and not whether or not it has mass? You make it sound like I matter, I don't. What I stated is that science has not agreed upon neither the mass of a photon or if it even has one.

Funny, science has agreed that it has momentum.

Quote:

If you want one scientific view here's one. E=mc^2 says that for any object that has mass as it approaches the speed of light it becomes infinitely heavy. Since our observational evidence is incongruent with an infinitely heavy object and we're highly confident of the evidence we must assume the mass is not infinite. Well the only other option than an 'object that has mass approaching c' would be an object that doesn't have mass approaching c. Turns out this 0 mass photon postulate is a better fit to the observational evidence. So no a photon doesn't have mass. There are other ways we might think a photon does have mass. Since we are in a state where we have postulates and evidence that indicate a slight mass and zero mass we must indeed measure photons in a new and better way to help decide which one is true. So indeed as I said science hasn't only not settled on the amount of mass it's not settled on the existence of mass of a photon itself. Good question. Though I understand how frustrated you feel when the answer is we don't know.

Fallacy.
The energy of a system that emits a photon is decreased by the energy of the photon as measured in the rest frame of the emitting system, which may result in a reduction in mass in the amount E/c^2 . Similarly, the mass of a system that absorbs a photon is increased by a corresponding amount.

Its a well established fact that radiation energy will carry mass from the Sun due to the energy-mass relationship defined by Einstein’s E=mc^2.
http://www.universetoday.com/12743/the-astronomical-unit-may-need-an-upgrade-as-the-sun-loses-mass/

Quote:

If you don't mind I'd like to get off your diversion to complain about posting style and get back to topic now.

Quote:

Quote: Again, nothing is thrown out, just more sense is made of things Again many have claimed such before and NONE have panned out. Now it doesn't mean that someone might do it someday. However, like any other item we must postulate, evidence, then conclude. And science being skeptical we keep asking why and repeat that infinite loop. Zndarsic and Brandenburg don't get to skip evidence. You are the one that posted your joy that Physics is finally looking at Brandenburg. If that's the case then we're clearly still in the understanding postulate stage. We haven't had time to builld experiments or dig into it properly. And thus certainly not sufficent quanity nor quality of data to make a safe conclusion that he's answered all the question and brought us the Holy Grail of a working Superunified Theory. Quote: Typical BrianK snide remark that I find insulting when I see it in every post. An insult is a slur, a name, something done to injure the topic by focusing on a supposed negative characteristic of the individual. Some good examples are calling people Mr. Twisty or Debunker or falsely accusing people of having Alzheimers. These are snide and insulting as they focus on the individual and not the arguement. What we have here is you feel your arguement is mischaracterized. That's not an insult. It's nothing about you personally. And you know what you are completely free to disagree with the respresentation of your arguement. Though that same individual freedom also means I'm also completely free to disagree with your disagreement. And you may want to look at your own post where you claim science doesn't fill in holes and claims good enough. You'll find that any snideness you assigned to me is just as applicable within your own post. If you really don't like it then don't set the example. Quote: In reality, BrianK cannot refute neither Brandenburg nor Znidarsic so it's better to just annoy Lou I can refute the idea that someone has fairly concluded that Brandeburg has got it right because there is clearly a lack of quality or quantity of evidence on which to draw the conclusion. And that's exactly what I stated. It's an important part so pay attention please - I welcomed the missing evidence being built. That way we might be able to accept or reject their postulates as they apply to reality.

If you don't mind I'd like to get off your diversion to complain about posting style and get back to topic now.
So in other words, BrianK cannot refute Brandenburg and Znidaric. Ok, got it!

@Lou

Quote:

What has not been demonstrate IS INFACT BUILDING A FULL PYRAMID TO THE SAME STANDARDS.

Correct no one has completed an entirely new pyramid using the same technology. Instead we have the technology discovered at the sites and used it recreating similar "prefectly cut" stones. And transported stones such as these using wood and stone. Together we use inductive logical to conclude it wouldn't be difficult to accomplish. Which again is why I say we cannot exclude people. The evidence shows it is highly possible people did it.

