@Lou

Quote:

Yes, if it has 4 wheels and a seat and steering wheel its a car whether the engine is 100% electric or petroleum powered, its still a car.

Lets see, a wheel on each corner, powered, and steerable, with seats. this one is even a convertible. This on the other hand, is not a car.

Quote:

FYI: Ether physics is making a comeback.

Absolutely brilliant! You accuse me of having my head stuck in the past, and not moving on from my schoolbooks, and then you link to an address delivered on May 5th, 1920 as a new development.

Like BrianK, I used to take stuff apart to find out what made it go. Once you know the basics of how something works you can sometimes find a better way to make things work. If, however, you ignore the details you will end up chasing your own tail in ever decreasing circles until you disappear.

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

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: [quote]The latest microwave probes indicate our universe is within +/- 0.5% of perfectly flat. So the lead candidate at present would be modeled by a flat sheet of paper that's infinite in length and width but has, relatively, no height. .. If that's so the Big Ongoing is out of the running.

considering the sample data at best uses an 80 year period (in the scope of ~14billion years, I don't think that this "data" can be used to make that nothing more than wishfull thinking. The jet would explain alot.

@Lou

Quote:

Quote: BrianK wrote: [quote]The latest microwave probes indicate our universe is within +/- 0.5% of perfectly flat. So the lead candidate at present would be modeled by a flat sheet of paper that's infinite in length and width but has, relatively, no height. .. If that's so the Big Ongoing is out of the running. considering the sample data at best uses an 80 year period (in the scope of ~14billion years, I don't think that this "data" can be used to make that nothing more than wishfull thinking.

Not following your reasoning here. The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probes have been there for a decade. They can see more light than you can and can peer back 13.7Billion years. Do you realize that WMAP is sifting through data of about a trillionth of a second after the 'Big Bang' thereby has ruled out some postulates on the creation of the universe? Not getting how you believe this to be 80 years. Perhaps you can explain better?

Quote:

The jet would explain alot

Perhaps but the evidence explains a lot more. Including a flat universe says that the possiblity of total energy could be 0. Which means - something could come from nothing. Whoa! If the 'jet' exists it must exist as a universe as a subset of another universe. Which means you have one more level to explain before you can get to the creation point. Not saying it didn't happen this way. (Afterall we are still learning.) Just saying you got LOTS more work to do to show it happened this way.

I can't wait to see what the Planck Satellite data shows. The papers should start trickling out late this year. Assuming the Planet Nibiru doesn't come back and destroy earth on 12/21/12.

@BrianK

So what you are telling me is that they are assuming the universe is flat because they are looking at light from when it was flatter... Ok...

Last edited by Lou on 20-Mar-2012 at 01:23 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

So what you are telling me is that they are assuming the universe is flat because they are looking at light from when it was flatter... Ok...

Insults are unnecessary and inappropriate.

Now to the point of the conservation. Your concept of 'looking at light when the universe was flatter' is dependent upon the relationship between age of data measured versus the age of the universe. We'd represent this as a data period / age of universe * 100 to give us some percentage figure. For example, if your 80 years was right that % would be fairly bad 80/15Trillion is close enough to just say 0%. However, your 80 years isn't correct. Satellites prior to WMAP measured a good percentage of the universe. WMAP extended those measures to ~10^-12 seconds post creation. You can do the math if you want an exact figure. Let's use 99.99% as that's smaller than the actual relationship.

Now that we understand the period of measure versus age of the universe we can consider this in your statement 'looking at light when it was flatter' - what we can say is better than 99.99% the life of the universe to date. And more data about composition of the universe indicates this will be this way for trillions of years more.

