@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @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.

Oh I see what you want...you want me to copy and paste his paper here rather than supplying you with the link and having you see it for yourself...you're pulling a nimrod now...

Quote:

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.

Ok Mr. Twist, can you point me to the post you are supposedly quoting me from?

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @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.

That link is just a man beating his chest like a priest telling everyone that they are going to burn in hell for believing it.

What can I say: once a Nimrod, always a nimrod.
Brandenburg first proposed gravity as radiation pressure in the late 90's, what relevance does this have but to further illustrate your disbelief due to religious faith and how behind the times you admit to being...

Last edited by Lou on 21-Apr-2012 at 06:53 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

Oh I see what you want...you want me to copy and paste his paper here rather than supplying you with the link and having you see it for yourself...you're pulling a nimrod now...

The point that is being made, and you are either deliberately avoiding, or are too thick to understand is that the claims being made in the "paper" that you link to is just another unsupported or fraudulent assertion. Most of your links do not carry any attempt at proof, and the very rare few that do, have errors arising from a lack of understanding of the basics of mathematics.

Quote:

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

Gravity is related to EM in the same way that sharks are related to dolphins, i.e. they look similar to the layman. I could collect the statistics for the price of fish at Grimsby docks and the road deaths for the state of California, and, using the methodology used by your sources, assert that the two datasets are linked. Once I have "proved" that the two datasets are linked, it would be a strong indicator of the correcness of the theory, but the question will then have to be asked by a grieving Californian, when notified of a road death, "what has this to do with the price of fish?"

Quote:

That link is just a man beating his chest like a priest telling everyone that they are going to burn in hell for believing it. What can I say: once a Nimrod, always a nimrod. Brandenburg first proposed gravity as radiation pressure in the late 90's, what relevance does this have but to further illustrate your disbelief due to religious faith and how behind the times you admit to being...

I like the way you pour vitriol on the PS while totally ignoring the explanation of the existence of something called mathematics Just because gravity diminishes as an inverse square of the distance in the same manner as EM it doesn't mean gravity is EM. It is the old shark/dolphin analogy again.

It has cost in excess of $5,000,000,000 since its inception in 1983 to design build commission and run the LHC to prove or disprove the existence of the Higgs boson. It took one engineer, using a sheet of A4 paper, half an hour to work out the flaws in Brandenburgs ideas about radiation pressure. It was exactly the same flaw in N.K.Shah's strepulsion CRAP that you linked to. I also used this (not very) high tech approach to finding the flaws in the CRAP put forward by Haramein, Znidarsic, Podkletnov, Cruttenden, and Omerbasich. I have even posted on this site the incorrect assumptions made by some of these contributors, and in the case of Haramein I have even listed one of his arithmetical errors. Von Danikens frauds and Hapgoods obsolescence were, I admit, not demonstrated using mathematics but the proofs against them remain valid.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Oh I see what you want...you want me to copy and paste his paper here rather than supplying you with the link and having you see it for yourself...you're pulling a nimrod now... The point that is being made, and you are either deliberately avoiding, or are too thick to understand is that the claims being made in the "paper" that you link to is just another unsupported or fraudulent assertion. Most of your links do not carry any attempt at proof, and the very rare few that do, have errors arising from a lack of understanding of the basics of mathematics.

That's funny, most of your "counter evidence" amounts to "its CRAP". You say there are mathematical errors, post them and explain them. Prove them.

Quote:

Quote: The fact that gravity and electromagnetism are Unified by this theory Is a ver strong indicator of the correctness of this theory. Gravity is related to EM in the same way that sharks are related to dolphins, i.e. they look similar to the layman. I could collect the statistics for the price of fish at Grimsby docks and the road deaths for the state of California, and, using the methodology used by your sources, assert that the two datasets are linked. Once I have "proved" that the two datasets are linked, it would be a strong indicator of the correcness of the theory, but the question will then have to be asked by a grieving Californian, when notified of a road death, "what has this to do with the price of fish?"

Your counter-evidence here amounts to a child saying "nuh uh".

Quote:

Quote: That link is just a man beating his chest like a priest telling everyone that they are going to burn in hell for believing it. What can I say: once a Nimrod, always a nimrod. Brandenburg first proposed gravity as radiation pressure in the late 90's, what relevance does this have but to further illustrate your disbelief due to religious faith and how behind the times you admit to being... I like the way you pour vitriol on the PS while totally ignoring the explanation of the existence of something called mathematics Just because gravity diminishes as an inverse square of the distance in the same manner as EM it doesn't mean gravity is EM. It is the old shark/dolphin analogy again.