So how many alien spaces have been found with diamond like cutting tool and anti-gravity carriers? ZERO. So, humans at least have some found and tested tools in their favor. And has anyone used that to BUILDING A FULL PYRAMID TO THE SAME STANARDS? Not even 1 molecule was moved let alone a whole building. If you level critque at an idea your idea should be better at sustaining your criticisms. The idea of aliens is in a much much worse state than that of humans.

Really I think you need to first defend aliens agains fairies. We have better evidence that fairies did it.

Quote:

There are signs of diamond-cutting on stones,

There are signs of cuts people have concluded were diamond cut. Though AFAIK we have not found cutting diamond piles in quarries. Though we have found other materials which seem to work nearly as well as diamonds, takes a bit longer obviously.

Quote:

All civil engineers TODAY still call it a monumental task.

Well today they are monuments so that term's fitting. It's important to note that monumental is not the same as impossible.

Quote:

I'm saying it made no sense to build them as such...and in many cases, at all. Hence if they were smart(er), they would have used the smaller stones of the Romans.

The problem here is you're assigning value of your thought exercise trying to think like a 6K year old society we know relatively little about. While you may not have the creativity to think of a reason. Others have been creative enough to think of reasons. Though again we'll not know who is correct in reasoning of a 6K year dead man unless we build a time machine, go ask, and hope he tells the truth.

Quote:

The energy of a system that emits a photon is decreased by the energy of the photon as measured in the rest frame of the emitting system, which may result in a reduction in mass in the amount E/c^2 . Similarly, the mass of a system that absorbs a photon is increased by a corresponding amount

I can say thanks for illustrating my point further. I provided how science sees the mass of a photon is zero. You provided the way how science might see a mass. In order to determine which is correct we need better evidences than presently available. Hence, to date science has not established if photons have a mass. Again the answer to what is the mass of a photon - TBD (to be determined)

Quote:

If you don't mind I'd like to get off your diversion to complain about posting style

You need to reread what I wrote. It explained how your feeling is really a misplaced thought of an attack on you. It had nothing about stylings.

Quote:

So in other words, BrianK cannot refute Brandenburg and Znidaric. Ok, got it!

I thought you complained about snide comments but you don't seem to be able to break your own habit.

Because you have rephrased incorrectly the communication appears to not be getting through. I'll try to make it short... So in other words the present lack of quantitative and qualitative evidence makes conclusion findings about Brandenburg and Znidaric at this time impossible.

Last edited by BrianK on 06-Mar-2012 at 06:07 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 06-Mar-2012 at 05:26 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 06-Mar-2012 at 05:23 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 06-Mar-2012 at 05:21 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

For the third time, get your glasses checked. When part of his head is blown off, it is blown off backwards.

Have you ever seen a rock dropped into a pond? the rock enters the water going in a downward direction, and the splash goes upwards. the same thing happens at the entry wound of a gunshot. take a look at frame 313 to see the exit wound.

Quote:

It has the energy of a multi-ton mass. Nassim Haramein didn't invent mass energy equivalence so don't damn him by it.

E=MC^2 is the mass/energy equivalence equation, not M=EC^2. That means that you get a large amount of energy from the conversion of a small amount of mass. The energy level of a single proton is 1.5x10^-10 Joules, not a multiple of 9x10^16 Joules. Please at least try to understand the basic principles of mathematics, then you will not make yourself look quite so inept.

Quote:

And you are wrong, Brandenburg has 100% supporting math,

The fact of previous successes does not guarantee future successes, any more than a run of red numbers on a roulette wheel guarantees the colour of the next spin. In his linkedin profile, Brandenburg repeats his claim to have solved the mystery of life, the universe, and everything, but instead of quoting peer review, he states "I am pleased with the result". He may be but it takes a bit more than that to prove a theory, and his mathematics is no more relevant than that of Scotty from Star Trek.

Quote:

Here is the video I was referring to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

I am not ignoring this post, I just haven't had the time to watch it yet. I will watch it during the week and give marks out of ten at the weekend.

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

Part 1: General Debunkery

- Before commencing to debunk, prepare your equipment. Equipment needed: one armchair.

- Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of scientific authority.

- Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery- worshipping infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate the scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending the scientific method.

- Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.

- Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse the *process* of science with the *content* of science. (Someone may, of course, object that since science is a universal approach to truth-seeking it must be neutral to subject matter; hence, only the investigative *process* can be scientifically responsible or irresponsible. If that happens, dismiss such objections using a method employed successfully by generations of politicians: simply reassure everyone that "there is no contradiction here!")

- Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority. The degree to which you can stretch the truth is directly proportional to the prestige of your mouthpiece.

- Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are "touted," and to your own assertions as "facts," which are "stated."

- Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear!)

- If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back that "there is nothing new here!" If confronted by a watertight body of evidence that has survived the most rigorous tests, simply dismiss it as being "too pat."

- Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with *all* of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and critical elements of science to the exclusion of intuition, inspiration, exploration and integration. If anyone objects, accuse them of viewing science in exclusively fuzzy, subjective or metaphysical terms.

- Insist that the progress of science depends on explaining the unknown in terms of the known. In other words, science equals reductionism. You can apply the reductionist approach in any situation by discarding more and more and more evidence until what little is left can finally be explained entirely in terms of established knowledge.

- Downplay the fact that free inquiry and legitimate disagreement are a normal part of science.

- Make yourself available to media producers who seek "balanced reporting" of unorthodox views. However, agree to participate in only those presentations whose time constraints and a-priori bias preclude such luxuries as discussion, debate and cross-examination.

- At every opportunity reinforce the notion that what is familiar is necessarily rational. The unfamiliar is therefore irrational, and consequently inadmissible as evidence.

- State categorically that the unconventional may be dismissed as, at best, an honest misinterpretation of the conventional.

- Characterize your opponents as "uncritical believers." Summarily dismiss the notion that debunkery itself betrays uncritical belief, albeit in the status quo.

- Maintain that in investigations of unconventional phenomena, a single flaw invalidates the whole. In conventional contexts, however, you may sagely remind the world that, "after all, situations are complex and human beings are imperfect."

- "Occam's Razor," or the "principle of parsimony," says the correct explanation of a mystery will usually involve the simplest fundamental principles. Insist, therefore, that the most familiar explanation is by definition the simplest! Imply strongly that Occam's Razor is not merely a philosophical rule of thumb but an immutable law.

- Discourage any study of history that may reveal today's dogma as yesterday's heresy. Likewise, avoid discussing the many historical, philosophical and spiritual parallels between science and democracy.

- Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this murkiness. If absolute proof is lacking, state categorically that "there is no evidence!"

- If sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant further investigation of an unusual phenomenon, argue that "evidence alone proves nothing!" Ignore the fact that preliminary evidence is not supposed to prove *any*thing.

- In any case, imply that proof precedes evidence. This will eliminate the possibility of initiating any meaningful process of investigation--particularly if no criteria of proof have yet been established for the phenomenon in question.

- Insist that criteria of proof cannot possibly be established for phenomena that do not exist!

- Although science is not supposed to tolerate vague or double standards, always insist that unconventional phenomena must be judged by a separate, yet ill-defined, set of scientific rules. Do this by declaring that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence"-- but take care never to define where the "ordinary" ends and the "extraordinary" begins. This will allow you to manufacture an infinitely receding evidential horizon; i.e., to define "extraordinary" evidence as that which lies just out of reach at any point in time.

- In the same manner, insist on classes of evidence that are impossible to obtain. For example, declare that unidentified aerial phenomena may be considered real only if we can bring them into laboratories to strike them with hammers and analyze their physical properties. Disregard the accomplishments of the inferential sciences--astronomy, for example, which gets on just fine without bringing actual planets, stars, galaxies and black holes into its labs and striking them with hammers.

- Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one case to another to support your views as needed. For example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the one at hand has been (or is popularly assumed to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate example. Then put on a gloating smile, lean back in your armchair and just say "I rest my case."

- Use the word "imagination" as an epithet that applies only to seeing what's *not* there, and not to denying what *is* there.

- If a significant number of people agree that they have observed something that violates the consensus reality, simply ascribe it to "mass hallucination." Avoid addressing the possibility that the consensus reality might itself constitute a mass hallucination.

- Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery and innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent mind not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides.

- By appropriate innuendo and example, imply that ridicule constitutes an essential feature of the scientific method that can raise the level of objectivity and dispassionateness with which any investigation is conducted.

