@Lou
Quote:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120418111923.htm Dark matter proven to exist ... but only in toilets!

OMFSM!
Do you realize in two posts you argued to discard ALL observational evidence of the sun, which has never once ever turned up a spaceship in nearly 400 years of solar observation counter to Haramein's postulates, and embraced a single experiment that hasn't been validated or replicated to claim the complete non-existence of one of many postulates?

These two last posts easily displays the complete ignorance of the scientific methods in your point of view.

Last edited by BrianK on 19-Apr-2012 at 03:14 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120418111923.htm Dark matter proven to exist ... but only in toilets! OMFSM! Do you realize in two posts you argued to discard ALL observational evidence of the sun, which has never once ever turned up a spaceship in nearly 400 years of solar observation counter to Haramein's postulates, and embraced a single experiment that hasn't been validated or replicated to claim the complete non-existence of one of many postulates? These two last posts easily displays the complete ignorance of the scientific methods in your point of view.

Apparently, you(and everyone else's) point of view gets more and more flawed over time.

You defended dark matter.
You defended the idea that the great flood was a myth.
You defended the idea that gravity wasn't a side-effect of EM.
You defended the standard model.

Tisk, tisk, tisk...

@Lou

Quote:

Apparently, you(and everyone else's) point of view gets more and more flawed over time.

Actually because we follow the EVIDENCE the views continually improve as the understanding improves over time.

Quote:

You defended dark matter. You defended the idea that the great flood was a myth. You defended the idea that gravity wasn't a side-effect of EM. You defended the standard model.

Not sure if you have your head in the sand or just completely mischaracterized the discussion. I'll briefly recap to see how you went wrong in such an egregious claim.

Dark Matter: I've repeated stated this is one of several postulates. It, like everything else, requires evidence. Since gravity is not dependent upon the existence of Dark Matter it not existing does not disprove gravity.

There's an important point here. While the math works very well for Dark Matter, again we demand evidence. It's similar to how you believe the math works well for Haramein and again we demand evidence. Do you understand the consistency in the demands here? BOTH need evidence. (Though note contary to your beliefs the math really doesn't work well for Haramein.)

Biblical Flood: Again no evidence exists of a single worldwide flood during human existence. There is some evidence of large localized flooding. Again - evidence?

Gravity side effect of EM: in short you've failed again to provide evidence.

Standard Model: With the noteable exception of Higgs Boson everything in the Standard Model has been evidenced. And with Higgs we've cornered the region to the point that this year we'll have the first experiment that'll look in the corner. Again I'm completely open to the Higgs not existing. And as always I ask for evidence.

What's happening in those last couple of posts is the arguement Lou is making is that - 400 years of solar viewing and having never once found valid evidence of earth sized alien spacecraft flying into the sun is invalid. Along with the ability for a single experiment not showing Dark Matter completely unseats gravity. Your arguments convey how your understanding of a scientific model is seriously flawed. As a result you have skipped over creating valid evidences and jump directly to proclaiming truth. What results is a faith based God_is_EM declaration.

Last edited by BrianK on 19-Apr-2012 at 03:07 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 19-Apr-2012 at 02:26 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Apparently, you(and everyone else's) point of view gets more and more flawed over time. You defended dark matter. You defended the idea that the great flood was a myth. You defended the idea that gravity wasn't a side-effect of EM. You defended the standard model. Tisk, tisk, tisk... Dark matter: I've repeatively stated that it is one of several postulates. And because gravity is not dependent on dark matter existing, if we don't find it it doesn't mandate gravity is thrown out. Again the math works nice but we need evidence. Haramein doesn't have evidence and the math appears to not work either.

Gravity's 96+% margin of error is unacceptable. Plasma physicists already know its an electric/plasma universe...

Quote:

There is evidence of large regional floods. There is no evidence of a worldwide universal flood.

I have already presented evidence of a large antarctic plate breaking off into the ocean and raising sea levels almost 20 meters in a day. You can continue to live in denial, Sitchin's work is further verified.

Quote:

Gravity side effect of EM: it may be but you've failed to evidence the postulates. Once you provide valid proof then we can talk.

I have not failed to prove anything. You have failed to accept anything. Both Nassim Haramein and John Brandenburg tell you what gravity is. Nassim by comparing 1 proton to every other proton and Brandenburg by comparing a proton to an electron.

