@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: I mean hey, it's all GEM afterall... Again science welcomes all postulates and their evidencing. What is unwelcome is the leap of faith to make a conclusion when you don't have the evidence. Or, even worse, when the evidence is against the postulates. For example, Haramein's claim that the black hole at the center of the sun used by aliens driving earth sized planets to make hyperspace jumps, while the evidence is counter to a black hole sun and against aliens driving earth sized objects.

After years of stagnation, more and more scientists are coming to terms with the electric universe. However, much money is wasted supporting the status quo.

Would you like another coinky dink?
What % of a proton's energy is from quarks and what % from empty space?
Now what % of the energy in the universe is from *matter* and what % from empty space?

Yep, it's all science-fiction until it gets proven to be science-fact!

http://news.yahoo.com/cdc-silent-zombie-inducing-parasites-live-human-brains-040210084.html

@Lou

Quote:

After years of stagnation, more and more scientists are coming to terms with the electric universe. However, much money is wasted supporting the status quo

Yes Lou science is a continual skeptical endeavor which means we'll never be done experimenting, which all costs money.

Quote:

What % of a proton's energy is from quarks and what % from empty space? Now what % of the energy in the universe is from *matter* and what % from empty space?

At our present understnading a proton is comprised of two up and 1 down quark. The quark itself would make up about 1% of the energy. The rest of the energy, 99%, comes from the QCD vacuum. The QCD Vacuum is the force between the quark interactions. So the quarks and their associated interactions make up 100% of the energy.

Energy in the universe from matter? 76% of the universe is comprised of Energy (thought to be mostly Dark Energy) and the other 24% is comprised of matter (thought to be mostly Dark Matter).

Quote:

Yep, it's all science-fiction until it gets proven to be science-fact!

Mostly right. We don't know what the 'science fact' is. So we must prove which parts of the 'science fiction' is indeed real.

Last edited by BrianK on 05-Jun-2012 at 04:22 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou At our present understnading a proton is comprised of two up and 1 down quark. The quark itself would make up about 1% of the energy. The rest of the energy, 99%, comes from the QCD vacuum. The QCD Vacuum is the force between the quark interactions. So the quarks and their associated interactions make up 100% of the energy.

Wait! You mean I got you to admit that there is energy in the vacuum!?!?!?!?!


Quick! Call CNN, this is major news!!!

Last edited by Lou on 05-Jun-2012 at 04:28 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Wait! You mean I got you to admit that there is energy in the vacuum

Yes the energy 'in the vacuum' is the forces being transmitted between each other. If you remove the quarks there is no force exerted and thus the energy wouldn't be there.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Wait! You mean I got you to admit that there is energy in the vacuum Yes the energy 'in the vacuum' is the forces being transmitted between each other. If you remove the quarks there is no force exerted and thus the energy wouldn't be there.

Hey, BrianK, just what are those interactions anyway?

http://arxiv.org/html/physics/9902044v2

Funny, in 1999, this guy says gravity is the strong force...
Nassim looked in the opposite direction and said that the strong force is gravity...

@Lou

Quote:

http://arxiv.org/html/physics/9902044v2 Funny, in 1999, this guy says gravity is the strong force...

Great postulate. Do you have any EVIDENCE? For example can you link to experiments showing this postulate is indeed correct?

You site Nassam but he neither has evidence either. It's his postulates. (Though through Nassams other work the confidence is low but perhaps he's got it right this time?)

So really you have, at best, two undemonstrated postulates. They might both be right. You simply have more work to do before we can accept them as demonstrably true.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: http://arxiv.org/html/physics/9902044v2 Funny, in 1999, this guy says gravity is the strong force... Great postulate. Do you have any EVIDENCE? For example can you link to experiments showing this postulate is indeed correct? You site Nassam but he neither has evidence either. It's his postulates. (Though through Nassams other work the confidence is low but perhaps he's got it right this time?) So really you have, at best, two undemonstrated postulates. They might both be right. You simply have more work to do before we can accept them as demonstrably true.