- If pressed about your novel interpretations of the scientific method, declare that "intellectual integrity is a subtle issue."

- Imply that investigators of the unorthodox are zealots. Suggest that in order to investigate the existence of something one must first believe in it absolutely. Then demand that all such "true believers" know all the answers to their most puzzling questions in complete detail ahead of time. Convince people of your own sincerity by reassuring them that you yourself would "love to believe in these fantastic phenomena." Carefully sidestep the fact that science is not about believing or disbelieving, but about finding out.

- Use "smoke and mirrors," i.e., obfuscation and illusion. Never forget that a slippery mixture of fact, opinion, innuendo, out-of-context information and outright lies will fool most of the people most of the time. As little as one part fact to ten parts B.S. will usually do the trick. (Some veteran debunkers use homeopathic dilutions of fact with remarkable success!) Cultivate the art of slipping back and forth between fact and fiction so undetectably that the flimsiest foundation of truth will always appear to firmly support your entire edifice of opinion.

- Employ "TCP": Technically Correct Pseudo-refutation. Example: if someone remarks that all great truths began as blasphemies, respond immediately that not all blasphemies have become great truths. Because your response was technically correct, no one will notice that it did not really refute the original remark.

- Trivialize the case by trivializing the entire field in question. Characterize the study of orthodox phenomena as deep and time-consuming, while deeming that of unorthodox phenomena so insubstantial as to demand nothing more than a scan of the tabloids. If pressed on this, simply say "but there's nothing there to study!" Characterize any serious investigator of the unorthodox as a "buff" or "freak," or as "self-styled"-- the media's favorite code-word for "bogus."

- Remember that most people do not have sufficient time or expertise for careful discrimination, and tend to accept or reject the whole of an unfamiliar situation. So discredit the whole story by attempting to discredit *part* of the story. Here's how: a) take one element of a case completely out of context; b) find something prosaic that hypothetically could explain it; c) declare that therefore that one element has been explained; d) call a press conference and announce to the world that the entire case has been explained!

- Engage the services of a professional stage magician who can mimic the phenomenon in question; for example, ESP, psychokinesis or levitation. This will convince the public that the original claimants or witnesses to such phenomena must themselves have been (or been fooled by) talented stage magicians who hoaxed the original phenomenon in precisely the same way.

- Find a prosaic phenomenon that, to the uninitiated, resembles the claimed phenomenon. Then suggest that the existence of the commonplace look-alike somehow forbids the existence of the genuine article. For example, imply that since people often see "faces" in rocks and clouds, the enigmatic Face on Mars must be a similar illusion and therefore cannot possibly be artificial.

- When an unexplained phenomenon demonstrates evidence of intelligence (as in the case of the mysterious crop circles) focus exclusively on the mechanism that might have been wielded by the intelligence rather than the intelligence that might have wielded the mechanism. The more attention you devote to the mechanism, the more easily you can distract people from considering the possibility of non-ordinary intelligence.

- Accuse investigators of unusual phenomena of believing in "invisible forces and extrasensory realities." If they should point out that the physical sciences have *always* dealt with invisible forces and extrasensory realities (gravity? electromagnetism? . . . ) respond with a condescending chuckle that this is "a naive interpretation of the facts."

- Insist that western science is completely objective, and is based on no untestable assumptions, covert beliefs or ideological interests. If an unfamiliar or inexplicable phenomenon happens to be considred true and/or useful by a nonwestern or other traditional society, you may dismiss it out of hand as "ignorant misconception," "medieval superstition" or "fairy lore."

- Label any poorly-understood phenomenon "occult," "fringe," "paranormal," "metaphysical," "mystical," "supernatural," or "new-age." This will get most mainstream scientists off the case immediately on purely emotional grounds. If you're lucky, this may delay any responsible investigation of such phenomena by decades or even centuries!

- Ask questions that appear to contain generally-assumed knowledge that supports your views; for example, "why do no police officers, military pilots, air traffic controllers or psychiatrists report UFOs?" (If someone points out that they do, insist that those who do must be mentally unstable.)

- Ask unanswerable questions based on arbitrary criteria of proof. For example, "if this claim were true, why haven't we seen it on TV?" or "in this or that scientific journal?" Never forget the mother of all such questions: "If UFOs are extraterrestrial, why haven't they landed on the White House lawn?"