Quote:

With the exception of Higgs the Standard Model has been spot on. We have worke to understand the Higgs region. This year we have the first experiment of sufficient power to find or discard the Higgs. Thought again there are other postulates. Just as I wait for you to evidence your stuff, I likewise wait for science to continue their evidence.

Just the Higgs? What about those glu(e)ons? Strong force has already gotten its kick in the particles thanks to Nassim Haramein. I'm looking forward to Brandenburg's take on it as unifying that force is supposed to be his next project.

@Lou

Quote:

have already presented evidence of a large antarctic plate breaking off into the ocean and raising sea levels almost 20 meters in a day. You can continue to live in denial, Sitchin's work is further verified

Lou you appear to be math impared. First the height of Mount Everst is 8,500 meters above sea level. Next consider that Mount Everest is 620,000 meters from Calcutta, which is on the ocean.

Do a quick pythagorian theory and compare to 20 meters. And you're trying to tell us a 20 meter rise buried all land?


Quote:

Both Nassim Haramein and John Brandenburg tell you what gravity is.

Mathematically they have their postulates. Evidence wise they have LOTS more work to do. Especially Haramein as the current evidence is stacked against him.

Quote:

What about those glu(e)ons?

Not sure what you mean here. AFAIK the gluon was uncovered in 1979.

Last edited by BrianK on 19-Apr-2012 at 05:53 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 19-Apr-2012 at 05:52 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

You defended dark matter.

The "dark matter"postulate had sufficient credibility to warrant further investigation. It is one of many ideas of greater or lesser credibility, and investigations into all credible postulates is ongoing.

Quote:

You defended the idea that the great flood was a myth.

Primarily because there is no credible evidence to the contrary. You keep claiming to have evidence but when pressed you either refer to Sitchin, or link to some other village idiot referring to Sitchin. There is no geological evidence of an instant temporary acquisition of 7.1x10^18 litres of water on the surface of the planet This volume of water is the amount needed to raise the worlds sea level by the amount you claim, and is the equivalent of a cube 192km per side. I do not dispute the fact that there was a rise in sea level at the end of the last ice age, but the geological evidence indicates that this was not a matter of a one day rise, and the geographical evidence shows that instead of receding a few weeks later, the sea level is still high.

Quote:

You defended the idea that gravity wasn't a side-effect of EM.

Primarily because there is no credible evidence to the contrary. Scientists have produced mathematical equations that engineers have used to launch probes and satellites into space, and have enabled other scientists to observe planets orbiting other suns. This was done using gravity, and despite your mindless assertions EM is even better understood, as we know the mechanism for conversion and propagation. All of the energy in EM reactions is accounted for and none of it generates gravity. Again when pressed for evidence to back your claims you refer to somebody else making the same assertion with the same lack of evidence. I cannot help wondering if I were to keep following the links if I would eventually go full circle, and get to somebody citing Lou as their source of "scientific authority"

Quote:

You defended the standard model.

Simply because the standard model is the most credible and mathematically consistent model. When the suppositions and superstitions contained in your Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Proposals can begin to match the accuracy and effectiveness of the standard model they may be worth serious study, but knowing your track record you will promptly change your viewpoint because consistency is "too mundane"


Quote:

Gravity's 96+% margin of error is unacceptable.

As a result of improving accuracy of observation and measurement, first Newton and then Einstein were indeed shown to be less than 100 % accurate. Their mathematics is however not subject to a 95%+ margin of error. If their mathematics were that far off Sputnik would never have got off the ground, Armstrong would have been the first man to set foot on the surface of Jupiter, and Apollo 13 would have done a figure eight orbit around the sun.

Quote:

I have already presented evidence of a large antarctic plate breaking off into the ocean

Correction, you have made an assertion based on an assertion made by somebody else. You have presented no [b]evidence that this icecube had a mass of 7x10^15 tonnes, nor do you explain where it vanished to in order for the water to recede.

Quote:

Sitchin's work is further verified.

Wrong. As a result of a little bit of basic mathematics, Sitchins inept fiction is even further discredited.Just as mathematics defeated Haramein, Brandenburg, Znidarsic, Podkletnov, Hapgood, Cruttenden, Shah, Omerbasich, etc. etc. etc.