You can link mathematics, but I've failed to see any math that you link as counter-evidence.

Here's some math for you: If I am standing againt a wall with a painted solid circle on it, as what rate does the area of the circle diminish relative to my sight as I move away from it?

Quote:

It has cost in excess of $5,000,000,000 since its inception in 1983 to design build commission and run the LHC to prove or disprove the existence of the Higgs boson. It took one engineer, using a sheet of A4 paper, half an hour to work out the flaws in Brandenburgs ideas about radiation pressure. It was exactly the same flaw in N.K.Shah's strepulsion CRAP that you linked to. I also used this (not very) high tech approach to finding the flaws in the CRAP put forward by Haramein, Znidarsic, Podkletnov, Cruttenden, and Omerbasich. I have even posted on this site the incorrect assumptions made by some of these contributors, and in the case of Haramein I have even listed one of his arithmetical errors. Von Danikens frauds and Hapgoods obsolescence were, I admit, not demonstrated using mathematics but the proofs against them remain valid.

Yours errors that you think were pointed out were answered in the video of Nassim's latest paper that I linked. Hence, you have disproved nothing.

@Lou

Quote:

Ok Mr. Twist, can you point me to the post you are supposedly quoting me from?

You request people read your evidence. It turns out is nothing better than unproven postulate. (as typical) you are cited your own sources and have the gall to be a pompous ass about it?

Seriously don't be pissed at us because of your own failings.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Ok Mr. Twist, can you point me to the post you are supposedly quoting me from? You request people read your evidence. It turns out is nothing better than unproven postulate. (as typical) you are cited your own sources and have the gall to be a pompous ass about it? Seriously don't be pissed at us because of your own failings.

LOL Strong words followed by no link to my supposed quote!

@Lou

Quote:

You say there are mathematical errors, post them and explain them. Prove them.

I have already done this, but since you seem to suffer from selective memory loss I will remind you of one of the salient points. In the "mathematics" demonstrated by one of your sources is the statement λf=1.049x10^6. As an electronc apprentice, I learned that λf=c. This derives from the fact that speed = distance/time, and frequency is the reciprocal of time. Combining these two equations we find that c=λf=1.049x10^6. Knowing that c=2.99x10^8 we reduce mr Znidarsics postulate to 2.99x10^8=1.049x10^6 This is Clearly Ridiculous. I am aware that there are circumstances where light can be slowed, but these circumstances are not met every time light encounters an atom. I have just finished an experiment measuring the speed of light moving through varying air pressures between the suface of the Earth and an orbiting satellite, This experiment involved using n expensive and rerely accessible item of technology called a Tomtom satnav, even though they weren't invented when I left school. (I called the Tomtom rare because I know how you dislike mundane things).

Quote:

Your counter-evidence here amounts to a child saying "nuh uh".

What counter evidence. I did not at this point offer any evidence, I simply pointed out that your so called evidence was circular logic, and therefore irrelevant and invalid. Saying "I am right because I said I am right, and I wouldn't say I am right unless I was right, therefore since I said I am right, I must be right... Right?" is childish and proves nothing.

Quote:

You can link mathematics, but I've failed to see any math that you link as counter-evidence.

Or, to quote the old song "There is none so blind. As he that will not see." Also I do not link to somebody waffling on about unproven postulates who flashes bad maths past the eyes to distract, I post the relevant equations and calculations that clearly demonstrate the Clearly Ridiculous Alternative proposal for what it is.

Quote:

Yours errors that you think were pointed out were answered in the video of Nassim's latest paper that I linked. Hence, you have disproved nothing.

If you mean this post, that is where the error was made. The more recent post of Haramein was the love in with Alienscientist which only contained evidence of mutual reassurance between two inmates. You keep repeating the same baseless allegation but repetition does not equate to confirmation, or did you forget posting this
Quote:

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?

Edit Spelling mistakes

Last edited by Nimrod on 22-Apr-2012 at 08:18 PM.
Last edited by Nimrod on 22-Apr-2012 at 09:01 AM.

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

@Lou

Quote:

LOL Strong words followed by no link to my supposed quote!