- Similarly, reinforce the popular fiction that our scientific knowledge is complete and finished. Do this by asserting that "if such-and-such were true, we would would already know about it!"

- Remember that you can easily appear to refute anyone's claims by building "straw men" to demolish. One way to do this is to misquote them while preserving that convincing grain of truth; for example, by acting as if they have intended the extreme of any position they've taken. Another effective strategy with a long history of success is simply to mis- replicate their experiments--or to avoid replicating them at all on grounds that "to do so would be ridiculous or fruitless." To make the whole process even easier, respond not to their actual claims but to their claims as reported by the media, or as propagated in popular myth.

- Insist that such-and-such unorthodox claim is not scientifically testable because no self-respecting grantmaking organization would fund such ridiculous tests.

- Be selective. For example, if an unorthodox healing practice has failed to reverse a case of terminal illness you may deem it worthless--while taking care to avoid mentioning any of the shortcomings of conventional medicine.

- Hold claimants responsible for the production values and editorial policies of any media or press that reports their claim. If an unusual or inexplicable event is reported in a sensationalized manner, hold this as proof that the event itself must have been without substance or worth.

- When a witness or claimant states something in a manner that is scientifically imperfect, treat this as if it were not scientific at all. If the claimant is not a credentialed scientist, argue that his or her perceptions cannot possibly be objective.

- If you're unable to attack the facts of the case, attack the participants--or the journalists who reported the case. *Ad- hominem* arguments, or personality attacks, are among the most powerful ways of swaying the public and avoiding the issue. For example, if investigators of the unorthodox have profited financially from activities connected with their research, accuse them of "profiting financially from activities connected with their research!" If their research, publishing, speaking tours and so forth, constitute their normal line of work or sole means of support, hold that fact as "conclusive proof that income is being realized from such activities!" If they have labored to achieve public recognition for their work, you may safely characterize them as "publicity seekers."

- Fabricate supportive expertise as needed by quoting the opinions of those in fields popularly assumed to include the necessary knowledge. Astronomers, for example, may be trotted out as experts on the UFO question, although course credits in ufology have never been a prerequisite for a degree in astronomy.

- Fabricate confessions. If a phenomenon stubbornly refuses to go away, set up a couple of colorful old geezers to claim they hoaxed it. The press and the public will always tend to view confessions as sincerely motivated, and will promptly abandon their critical faculties. After all, nobody wants to appear to lack compassion for self-confessed sinners.

- Fabricate sources of disinformation. Claim that you've "found the person who started the rumor that such a phenomenon exists!"

- Fabricate entire research projects. Declare that "these claims have been thoroughly discredited by the top experts in the field!" Do this whether or not such experts have ever actually studied the claims, or, for that matter, even exist.

@Lou

TL:DR - is it anything other then you posturing?

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: For the third time, get your glasses checked. When part of his head is blown off, it is blown off backwards. Have you ever seen a rock dropped into a pond? the rock enters the water going in a downward direction, and the splash goes upwards. the same thing happens at the entry wound of a gunshot. take a look at frame 313 to see the exit wound.

How do you explain his skull and brain matter exitting to the rear of the vehicle?
...
...
???

Quote:

Quote: It has the energy of a multi-ton mass. Nassim Haramein didn't invent mass energy equivalence so don't damn him by it. E=MC^2 is the mass/energy equivalence equation, not M=EC^2. That means that you get a large amount of energy from the conversion of a small amount of mass. The energy level of a single proton is 1.5x10^-10 Joules, not a multiple of 9x10^16 Joules. Please at least try to understand the basic principles of mathematics, then you will not make yourself look quite so inept.

I said m = E divided by c^2.
What you need to realize is that energy of a photon is also based on its frequency/speed despite its mass. Why should this change for bigger objects. For instance, the earth moves thru the galaxy in a wave-like pattern as it keeps up with the sun, so was that frequency ever taken into account? Nassim's first peer-reviewed paper involved adding these Coriolis forces to Einstein's field equations. A great video of what actually happens is here.