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

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: have already presented evidence of a large antarctic plate breaking off into the ocean and raising sea levels almost 20 meters in a day. You can continue to live in denial, Sitchin's work is further verified Lou you appear to be math impared. First the height of Mount Everst is 8,500 meters above sea level. Next consider that Mount Everest is 620,000 meters from Calcutta, which is on the ocean. Do a quick pythagorian theory and compare to 20 meters. And you're trying to tell us a 20 meter rise buried all land?

Yes, Mr. Twist, continue to put words in my mouth like "buried all land". Where did I say that? Regardless, you can look up how much land the planet would lose if sea level rose 20m. When you start looking at such things, its amazing what you find....

Quote:

Quote: Both Nassim Haramein and John Brandenburg tell you what gravity is. Mathematically they have their postulates. Evidence wise they have LOTS more work to do. Especially Haramein as the current evidence is stacked against him.

No. Nassim directly answered and solved all the "problems" you had with his original paper in his new paper, a preview of which was given in the video I linked you. As usual, when the evidence is against you, pretend its not there, right?

Quote:

Quote: What about those glu(e)ons? Not sure what you mean here. AFAIK the gluon was uncovered in 1979.

Particle names are a joke. Atleast some people are preparing for the end of the 'standard model';
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/excuse-me-sir-your-higgs-doesnt-fit-in-my-model.ars
Interesting last quote: "I also think that particle physicists get to use the coolest names for their particles."

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: You defended the idea that the great flood was a myth. Primarily because there is no credible evidence to the contrary. You keep claiming to have evidence but when pressed you either refer to Sitchin, or link to some other village idiot referring to Sitchin. There is no geological evidence of an instant temporary acquisition of 7.1x10^18 litres of water on the surface of the planet This volume of water is the amount needed to raise the worlds sea level by the amount you claim, and is the equivalent of a cube 192km per side. I do not dispute the fact that there was a rise in sea level at the end of the last ice age, but the geological evidence indicates that this was not a matter of a one day rise, and the geographical evidence shows that instead of receding a few weeks later, the sea level is still high.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse_n_1421504.html
Hello village nimrod, nice to meet you!

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou [Quote: You defended the standard model. Simply because the standard model is the most credible and mathematically consistent model. When the suppositions and superstitions contained in your Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Proposals can begin to match the accuracy and effectiveness of the standard model they may be worth serious study, but knowing your track record you will promptly change your viewpoint because consistency is "too mundane"

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/excuse-me-sir-your-higgs-doesnt-fit-in-my-model.ars
Hello village nimrod, it seems your model is about to collapse!

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-shadow.asp

A great page for the gravity noobs...

@Lou

Quote:

Yes, Mr. Twist, continue to put words in my mouth like "buried all land". Where did I say that? ... You defended the idea that the great flood was a myth.

In the past we had conversation around 'The Great Flood' being the flood that the Bible wrote about happening around Noah's time. So let's quote what is said about the Great Flood so you know how the text you are referencing is representing this event
Quote:

the waters of the flood were upon the earth... And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth....And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered...

- The Earth it doesn't say just the middle-east or just Israel but the earth itself was buried. And it goes on to say that the hills were covered. The flood being across the entire earth was the lesson taught to me by the religious leaders. Which is why it killed everything on the surface.
Quote:

And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man... all that was in the dry land, died.And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark

As I've stated over and over again there is ZERO evidence to the Great Flood as depicted in the Bible existing. There is no worldwide evidence of a universal flood destroying all life that walks upon the land during the times of humans on this planet.

Quote:

Nassim directly answered and solved all the "problems" you had with his original paper in his new paper.. As usual, when the evidence is against you, pretend its not there, right?

You still do not understand what evidence means. Throwing out a postulate then fixing with another postulate does not promote the 2nd postulate to evidence. Evidence is that experimentational, replicatable, testable, information that comes from outside the postulate that validates, or invalidates, the postulate's conclusions.

You accused me of denying evidence. The issue is you didn't provide evidence you presented a 2nd postulate. Something must exist in order to be denied, the problem here is no evidence exists. Again just a second postulate.

What happens now is you have to evidence the 2nd postulate and demonstrate it's truth. Then once proven true you can use that postulate to help support the other postulate but will still have evidence to compelete before we can demonstrate the first postulate as true.