So yeah the circle in a donut of a blackhole in a multiverse explains a lot. But, again we're not asking for a pretty mathematical formula we need EVIDENCE to say if that is or isn't the case. The EVIDENCE indicates the probability of that pretty equation being true is close enough to 0 to say 0%.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: So what you are telling me is that they are assuming the universe is flat because they are looking at light from when it was flatter... Ok... Insults are unnecessary and inappropriate. Now to the point of the conservation. Your concept of 'looking at light when the universe was flatter' is dependent upon the relationship between age of data measured versus the age of the universe. We'd represent this as a data period / age of universe * 100 to give us some percentage figure. For example, if your 80 years was right that % would be fairly bad 80/15Trillion is close enough to just say 0%. However, your 80 years isn't correct. Satellites prior to WMAP measured a good percentage of the universe. WMAP extended those measures to ~10^-12 seconds post creation. You can do the math if you want an exact figure. Let's use 99.99% as that's smaller than the actual relationship. Now that we understand the period of measure versus age of the universe we can consider this in your statement 'looking at light when it was flatter' - what we can say is better than 99.99% the life of the universe to date. And more data about composition of the universe indicates this will be this way for trillions of years more. So yeah the circle in a donut of a blackhole in a multiverse explains a lot. But, again we're not asking for a pretty mathematical formula we need EVIDENCE to say if that is or isn't the case. The EVIDENCE indicates the probability of that pretty equation being true is close enough to 0 to say 0%.

All I am saying is you can't tell me what note a song is playing by replaying me a 1/10,000,000,000 bit of sample... Your evidence is just a bunch of assumptions...

@Lou

Quote:

All I am saying is you can't tell me what note a song is playing by replaying me a 1/10,000,000,000 bit of sample... Your evidence is just a bunch of assumptions...

First the sample is 99.99% not a billonth. Second, the universe is thought to have a cause and effect relationship. The evidence again points strongly this way, and even in your EM_is_God version this understanding is in efffect. There's nothing dictating the antecedent note is an effect of a causal note, or tempo, or scale, or ... This makes music randomizable in a way the universe is not.

So yes scientific measured 'assumptions' is degrees better than the unmeasured 'assumptions'. They are not equivalent in the way you wish to claim they are.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: All I am saying is you can't tell me what note a song is playing by replaying me a 1/10,000,000,000 bit of sample... Your evidence is just a bunch of assumptions... First the sample is 99.99% not a billonth. Second, the universe is thought to have a cause and effect relationship. The evidence again points strongly this way, and even in your EM_is_God version this understanding is in efffect. There's nothing dictating the antecedent note is an effect of a causal note, or tempo, or scale, or ... This makes music randomizable in a way the universe is not. So yes scientific measured 'assumptions' is degrees better than the unmeasured 'assumptions'. They are not equivalent in the way you wish to claim they are.

If you accept lensing, then why is it hard to believe the light of the early universe is also lensed and continues to look flat as it reaches us? The light of the "universe" that got jetted after us may not have reached us (yet) depending on how fast we are moving from the source...

@Lou

Before we go on let me first check here. Do you understand why we have 99.99% of data and not a ten billonth? And do you agree there is a cause and effect relationship at work within the universe?

Quote:

If you accept lensing, then why is it hard to believe the light of the early universe is also lensed and continues to look flat as it reaches us? The light of the "universe" that got jetted after us may not have reached us (yet) depending on how fast we are moving from the source...

It's not hard to believe that lensing could flatten light. In fact you can take this belief, develop a formula, and see if the data from reality measures with your postulate. (cough, science cough)

For example. Draw 3 points on a piece of paper and measure the distances between them. You'll find the straight line between the points align with distance. Now take the same sheet of paper and curve it around a cyclindar. You find that the distance between the points is smaller. And the distance doesn't correspond to the line on the paper any longer. ... The Delta can be used to determine the rate of curvature.

This sort of work was done for the dataset. Turned out that with better than 99.99% of the timeline covered we're in a 99.95% planar arrangement. Definitely not anywhere close to the image you had of a self perpetuating black hole. And the Planck Satellite may improve upon the accuracies of those items.

@BrianK

I don't think you get what I am saying.

Let's say you have a strobing flashlight...
In the first pulse, our flat universe is born and expands normally like light from a flashlight will (hence the view that the universe is expanding and flat).
A second pulse then happens some time later. Would you in our universe/pulse be able to see the universe/pulse that came after you ... or before you?

Now let's say that flashlight is a blackhole jet. The gravity of the black hole will slow down the vertical light as it expands but speed up horizontal expansion and eventually wrap it back around into the black hole.