Actually, Nassim and this guy have math and you and the rest have magic.
This guy described it in relativistic terms and Nassim in quantum...
I guess you'd rather believe in magic...

Last edited by Lou on 06-Jun-2012 at 04:21 AM.
Last edited by Lou on 06-Jun-2012 at 04:20 AM.
Last edited by Lou on 06-Jun-2012 at 04:20 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

Actually, Nassim and this guy have math and you and the rest have magic. This guy described it in relativistic terms and Nassim in quantum... I guess you'd rather believe in magic...

Lou, why not answer the question instead of trying to avoid it and accuse others of something untrue? Where is the physical evidence supporting (or denying) the mathematical postulates are a true representation of reality?

So why is your accusation that I have magic false? We have quite a bit of evidence validating the Higgs Mechanism. What we don't have yet is evidenced Higgs Boson. But, as you know the experiment is underway this year. Preliminary data indicates the Higgs is indeed real. This experiment, at best, will bring the 99.999% or better confidence level that we like to see before we claim this does indeed reflect reality.

So, nope no belief in magic there either. Instead scientists are building the experiments and bringing the evidence to verify and validate their mathematical postulates.

@Lou

Quote:

Actually, Nassim and this guy have math and you and the rest have magic.

As to what this other guy has, I have no idea because I haven't read his full report. What Haramein has is not mathematics. Not only is his mathematics inept, he can't even do simple sums, and get the right answer.

What scientists do is look at what is there, and try to work the answers. They come up with an idea and use it to make predictions. Experimentation will then test the accuracy of the predicted result.
What Haramein has done is put the cart before the horse, claimed that his "theory" is correct, and is now cherry picking data that can be polished up to look like it supports his idea, while overlooking the fact that his base prediction is out by a factor of10^38.

Unlike Haramein the originator of this article has actually made a prediction. This prediction "And it therefore predicts that the correct mass for the quarks in protons, is 12.444325 MeV." was made at the end of the item you linked to. Subsequent experimentation and observation has not ratified his prediction.
Of course you think that we should just accept his postulate anyway, simply because "Lou says so"

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

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Actually, Nassim and this guy have math and you and the rest have magic. This guy described it in relativistic terms and Nassim in quantum... I guess you'd rather believe in magic... Lou, why not answer the question instead of trying to avoid it and accuse others of something untrue? Where is the physical evidence supporting (or denying) the mathematical postulates are a true representation of reality? So why is your accusation that I have magic false? We have quite a bit of evidence validating the Higgs Mechanism. What we don't have yet is evidenced Higgs Boson. But, as you know the experiment is underway this year. Preliminary data indicates the Higgs is indeed real. This experiment, at best, will bring the 99.999% or better confidence level that we like to see before we claim this does indeed reflect reality. So, nope no belief in magic there either. Instead scientists are building the experiments and bringing the evidence to verify and validate their mathematical postulates.

"Strong force" was a force *invented* to hold quarks together. The "gluon" particle was *invented* (by magic) as the force carrier. As Nassim asked "who's making the glue?"

What evidence is there that it is a unique and separate force other than faith and worship of the standard model [THEORY] which has not been proven to be true?

Meanwhile treating it as gravity in both relativistic and quantum terms produces real results...

It's convenient of you to ask me for evidence, but the "math" excuse has been thrown at me many times, so now I throw it back at you to prove your faith-based and blind-faith accepted theory is true. Twidling your thumbs waiting for CERN/LHC/etc... is pretty weak...