Quote:

Particle names are a joke. Atleast some people are preparing for the end of the 'standard model';

I suppose yes Gluon is probably an amusing name to some people. Though the name itself really doesn't matter.

What happened here is rather simple (and hopefully it aids your inability to get what evidence is. ) The Standard Model postulated the existence of a Gluon. If the Gluon was to exist it must have a certain list of characteristics. Then along came an experiment which observed an object that had said list of characteristics. The postulated was validated as true because the evidence (a confirmational repeatable event) aligned with the prediction. Thus, in 1979 the Gluon was indeed a confirmed component. Had the evidence not been available the Gluon would not be confirmed and perhaps might even been tossed out the window.

So if you think Gluon is too cutesy a name it doesn't matter. We had postulated characteristics and we had evidenced those characteristics. In turn the confirmational evidence took on the name of the postulate it confirmed. There's nothing wrong with that. Had you postulated the Gluon you could have called it Lou. Then when the evidenced matched we'd know it as the amusing name Lou.


As for the end of the Standard Model - it may indeed happen. Could the universe be more complex than the Standard Model. Certainly. Does it mean the Standard Model is incorrect? No it doesn't. What it likely means is that the Standard Model is not the complete picture. There states are very different.

Last edited by BrianK on 20-Apr-2012 at 06:32 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 20-Apr-2012 at 06:21 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 20-Apr-2012 at 06:20 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-shadow.asp A great page for the gravity noobs...

If you're reading this bunk it seems to be one cause of your inability to understand the difference between a scientific postulates, evidence, and scientific theories.

Quote:

It's an embarrassing hole in our understanding which can only be solved by accepting the EMRP gravity theory,

We don't 'accept' any theory - that's religion, that's turtles, that's treating EM as God. We EVIDENCE to demonstrate theories are true.

Last edited by BrianK on 20-Apr-2012 at 06:28 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse_n_1421504.html Hello village nimrod, nice to meet you!

Learn to read. From the Huffington post article is the quote "They found that the sea level rose about 45 feet (14 meters) in less than 350 years." which Lou translates as "a large antarctic plate breaking off into the ocean and raising sea levels almost 20 meters in a day.". I have never claimed that there was no rise in sea levels at the end of the last ice age, what I have explained to a brick wall is that the water did not recede a few weeks later. The sea levels are still much higher than they were at the height of the ice age when the ice cap was several kilometres deep as far south as 52 degrees North


Quote:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/excuse-me-sir-your-higgs-doesnt-fit-in-my-model.ars Hello village nimrod, it seems your model is about to collapse!

Learn to read. You see the line "in the details are some numbers that, if they hold up, will be impossible to accommodate in the standard model of physics" and ignore the existence of the word if. What this contributor is basically saying is that if the figures are wrong then that particular answer will not be right. Talk about stating the bleeding obvious. The one thing that does not exist as yet is any form of confirmation that the assertion is correct but once again Lou believes that Assertion=Proof.

Quote:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-shadow.asp A great page for the gravity noobs...

So... Gravitational shielding? I looked through this pile of woo and found it made a sort of sense... if you blindly accept gravity as EM, and follow the faith that Assertion=Proof, but since gravity has no detectable transmission wave how can the transmission be attenuated? The other assertion that this contributor makes is that gravity is not an attraction but a repulsion due to radiation pressure that pushes masses together from external sources.
Congratulations Lou, you haver finally found somebody less in touch with reality than any of the inmates that I referred to at the end of my previous post.

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

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-shadow.asp A great page for the gravity noobs... If you're reading this bunk it seems to be one cause of your inability to understand the difference between a scientific postulates, evidence, and scientific theories. Quote: It's an embarrassing hole in our understanding which can only be solved by accepting the EMRP gravity theory, We don't 'accept' any theory - that's religion, that's turtles, that's treating EM as God. We EVIDENCE to demonstrate theories are true.

Let's get something straight: you accepted gravity, like a religion inspite of its holes.
Now comes people who tell you what it really is and you cling to your religious beliefs none the less. Gravity as EM Radiation Pressure is why you won't find a "gravity wave" or a "graviton". All the gravity holes are filled with gravity as radiation pressure. Like it or not, its a better theory whether YOU accept it or not. As for proof, the math is there and there are no holes or "fudge"/dark CRAP.