Quote:

Quote: And you are wrong, Brandenburg has 100% supporting math, The fact of previous successes does not guarantee future successes, any more than a run of red numbers on a roulette wheel guarantees the colour of the next spin. In his linkedin profile, Brandenburg repeats his claim to have solved the mystery of life, the universe, and everything, but instead of quoting peer review, he states "I am pleased with the result". He may be but it takes a bit more than that to prove a theory, and his mathematics is no more relevant than that of Scotty from Star Trek.

It's funny. When this thread started, you asked for math. I have supplied math. Then the problem was peer-review, then they got peer-reviewed. In the end, I am not the one with religious beliefs as mine change quickly when I see something that makes more sense, where as religious beliefs rarely changed. A bit of self-reflection is in order, me thinks.

Part 2: Debunking Extraterrestrial Intelligence
- Point out that an "unidentified" flying object is just that, and cannot be automatically assumed to be extraterrestrial. Do this whether or not anyone involved *has* assumed it to be extraterrestrial.

- Equate nature's laws with our current understanding of nature's laws. Then label all concepts such as antigravity or interdimensional mobility as mere flights of fancy "because what present-day science cannot explain cannot possibly exist." Then if an anomalous craft is reported to have hovered silently, made right-angle turns at supersonic speeds or appeared and disappeared instantly, you may summarily dismiss the report.

- Declare that there is no proof that life can exist in outer space. Since most people still behave as if the Earth were the center of the universe, you may safely ignore the fact that Earth, which is already in outer space, has abundant life.

- Point out that the official SETI program assumes in advance that extraterrestrial intelligence can only exist light-years away from Earth. Equate this a-priori assumption with conclusive proof; then insist that this invalidates all terrestrial reports of ET contact.

- If compelling evidence is presented for a UFO crash or some similar event, provide thousands of pages of detailed information about a formerly secret military project that might conceivably account for it. The more voluminous the information, the less the need to demonstrate any actual connection between the reported event and the military project.

- When someone produces purported physical evidence of alien technology, point out that no analysis can prove that its origin was extraterrestrial; after all, it might be the product of some perfectly ordinary, ultra-secret underground government lab. The only exception would be evidence obtained from a landing on the White House lawn--the sole circumstance universally agreed upon by generations of skeptics as conclusively certifying extraterrestrial origin!

- If photographs or other visual media depicting anomalous aerial phenomena have been presented, argue that since images can now be digitally manipulated they prove nothing. Assert this regardless of the vintage of the material or the circumstances of its acquisition. Insist that the better the quality of a UFO photo, the greater the likelihood of fraud. Photos that have passed every known test may therefore be held to be the most perfectly fraudulent of all!

- Argue that all reports of humanoid extraterrestrials must be bogus because the evolution of the humanoid form on Earth is the result of an infinite number of accidents in a genetically isolated environment. Avoid addressing the logical proposition that if interstellar visitations have occurred, Earth cannot be considered genetically isolated in the first place.

- Argue that extraterrestrials would or wouldn't, should or shouldn't, can or can't behave in certain ways because such behavior would or wouldn't be logical. Base your notions of logic on how terrestrials would or wouldn't behave. Since terrestrials behave in all kinds of ways you can theorize whatever kind of behavior suits your arguments.

- Stereotype contact claims according to simplistic scenarios already well established in the collective imagination. If a reported ET contact appears to have had no negative consequences, sarcastically accuse the claimant of believing devoutly that "benevolent ETs have come to magically save us from destroying ourselves!" If someone claims to have been traumatized by an alien contact, brush it aside as "a classic case of hysteria." If contactees stress the essential humanness and limitations of certain ETs they claim to have met, ask "why haven't these omnipotent beings offered to solve all our problems for us?"

- When reluctant encounter witnesses step forward, accuse them indiscriminately of "seeking the limelight" with their outlandish stories.

- Ask why alleged contactees and abductees haven't received alien infections. Reject as "preposterous" all medical evidence suggesting that such may in fact have occurred. Categorize as "pure science- fiction" the notion that alien understandings of immunology might be in advance of our own, or that sufficiently alien microorganisms might be limited in their ability to interact with our biological systems. Above all, dismiss anything that might result in an actual investigation of the matter.