Last edited by Lou on 06-Jun-2012 at 10:00 PM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Actually, Nassim and this guy have math and you and the rest have magic. As to what this other guy has, I have no idea because I haven't read his full report. What Haramein has is not mathematics. Not only is his mathematics inept, he can't even do simple sums, and get the right answer. What scientists do is look at what is there, and try to work the answers. They come up with an idea and use it to make predictions. Experimentation will then test the accuracy of the predicted result. What Haramein has done is put the cart before the horse, claimed that his "theory" is correct, and is now cherry picking data that can be polished up to look like it supports his idea, while overlooking the fact that his base prediction is out by a factor of10^38. Unlike Haramein the originator of this article has actually made a prediction. This prediction "And it therefore predicts that the correct mass for the quarks in protons, is 12.444325 MeV." was made at the end of the item you linked to. Subsequent experimentation and observation has not ratified his prediction. Of course you think that we should just accept his postulate anyway, simply because "Lou says so"

I'm sorry that you failed quantum mathematics.

@Lou

Quote:

As Nassim asked "who's making the glue?"

Which is a great question for you to approach religious readers. The universe appears to be more Buddist in construction than Christian. But, I'd suggest you work with those teachers of faith to 'understand' the who. Science mixes up the letters of who to get to the how.

Quote:

What evidence is there that it is a unique and separate force

At present our evidence indicates 4 fundamental forces. We, of course, want them to all fit 1 model. We're simply not there yet. They might or perhaps they might not. As always science asks how and then skeptically reviews if we got it right. It's certainly asking the questions you aren't.

Quote:

It's convenient of you to ask me for evidence, but the "math" excuse has been thrown at me many times, so now I throw it backs at you to prove your faith-based and blind-faith accepted theory is true

Physics has pulled together the last 150 years of both postulates and experimentation. It's this work together that has built the current scientific Theory. And certainly it may be wrong but in order to determine that we need the evidence. Clever math is but a postulate until you can evidence it's truth in relation to reality.

We have you asserting things that are seen as wrong because their postulates (Haramein, and Byrne) conculsions conflict with existing evidence. If you wish to demonstrate them as right you need to provide us the experimentation and associated evidence which demonstrates their mathematical postulates do indeed reflect reality.

Again paradigm shifts do happen in science they come with evidence. There may be one for the future of GEM but the abundence of unproven postulates and/or postulates that evidence is against needs to be remedied before you can bring your revolution.

Quote:

Twidling your thumbs waiting for CERN/LHC/etc... is pretty weak

Though be honest here. We got to CERN/LHC through following a line of postulates and evidence in such a way that CERN/LHC is simply one of the next steps in that journey. So sure I'll agree knowing the result of LHC by the end of 2012 is fairly weak. However it is a step better than Haramein or Byrne as the evidence is counter to their views and you can't provide us any experiments that might be completed to test their postulates by the end of 2012.

Last edited by BrianK on 07-Jun-2012 at 02:59 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: I'm sorry that you failed quantum mathematics.

Actually, that's a postulate. We still require proof

_________________
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.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: We have you asserting things that are seen as wrong because their postulates (Haramein, and Byrne) conculsions conflict with existing evidence.

What evidence is there that "strong" force is separate and unique?

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @BrianKQuote: BrianK wrote: We have you asserting things that are seen as wrong because their postulates (Haramein, and Byrne) conculsions conflict with existing evidence. What evidence is there that "strong" force is separate and unique?

I wanted to keep my line in here because your question is 1 of the various items you feel Haramein and Byrne's postulates demonstrate. My claim of conflict is about the various problems within postulates. For example - the evidence for a black hole at the center of the earth is opposite to Haramein's claim that such an item exists. For example - the evidence of energies due to quarks doesn't come close to matching what Byrne claims. Indeed there are strong conflicting evidences for the postulates of these two individuals.

For the question of a 'strong' force being seperate and unique. Physics evidence, to date, is that the 4 Fundamental forces can be demonstrated seperately. Each of those forces have a carrier particle which the others do not. Gravity, is the graviton which depends upon Higgs and is under research. Electromatic is the photon, which I think you'll agree is well demonstrated. Weak is via the Gauge Boson. And specifically, what you asked for Strong is through the Gluon. The Gluon was postulated about 40 years ago and evidenced about 30 years ago. To date electronics and photons, which have their own unique properties, haven't shown to be comprised of Gluons. It's the unique differences in the mediating particles which bring the uniqueness to the seperate force.