Feel free to continue to believe in CRAP!

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-shadow.asp A great page for the gravity noobs... So... Gravitational shielding? I looked through this pile of woo and found it made a sort of sense... if you blindly accept gravity as EM, and follow the faith that Assertion=Proof, but since gravity has no detectable transmission wave how can the transmission be attenuated? The other assertion that this contributor makes is that gravity is not an attraction but a repulsion due to radiation pressure that pushes masses together from external sources. Congratulations Lou, you haver finally found somebody less in touch with reality than any of the inmates that I referred to at the end of my previous post.

Gravity, like god is undetectable! Congratulations in exposing your religous beliefs in gravity!

News flash! Light has momentum! Way to expose your small brain!

@Lou

Quote:

Let's get something straight: you accepted gravity, like a religion inspite of its holes.

I didn't accept gravity. I understand that Gravity provides the best description for the state of the available evidence. Along with this also comes the realization that there are holes which need to be answered. And that in answering these wholes we may end up throwing out gravity all together. Which is why I encourage science to keep experimenting and building our understanding.

This is far different from your source's claim that due to Dark Matter not being definitively established that the only choice is to dump gravity for EMRP. That's not how it works.

How does it work? We need to fill those holes with evidence and see where it does lead. Gravity doesn't depend on Dark Matter. Sure it's a postulate that works mathematically very well. But, there are other postulates which serve the same purpose as Dark Matter. (As a matter of fact I've posted some here so you can see how Dark Matter is one of many postulates.) Instead what must be done is evidence those holes to create understanding. Rejecting one item doesn't automatically mean we must accept the other. That other must also sustain compliance to evidence.

Quote:

All the gravity holes are filled with gravity as radiation pressure.

Radiative pressure is really gravity is a postulate that has yet to be established through evidence. You may indeed be exactly right. Accepting this today is jumping to a conclusive not through proof but through faith.

Here's the friendliest way I can explain this. We have an known difficulty around gravity. Dark Matter is one of many postulates. We claim Dark Matter works well mathematically and fills those holes. But, without evidence we cannot definitely say that this is real. Likewise you claim that EMRP works well mathematically and fills those holes. But, without evidence you cannot definitely say that this is real either. So what we really have is two postulates and little to no evidence.

Your source argues that due to 1 postulate not being proven we must accept the other one? This isn't how science works. This isn't a binary choice. Instead we use evidence to demonstrate if any of those many postulates is feasible. EMRP doesn't get an automatic win. EMRP like everything else must sustain it's own evidence. Turns out, at present, the observational data for EMRP speaks rather poorly about it's existence / truth. What science does is takes this group of postulates (Dark Matter and EMRP being part of that set) looks at them and tries to conduct experiements around the confirmation or negation of those postulates. And in doing so it may actually generate new postulate, which must be tested. It doesn't accept anything. It works harder to try and evidence to determine which possiblity is the most workable.

Accepting as your source states is putting one's faith in the way of evidence. It excuses the need to evidence and thereby isn't just wrong it's worse than wrong. Because your source is asserting an idea into science that's unable to be negated. Faith based views of the universe are all good to have. But, due to lack of evidence they're undemonstrable truths. (Again at best because until the evidence comes in all bets are off.)

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Let's get something straight: you accepted gravity, like a religion inspite of its holes. I didn't accept gravity. I understand that Gravity provides the best description for the state of the available evidence. Along with this also comes the realization that there are holes which need to be answered. And that in answering these wholes we may end up throwing out gravity all together. Which is why I encourage science to keep experimenting and building our understanding.

Science has, you continue to reject the results...

Quote:

This is far different from your source's claim that due to Dark Matter not being definitively established that the only choice is to dump gravity for EMRP. That's not how it works.

The classic BrianK "putting words in mouths" effect is displayed here...

Quote:

How does it work? We need to fill those holes with evidence and see where it does lead. Gravity doesn't depend on Dark Matter. Sure it's a postulate that works mathematically very well. But, there are other postulates which serve the same purpose as Dark Matter. (As a matter of fact I've posted some here so you can see how Dark Matter is one of many postulates.) Instead what must be done is evidence those holes to create understanding. Rejecting one item doesn't automatically mean we must accept the other. That other must also sustain compliance to evidence.