Last edited by Lou on 20-Mar-2012 at 08:44 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Would you in our universe/pulse be able to see the universe/pulse that came after you ... or before you? Now let's say that flashlight is a blackhole jet. The gravity of the black hole will slow down the vertical light as it expands but speed up horizontal expansion and eventually wrap it back around into the black hole.

Lou's Question is akin to What if the universe is impacted by an unknowable and undetectable force?
Answer: Then the universe is impacted by an unknowable and undetectable force.

If the flat pulse is the only thing that we can observe then it's the only thing we can observe. Which also means your claim of observing 99.99% is really 1/10,000,000,000 is unable to be proven to any degree of certainity. And thus unfair to claim as there's no way you, or anyone can support it.

So perhaps your unknowable force is controlling all though it's fairly worthless to do anything about it as it is unknowable. You've crossed into realm of religious guess.

@Lou

Good humor IKEA Stonehedge

New Observation Kinematic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich evidenced for the first time.

Last edited by BrianK on 21-Mar-2012 at 12:58 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Would you in our universe/pulse be able to see the universe/pulse that came after you ... or before you? Now let's say that flashlight is a blackhole jet. The gravity of the black hole will slow down the vertical light as it expands but speed up horizontal expansion and eventually wrap it back around into the black hole. Lou's Question is akin to What if the universe is impacted by an unknowable and undetectable force? Answer: Then the universe is impacted by an unknowable and undetectable force. If the flat pulse is the only thing that we can observe then it's the only thing we can observe. Which also means your claim of observing 99.99% is really 1/10,000,000,000 is unable to be proven to any degree of certainity. And thus unfair to claim as there's no way you, or anyone can support it. So perhaps your unknowable force is controlling all though it's fairly worthless to do anything about it as it is unknowable. You've crossed into realm of religious guess.

Or it's genius.
You see, this is a view stepping out from the "big bang". For you this logic is clearly in your opposite direction...as you'd still be dissecting other smaller things within the universe...

@BrianK

If the aliens did it, this guy must be an alien:
http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/newpage1

_________________
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:

Or it's genius.

An unknowable force may be true. You can't ever prove it. And is it genius? Not really. The belief in gods have existed for eons. It's goes far to show how correct labeling your belief as EM_is_God is actually correct.

Quote:

You see, this is a view stepping out from the "big bang". For you this logic is clearly in your opposite direction...as you'd still be dissecting other smaller things within the universe...

Indeed it is settping out from the 'Big Bang'. Though I'd say it's probably a bit worse than many of the other very similar multi-verse postulates. Some of those are should be detectable, so we could discount them.

Quote:

For you this logic is clearly in your opposite direction

It's actually not logic at all. It's a religious leap of faith. And yes it's the opposite direction to science. One of the base assumptions about science is we can observe and conclude from our observations. You've inserted an unobservable. The concept is outside of the realm of which science can speak. The net result here is no one can prove you wrong. Wait a second. Hold the victory dance. The default here is not that you are right. Instead we must correctly say you hold a region of religion where an unknowable is accepted and never can be demonstrated as valid.

So, as I said previously you can't contend that 1/10billonth is in anyway true because you have failed to demonstrate the condition upon which that depends is valid. Which gets me to your issue with understanding the fine details. Your big picture overlooks the fine details. It accepts unproved and unproveables as true and draws conclusions from them. To summarize what you're saying is - It's turtles all the way down.

Last edited by BrianK on 21-Mar-2012 at 01:32 PM.

@olegil

Quote:

If the aliens did it, this guy must be an alien: http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/newpage1

IMO Excellent point. Earlier I posted the YouTube videos of this guy doing the actual work. It indeed demonstrates that with some wood and stones a single guy can move more than 10 tons. Now being the pyramids are mostly comprised of ~2.5ton stones it's fairly easy to see how the technology did exist and could have been used by humans.

Lou discarded this. In summary because he considers humans too stupid to have figured out how to work with a foci and a focrum. I think it goes without saying that people, heck animals, do use resources as tools and don't know why they work. You don't need to know F=MA to figure out a really hard sharpned rock can open a coconut.