You completely deserve strong words. You continue to personally insult Nimrod and I. We've been very good at writing it off. It's very rare you find the same behaviour from us. The last post I made was 1 I did, wrongly I'll add, in the last tens of pages at best. We take the time to explain why your evidence isn't really evidence. Your arguments display an uncanny in confusing the two.

As I said the quote was from the source you quoted. http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-grp.asp. Next time you ask others to read something perhaps you could read it yourself. You won't get so confused.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: You say there are mathematical errors, post them and explain them. Prove them. I have already done this, but since you seem to suffer from selective memory loss I will remind you of one of the salient points. In the "mathematics" demonstrated by one of your sources is the statement λf=1.049x10^6. As an electronc apprentice, I learned that λf=c. This derives from the fact that speed = distance/time, and frequency is the reciprocal of time. Combining these two equations we find that c=λf=1.049x10^6. Knowing that c=2.99x10^8 we reduce mr Znidarsics postulate to 2.99x10^8=1.049x10^6 This is Clearly Ridiculous. I am aware that there are circumstances where light can be slowed, but these circumstances are not met every time light encounters an atom. I have just finished an experiment measuring the speed of light moving through varying air pressures between the suface of the Earth and an orbiting satellite, This experiment involved using n expensive and rerely accessible item of technology called a Tomtom satnav, even though they weren't invented when I left school. (I called the Tomtom rare because I know how you dislike mundane things).

And I've pointed out your error many times. Light when travelling thru a medium slows down. Once again your archaic and simplistic view of physics hobbles you.
I even added at one point a link from Arstechnica where their editor said the exact same thing and used the same number Frank Znidarsic did.

The rest of your post didn't matter because you are always wrong but manage to convince yourself you are not.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: LOL Strong words followed by no link to my supposed quote! You completely deserve strong words. You continue to personally insult Nimrod and I. We've been very good at writing it off. It's very rare you find the same behaviour from us. The last post I made was 1 I did, wrongly I'll add, in the last tens of pages at best. We take the time to explain why your evidence isn't really evidence. Your arguments display an uncanny in confusing the two. As I said the quote was from the source you quoted. http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-grp.asp. Next time you ask others to read something perhaps you could read it yourself. You won't get so confused.

ATLAST! Admission! You quoted it as if I said it. You also quoted it out of context.

Next time you quote from a page, don't post it like I said it.

@Lou

1: You're requested to post evidence
2: You post a link saying "here it is"
3: The source you linked is criticized
4: You answer "I didn't write that"

Maybe you didn't write it, but YOU posted that it WAS evidence supporting YOUR belief.

I don't see anything wrong with what he did. You're the one who resorts to name calling.

_________________
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

We know light slows down as it passes through matter. That's why we have the internet at all, because without refractive indexes we wouldn't have fiber optic cables.

I absolutely refuse to watch hours and hours of youtube videos, can you give me a recap of when this slowing happens (as in, when do you have a refractive index of 285)?

The reason for light to slow down in a medium is that when light encounters an atom it is absorbed and retransmitted. Usually at a random angle compared to the original photon, which explains both attenuation and refractive index in a fiber cable all in one go. Different types of atoms react to absorbed photons differently, which is very interesting and as far as I know fully understood. Different energies of photons also give off different results (ionizing and non-ionizing radiation), also rather interesting.

Seriously, if light behaved anything like what it seems (to me, at least) Znidarsic claims then we wouldn't have fiber optics.

_________________
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:

ATLAST! Admission! You quoted it as if I said it.

Yes Lou I did not write - A quote from the source that Lou claims is evidence and what Lou has quoted himself as proof on how this all works. Though this hardly caused any confusion as I did quote what you told us what was right and true.

Quote:

You also quoted it out of context.

Nope.

Quote:

Next time you quote from a page, don't post it like I said it.

You stated it was true and agreed with it. Therefore you did say it. You just want to sidetrack the discussion that I should instead say Lou's article quote - it doesn't matter. You're just bitter because you didn't read or understand your own source so confused yourself and tried to posture your way out.

@olegil

Quote:

Maybe you didn't write it, but YOU posted that it WAS evidence supporting YOUR belief. I don't see anything wrong with what he did. You're the one who resorts to name calling.

Thanks sir.

@olegil

Quote:

Different types of atoms react to absorbed photons differently, which is very interesting and as far as I know fully understood. Different energies of photons also give off different results (ionizing and non-ionizing radiation), also rather interesting.