SHOCK! HORROR! NEWSFLASH: this guy did ALL the work.

Quote:

Quote: All the gravity holes are filled with gravity as radiation pressure. Radiative pressure is really gravity is a postulate that has yet to be established through evidence. You may indeed be exactly right. Accepting this today is jumping to a conclusive not through proof but through faith.

No, you see, this guy has proof and you reject because of faith.

Quote:

Here's the friendliest way I can explain this. We have an known difficulty around gravity. Dark Matter is one of many postulates. We claim Dark Matter works well mathematically and fills those holes. But, without evidence we cannot definitely say that this is real. Likewise you claim that EMRP works well mathematically and fills those holes. But, without evidence you cannot definitely say that this is real either. So what we really have is two postulates and little to no evidence.

Here's what we really have: dark matter is a fudge factor. We have contradicting observational EVIDENCE and decided to call it dark matter.

Quote:

Your source argues that due to 1 postulate not being proven we must accept the other one? This isn't how science works. This isn't a binary choice. Instead we use evidence to demonstrate if any of those many postulates is feasible. EMRP doesn't get an automatic win. EMRP like everything else must sustain it's own evidence. Turns out, at present, the observational data for EMRP speaks rather poorly about it's existence / truth. What science does is takes this group of postulates (Dark Matter and EMRP being part of that set) looks at them and tries to conduct experiements around the confirmation or negation of those postulates. And in doing so it may actually generate new postulate, which must be tested. It doesn't accept anything. It works harder to try and evidence to determine which possiblity is the most workable. Accepting as your source states is putting one's faith in the way of evidence. It excuses the need to evidence and thereby isn't just wrong it's worse than wrong. Because your source is asserting an idea into science that's unable to be negated. Faith based views of the universe are all good to have. But, due to lack of evidence they're undemonstrable truths. (Again at best because until the evidence comes in all bets are off.)

Read his conclusion page: http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-grp.asp
In fact, click the HOME link and read the whole paper from the beginning.
This guy went above and beyond to show that it is correct explaining everything with no DARK CRAP included with all the math NIMROD pretends to love. He went into WAY MORE detail than Brandenburg who didn't even contemplate that G could change based the luminance of the background radiation at the point in space being calculated. But its also why Brandenburg's value is well within the 'accepted value'.

@Lou

Quote:

News flash! Light has momentum!

Once again you reveal your illiteracy and ineptitude.
I am of course assuming that unlike the average brick wall, you have heard of something called mathematics and that you can actually count. The measured acceleration of two masses toward each other is a function of the decreasing distance between them, and the acceleration can be calculated using the inverse square of the distance between the masses. What mathematics do you use that will create this acceleration using your repulsive ideas, or do you once again ignore the concept of orders of magnitude, and resort to the quasi religious statement that Assertion=Proof. I suppose that you think that the thrust put out by these is entirely due to the light at the output end, and a shining bright enough led at the ground will launch a man to the moon in the future.

Just out of curiosity, how long will it be until you claim that mathematics is unnecessary, or is all a lie, or a conspiracy. Unlike you, I have applied the correct mathematics, done the sums, and while I do not know what all the answers are I do know what some of the answers definitely are not.


Edit. Just found this from 2007, so it looks like this clown has been pushing his CRAP for a while now, but Lou thinks that engineer Borg (his title, not mine) is at the leading edge. Sorry old boy, but it was CRAP back then and it is stale CRAP now.

Last edited by Nimrod on 20-Apr-2012 at 08:46 PM.

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

@Lou

Quote:

No, you see, this guy has proof and you reject because of faith.

instead of making continual frivolous claims how about you post some EVIDENCE.

Wow what a great
Padded conclusion you post Quote:

The fact that gravity and electromagnetism are Unified by this theory Is a ver strong indicator of the correctness of this theory.

. Nothing better than concluding based on circular logic. Turns out your idea of evidence is but anothe religious failure masquerading as a postulate.

Last edited by BrianK on 20-Apr-2012 at 09:33 PM.

@Nimrod

That 2007 article goes far to demonstrate what a joke this is. I might laugh if not for the sadness that many people in society are largely mathematically and scientifically challenged.