Science continues to work towards a Grand Unified Theory where all 4 forces are derived by a single equation, or you might read a single source. We're just not there yet. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What it does mean is to date we've not discovered it and as such we can neither confirm nor deny GUT's existence.

GEM may indeed be the answer to the Theory of Everything. Unfortunately, as your lack of evidence has demonstrated, we're not there yet. As such we can neither confirm nor deny the possiblity. We're open to it and ask scientsts to bring the evidence so we may indeed demonstrate and make useful work out of it. (Flip back to Haramein and Byrne and you'll find nothing they've done here has produced anything useful. Well except for perhaps a few thousand posts on AW.)

@BrianK
Quote:

Quote: BrianK wrote: @Lou What evidence is there that "strong" force is separate and unique? I wanted to keep my line in here because your question is 1 of the various items you feel Haramein and Byrne's postulates demonstrate. My claim of conflict is about the various problems within postulates. For example - the evidence for a black hole at the center of the earth is opposite to Haramein's claim that such an item exists. For example - the evidence of energies due to quarks doesn't come close to matching what Byrne claims. Indeed there are strong conflicting evidences for the postulates of these two individuals. For the question of a 'strong' force being seperate and unique. Physics evidence, to date, is that the 4 Fundamental forces can be demonstrated seperately. Each of those forces have a carrier particle which the others do not. Gravity, is the graviton which depends upon Higgs and is under research. Electromatic is the photon, which I think you'll agree is well demonstrated. Weak is via the Gauge Boson. And specifically, what you asked for Strong is through the Gluon. The Gluon was postulated about 40 years ago and evidenced about 30 years ago. To date electronics and photons, which have their own unique properties, haven't shown to be comprised of Gluons. It's the unique differences in the mediating particles which bring the uniqueness to the seperate force. Science continues to work towards a Grand Unified Theory where all 4 forces are derived by a single equation, or you might read a single source. We're just not there yet. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What it does mean is to date we've not discovered it and as such we can neither confirm nor deny GUT's existence. GEM may indeed be the answer to the Theory of Everything. Unfortunately, as your lack of evidence has demonstrated, we're not there yet. As such we can neither confirm nor deny the possiblity. We're open to it and ask scientsts to bring the evidence so we may indeed demonstrate and make useful work out of it. (Flip back to Haramein and Byrne and you'll find nothing they've done here has produced anything useful. Well except for perhaps a few thousand posts on AW.)

All you did was recite rhetoric. There was no evidence.

Last edited by Lou on 07-Jun-2012 at 09:31 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 07-Jun-2012 at 09:30 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

All you did was recite rhetoric. There was no evidence

Here's about 20 or so experimentations. Gluon Experiment References That will give you a good start. You'll be sure to want to compare the differences in the properties of those of the Gauge Bosons, Photons, and the Higgs Mechanisms. I'd recommend you stop by a local major university, perhaps MIT that's in your backyard, and go to the library. The Librarian can help you find the scientific experiments and results in the published journals.

LHC error correction for Moon's Gravity .

Ever important in experimentation is to ensure as much error can be eliminated prior to conducting an experiment. And/or ensure that error is accounted for. In the case of the LHC's highly sensitive nature to position the seemingly small gravitational force for the moon must be accounted for as it impacts experimentation.

A short interesting read with a link if one would like more depth.

Neutrinos don't travel faster than light. CERN confirmed on 6/8 Earlier results were incorrect. The problem was a faulty kit.

This all was done by the collaboration and coorelation of the evidence from multiple experiments. The article speaks for itself.
"An unexpected result was put up for scrutiny, thoroughly investigated and resolved in part thanks to collaboration between normally competing experiments. That's how science moves forward."