- Travel to China. Upon your return, report that "nobody there told me they had seen any UFOs." Insist that this proves that no UFOs are reported outside countries whose populations are overexposed to science fiction.

- Where hypnotic regression has yielded consistent contactee testimony in widespread and completely independent cases, argue that hypnosis is probably unreliable, and is always worthless in the hands of non-credentialed practitioners. Be sure to add that the subjects must have been steeped in the ET-contact literature, and that, whatever their credentials, the hypnotists involved must have been asking leading questions.

- If someone claims to have been emotionally impacted by a contact experience, point out that strong emotions can alter perceptions. Therefore, the claimant's recollections must be entirely untrustworthy.

- Maintain that there cannot possibly be a government coverup of the ET question . . . but that it exists for legitimate reasons of national security!

- Accuse conspiracy theorists of being conspiracy theorists and of believing in conspiracies! Insist that only *accidentalist* theories can possibly account for repeated, organized patterns of suppression, denial and disinformational activity.

- In the event of a worst-case scenario--for example, one in which extraterrestrial intelligence is suddenly acknowledged as a global mystery of millennial proportions--just remember that the public has a short memory. Simply hail this as a "victory for the scientific method" and say dismissively, "Well, everyone knows this is a monumentally significant issue. As a matter of fact, my colleagues and I have been remarking on it for years!"

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: What has not been demonstrate IS INFACT BUILDING A FULL PYRAMID TO THE SAME STANDARDS. Correct no one has completed an entirely new pyramid using the same technology. Instead we have the technology discovered at the sites and used it recreating similar "prefectly cut" stones. And transported stones such as these using wood and stone. Together we use inductive logical to conclude it wouldn't be difficult to accomplish. Which again is why I say we cannot exclude people. The evidence shows it is highly possible people did it. So how many alien spaces have been found with diamond like cutting tool and anti-gravity carriers? ZERO. So, humans at least have some found and tested tools in their favor. And has anyone used that to BUILDING A FULL PYRAMID TO THE SAME STANARDS? Not even 1 molecule was moved let alone a whole building. If you level critque at an idea your idea should be better at sustaining your criticisms. The idea of aliens is in a much much worse state than that of humans. Really I think you need to first defend aliens agains fairies. We have better evidence that fairies did it. Quote: There are signs of diamond-cutting on stones, There are signs of cuts people have concluded were diamond cut. Though AFAIK we have not found cutting diamond piles in quarries. Though we have found other materials which seem to work nearly as well as diamonds, takes a bit longer obviously. Quote: All civil engineers TODAY still call it a monumental task. Well today they are monuments so that term's fitting. It's important to note that monumental is not the same as impossible. Quote: I'm saying it made no sense to build them as such...and in many cases, at all. Hence if they were smart(er), they would have used the smaller stones of the Romans. The problem here is you're assigning value of your thought exercise trying to think like a 6K year old society we know relatively little about. While you may not have the creativity to think of a reason. Others have been creative enough to think of reasons. Though again we'll not know who is correct in reasoning of a 6K year dead man unless we build a time machine, go ask, and hope he tells the truth. Quote: The energy of a system that emits a photon is decreased by the energy of the photon as measured in the rest frame of the emitting system, which may result in a reduction in mass in the amount E/c^2 . Similarly, the mass of a system that absorbs a photon is increased by a corresponding amount I can say thanks for illustrating my point further. I provided how science sees the mass of a photon is zero. You provided the way how science might see a mass. In order to determine which is correct we need better evidences than presently available. Hence, to date science has not established if photons have a mass. Again the answer to what is the mass of a photon - TBD (to be determined) Quote: If you don't mind I'd like to get off your diversion to complain about posting style You need to reread what I wrote. It explained how your feeling is really a misplaced thought of an attack on you. It had nothing about stylings. Quote: So in other words, BrianK cannot refute Brandenburg and Znidaric. Ok, got it! I thought you complained about snide comments but you don't seem to be able to break your own habit. Because you have rephrased incorrectly the communication appears to not be getting through. I'll try to make it short... So in other words the present lack of quantitative and qualitative evidence makes conclusion findings about Brandenburg and Znidaric at this time impossible.

Please read what I posted about debunkery, then look in a mirror.

@Lou

Quote:

Please read what I posted about debunkery, then look in a mirror.