And noteably why atmospheric composition plays a significant role in the Climate.

@Lou

Quote:

Light when travelling thru a medium slows down.

I know it does.
Now comes the part that you have difficulty accepting, not only do I know that light can be refracted, but I also know by how much. When you have difficulty seeing something as a result of heat haze that is light being altered by a small percentage, not to a small percentage. Have you ever heard mention of something called "orders of magnitude"?

Quote:

Once again your archaic and simplistic view of physics hobbles you.

Are you referring to my archaic and simplistic view that Assertion≠Proof? That is the prime difference between learning and superstition, that has enabled us to throw off the yoke of religious ignorance. (or should that be ignorant religions?)

Quote:

ATLAST! Admission! You quoted it as if I said it.

Since you linked to it, it was not unreasonable for BrianK to assume that you were under the impression that it was true. Are you now claiming that you do not accept this particular piece of stale CRAP as a valid viewpoint?

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

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @Lou 1: You're requested to post evidence 2: You post a link saying "here it is" 3: The source you linked is criticized 4: You answer "I didn't write that" Maybe you didn't write it, but YOU posted that it WAS evidence supporting YOUR belief. I don't see anything wrong with what he did. You're the one who resorts to name calling.

BrianK took 1 sentence from a large paper out of its context, quoted it in a reply to me as if I wrote it saying I had logical fallacy. His whole stragedy is to divide and conquer. A paragraph conveys a meaning. A sentence can have multiple meanings without its context.

He's quite famous for this now.

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @Lou We know light slows down as it passes through matter. That's why we have the internet at all, because without refractive indexes we wouldn't have fiber optic cables. I absolutely refuse to watch hours and hours of youtube videos, can you give me a recap of when this slowing happens (as in, when do you have a refractive index of 285)? The reason for light to slow down in a medium is that when light encounters an atom it is absorbed and retransmitted. Usually at a random angle compared to the original photon, which explains both attenuation and refractive index in a fiber cable all in one go. Different types of atoms react to absorbed photons differently, which is very interesting and as far as I know fully understood. Different energies of photons also give off different results (ionizing and non-ionizing radiation), also rather interesting. Seriously, if light behaved anything like what it seems (to me, at least) Znidarsic claims then we wouldn't have fiber optics.

Frank's paper is not very big. You've done far more reading of my posts in order to critcize them, I'm sure you can handle this yourself.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Light when travelling thru a medium slows down. I know it does. Now comes the part that you have difficulty accepting, not only do I know that light can be refracted, but I also know by how much. When you have difficulty seeing something as a result of heat haze that is light being altered by a small percentage, not to a small percentage. Have you ever heard mention of something called "orders of magnitude"?

This coming from the guy who for pages and pages was saying gravity is orders of magnitude stonger than EM...

Quote:

Quote: Once again your archaic and simplistic view of physics hobbles you. Are you referring to my archaic and simplistic view that Assertion≠Proof? That is the prime difference between learning and superstition, that has enabled us to throw off the yoke of religious ignorance. (or should that be ignorant religions?)

The truth hurts! You state a formula with a fixed speed of light, only to have me remind you that it can slow down. When are you going to realize your math is always flawed? When are you going to admit that the physics I've been posting is over your head?

Quote:

Quote: ATLAST! Admission! You quoted it as if I said it. Since you linked to it, it was not unreasonable for BrianK to assume that you were under the impression that it was true. Are you now claiming that you do not accept this particular piece of stale CRAP as a valid viewpoint?

BrianK did what he's famous for, divide and conquer debunking. Always missing the big picture. I just called him out on it and will continue to do so everytime he does it. Personally, I think you two are related.

@Lou

Quote:

BrianK took 1 sentence from a large paper out of its context, quoted it in a reply to me as if I wrote it saying I had logical fallacy. His whole stragedy is to divide and conquer. A paragraph conveys a meaning. A sentence can have multiple meanings without its context. He's quite famous for this now.

Bullocks!

Instead of postulating how about you evidence. This is out of context becase ??? Don't know you never bothered to post why. Instead you restort to name calling, attempts to claim you never posted such a thing, and now mischarcteriziations. All are fluff untily ou can support it. Let's see you make a rational and, importantly, valid construct about how and why this was out of context.

Last edited by BrianK on 23-Apr-2012 at 09:44 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 23-Apr-2012 at 09:42 PM.