Last edited by BrianK on 21-Mar-2012 at 01:27 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @olegil Quote: If the aliens did it, this guy must be an alien: http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/newpage1 IMO Excellent point. Earlier I posted the YouTube videos of this guy doing the actual work. It indeed demonstrates that with some wood and stones a single guy can move more than 10 tons. Now being the pyramids are mostly comprised of ~2.5ton stones it's fairly easy to see how the technology did exist and could have been used by humans. Lou discarded this. In summary because he considers humans too stupid to have figured out how to work with a foci and a focrum. I think it goes without saying that people, heck animals, do use resources as tools and don't know why they work. You don't need to know F=MA to figure out a really hard sharpned rock can open a coconut.

I discarded it because it is completely discardable.
Did you see him cut any stones with string? NO
Did he haul the stones 100-150 miles like the ones from Stonehenge? NO
...across all sorts of terrain...? NO
...across rivers...? NO

In the case of the pyramids and Tiahuanacu:
Can he precisely place stones so that the surrounding stones are not disturbed and that you can't fit a sheet of paper between them? No!

What he has done is boil water. He hasn't created the steam engine.

Last edited by Lou on 21-Mar-2012 at 03:48 PM.

@BrianK

FYI, my 10 billion accuracy # falls withing the ranges of the visible (13.8 billion light year) universe. When you can see farther, let me know, mmmk?

Last edited by Lou on 21-Mar-2012 at 03:52 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

I discarded it because it is completely discardable

The experiment showed what it meant to show. 1 man can move 15+ton objects on his own. The requiremens you place 'cutting stones' certainly weren't shown here. Nor were they meant to be. Though note others have shown them. Really the only way you can disregard is if you assume early humans were too stupid to chain together events. For example moving 600 feet vs 150 miles there is no difference. As they say in my running club a 10K is merely two 5Ks.

Quote:

What he has done is boil water. He hasn't created the steam engine.

Correct he has done 1 part of the experiment. Others have done other parts. Inductive reasoning says these events are not mutally exclusive and can easily be chained together. Again unless again you are anti-humanity and think people are simply too stupid to do that.


Quote:

FYI, my 10 billion accuracy # falls withing the ranges of the visible (13.8 billion light year) universe. When you can see farther, let me know, mmmk?

Indeed your 10 billonth of the range falls within the range. However, the question we were discussing is not if your subrange of range falls into the range. That'd be silly. It was what % of the range can humans see? Well because we have 13.8 Billion years down to 1 trillonth of a second post origination this is better than 99.99% the age of the universe. It appears you tried to contend that 99.99% is really 10billonth %. If you believe this to be true please show us your math. I was kind enough to show mine.

(OK to be fair I didn't show the exact math. I rounded to ease the calculation which resulted in an accuracy that's less than what the true numbers are if we did the exact math. Eg. my result was worse then the actual, or you could say I gave you the favor by rounding. But, there was enough difference between 99.99% and .000000001% that the point was well illustrated of age of light of measured.)

Last edited by BrianK on 21-Mar-2012 at 04:58 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 21-Mar-2012 at 04:55 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: I discarded it because it is completely discardable The experiment showed what it meant to show. 1 man can move 15+ton objects on his own. The requiremens you place 'cutting stones' certainly weren't shown here. Nor were they meant to be. Though note others have shown them. Really the only way you can disregard is if you assume early humans were too stupid to chain together events. For example moving 600 feet vs 150 miles there is no difference. As they say in my running club a 10K is merely two 5Ks.

You are making blind assumptions. To use (the) Nimrod's favorite phrase: "orders of magnitude". He's shown moving a maybe 3 ton stone on logs on a flat surface a few feet. Show me a 20+ ton stone on logs on a rocky irregular surface, uphill and across a river.
As your saying goes: "with extra-ordinary claims must come extra-ordinary evidence". Result = none.

Oh and I didn't see him cutting any stones with string...

How does the shoe fit now that its on the other foot?

Last edited by Lou on 21-Mar-2012 at 06:24 PM.