Insult the person and ignore the topic right? What is this rule # 3 or something? Sorry, I forget . You seem to violate your own rules so much they're really not worth the bits you put them on.

TL:DR #2 too. And thanks you clarified my question. You're clearly posturing.

Last edited by BrianK on 07-Mar-2012 at 02:56 PM.

The US collider Tevatron has analyzed their data concerning Higgs. It appears to duplicate the LHC's findings from last year. Niether one was sufficent to have a 5 sigma confidence level. But, it was strong enough to point out the last "corner" to investigate for existence of Higgs.

Why can't Tevatron get to 5 σ ? It lacks the energy required to get to that level. At the 2+ σ confidence level for Tevatron this evidence provides a better than 95% probability that Higgs exists.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Please read what I posted about debunkery, then look in a mirror. Insult the person and ignore the topic right? What is this rule # 3 or something? Sorry, I forget . You seem to violate your own rules so much they're really not worth the bits you put them on. TL:DR #2 too. And thanks you clarified my question. You're clearly posturing.

Thanks, you've proven my postulate! You are clearly debunking.

@Lou

Surely you don't believe the sun moves in a straight line through the galaxy?

I look forward to what significance you see in the moons orbit around the earths orbit around the suns orbit around the galaxy. Or Haley's comet.

I have an increasing suspicion you're just trolling.

Quote:

Lou wrote: I said m = E divided by c^2.

You said:
Quote:

It has the energy of a multi-ton mass

You can't get that from m = E/c^2

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@Lou

Quote:

How do you explain his skull and brain matter exitting to the rear of the vehicle?

This site has the entire Zapruder film on a frame by frame list. Feel free to look through them and show an exit wound of the magnitude of the one on frame 313 Also feel free to point out the location of the presidents brain as it sits on the rear part of the vehicle as it drives away. You may also check the reflection on the front seat passengers head as it changes shape and then vanishes as the car drives into the shade. Since this exercise does not involve any mathematics it should not be beyond your abilities, and if the images are too small I am sure you can copy them into dpaint, or an equivalent, and zoom in on the image. In this particular case, 1980's home computing technology can successfully overcome even your Mr Magoo like attributes

Quote:

It's funny. When this thread started, you asked for math. I have supplied math

When this thread started you claimed that the sole force responsible for causing the planets to orbit the sun was EM, and that gravity was a figment of my and BrianK's feeble imagination. I demonstrated various reasons why this was not possible, and asked you to produce a mathematical basis for your "ideas". This you have still failed to do. The first equation that you linked to had no relationship to the orbit of the planets, and all subsequent "mathematics" that you have linked to, still have no bearing on the matter that was being discussed at the time, and despite your constant shifting to try to claim that there is no God but Sitchin, you have still to provide actual evidence of anything other than your own trolling. Despite your claim that BrianK cannot refute these claims I can, and have done, using basic mathematics. I think BrianK illustrated your refusal to accept anything other than your own divine infallibilty with his parable of the jigsaw puzzle.

Quote:

I am not the one with religious beliefs as mine change quickly when I see something that makes more sense

Actually, your "belief" seems to change whenever somebody posts a new fantasy with no evidence, even if it diametrically opposes your other firmly held beliefs. The only precondition to acceptance by you is that it must oppose and ignore, all observational or mathematical evidence to the contrary.

Quote:

What you need to realize is that energy of a photon is also based on its frequency/speed despite its mass

My comment was in response to your statement concerning Harameins "magnum opus" about the Scwarzchild proton. The energy released by converting the mass of a single proton to energy is far greater than the kinetic energy of a proton unless it is travelling at the speed of light. The differing energy levels of a photon that alter the frequency of light of that photon are likewise far lower than the radiation pressure exerted by that photon, and certainly do not impart a mass equivalent of tons. When you apply this idea to add energy to the earth on its orbit, how much energy do you think is added by an oscillation frequency of 3.169x10^-8 Hz. Once again you have successfully demonstrated your total lack of understanding of basic mathematics.

Incidentally, the energy equivalence of a one tonne mass would be 9x10^19 Joules. 90 ExaJoules is greater than the entire worlds electricity generation and usage for the whole of the year 2008. (6.8EJ)

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