@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: 1) you confuse the definition and use of mass (rest vs. inertial) Again when and where? state the post number and show how my application of mass is incorrect. Quote: 2) use simplified formulas when it's the more complicated forms that apply Again when and where? state the post number and show how my application of of mathematical formulae is incorrect. Quote: 3) referring to 1 and 2 you denounce that any particle can have more energy[/mass] if its frequency is higher regardless of the size of the particle in question (proton to planet) This allegation is a blatant LIE I am aware that extra energy is added, and I am also aware how much energy is added. If you heat one gram of matter by 10 degrees celsius, you do not increase the total mass/energy of that sample by a factor of fifty million, billion, quadrillion. The equation is E=MC2, and C^2 is approximately 89401000000000000. this means that a very small amount of mass is the equivalent of a very large amount of energy. Quote: 4) failed at realizing what light is again using a simplification such as "luminance" Once again when and where? state the post number and show me using the word "luminance". Don't keep making up lies simply because you lack the ability to tell the difference between maximum and minimum. Quote: 5) failed to come to terms with the fact that gravity is a indirect force resulting from a side-effect based of radiation pressure and shielding When, where, and by whom was your CRAP about gravity established as a fact. Just because somebody makes a ridiculous assertion, it does not automatically become a fact. Quote: 6) can't fathom that a black hole can be as small as a plank length And once again you distort the facts. I have no difficulty with the concept of a black hole with a diameter of 1x10^-15m. I can even calculate the mass of a planck length black hole. I can even calculate the scwarzchild radius of a theoretical black hole that has the known and measured mass of a single proton, and it is this radius that I previously calculated to be vastly smaller than the planck length. As I said before in response to Quote: You have been shown on many occassion to not apply math properly and even denounce well know principles Either back up this blatant lie, or withdraw it.

You've demonstrated being the master of looking back at old posts. They are there and I called them out. Its all backed up in this thread.

@Lou

Quote:

You've demonstrated being the master of looking back at old posts. They are there and I called them out. Its all backed up in this thread.

I have checked back right the way to the first post in the first thread, and there is no post made by you that answers a single point made either by myself or BrianK.
Every time your fantasies are shown to be meaningless assertions you either resort to mindless moronic name calling, or you simply lie.

There is no statement that you have made that is backed up in this thread, you are nothing more than a lying troll. You raised your crap about gravity not existing because the laws of gravity disproved the existence of your bullsht invisible planet, and now you are trying to subvert mathematics because it disproves the bullsht "EM Universe" that you are trying to pretend supersedes the laws of gravity.

Quote:

Incase you want all of Nassim Haramein's math explained to you since apparently watching a video is to overburdening: http://vacuumsingularity.wordpress.com/2012/05/12/the-cosmological-constant-and-the-schwarzschild-proton/

This site explains nothing, demonstrates nothing, and proves nothing except that there is another bromance going on. Harameins 10^14g proton may sit very prettily on some fantasy graph, as is asserted in this lovein, but it does not match the real world model proton with a mass of 10^-11. If your assertion does not match reality, there is no point claiming reality is defective.

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

@Lou

Quote:

Or I accept that it is you and Nimrod that don't understand and my vacation is scheduled way in advance of your trivial and useless requests...

Understanding of gravity is so trival man's been working on it for nearly 150years. Oh wait you mean your actual understanding is trival. Yes I agree it is!

Quote:

Incase you want all of Nassim Haramein's math explained to you

You are definitely harping on the wrong question. You tell us we don't understand his mathetmatical postulates. Nimrod's saying his postulates are wrong mathematically. The mathematical postulates are fairly clear to what Haramein thinks they mean. I'm denoting the actual evidencee to support said postulates are lacking or worse, aka point Haramein's postulates as incorrect. You still haven't provided anything useful here to begin building your case of evidence.

Instead you just claim I don't provide anything. And when I do provide you the direction you just claim it's too unimportant for your time to review. If you aren't going to review don't ask for it!

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Or I accept that it is you and Nimrod that don't understand and my vacation is scheduled way in advance of your trivial and useless requests... Understanding of gravity is so trival man's been working on it for nearly 150years. Oh wait you mean your actual understanding is trival. Yes I agree it is!

...and you call my responses flipant..

Quote:

Quote: Incase you want all of Nassim Haramein's math explained to you You are definitely harping on the wrong question. You tell us we don't understand his mathetmatical postulates. Nimrod's saying his postulates are wrong mathematically. The mathematical postulates are fairly clear to what Haramein thinks they mean. I'm denoting the actual evidencee to support said postulates are lacking or worse, aka point Haramein's postulates as incorrect. You still haven't provided anything useful here to begin building your case of evidence. Instead you just claim I don't provide anything. And when I do provide you the direction you just claim it's too unimportant for your time to review. If you aren't going to review don't ask for it!

It's pretty obvious Nimrod doesn't accept quantum mechanics.
His physics knowledge stopped in high school.
Its getting pretty obvious that rather than follow thru any link I post which will put your own beliefs in question that you'd rather defer to his less-than-educated opinion.

Last edited by Lou on 21-Jun-2012 at 06:45 PM.

@Lou

Yes I ignored the additional postulates presented in the 2nd video. I'm waiting for evidence not postulates on postulates. As for your bullshit claim I've produced nothing I've provided and cited scientific work and provided you how to get them for yourselve and review. It was you that choose to ignore obtaining let alone reviewing the evidence.

Quote:

always dodge the production of evidence and always throw it back on me.

You say Haramein is true then You must prove it.

You say there's a planet X out there because Google is missing data. You reject all the other data that says No. Sure I can get a telescope and take a picture of nothing. Are you going to believe it then, that there's nothing there? The best way to prove to someone is have them conduct the collection of evidence themselves.

The truth here is you blame others and make excuses so you don't have to do any real work. That's even been the case with Nimrod you claimed his math wrong because he might have made a mathematical mistake on some other formula at some time in the past of something unrelated. You failed to do the real work to figure out if the new formula he addressed had any mistakes. Just another excuse so you didn't have to be bothered with doing anything.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: You've demonstrated being the master of looking back at old posts. They are there and I called them out. Its all backed up in this thread. I have checked back right the way to the first post in the first thread, and there is no post made by you that answers a single point made either by myself or BrianK. Every time your fantasies are shown to be meaningless assertions you either resort to mindless moronic name calling, or you simply lie. There is no statement that you have made that is backed up in this thread, you are nothing more than a lying troll. You raised your crap about gravity not existing because the laws of gravity disproved the existence of your bullsht invisible planet, and now you are trying to subvert mathematics because it disproves the bullsht "EM Universe" that you are trying to pretend supersedes the laws of gravity. Quote: Incase you want all of Nassim Haramein's math explained to you since apparently watching a video is to overburdening: http://vacuumsingularity.wordpress.com/2012/05/12/the-cosmological-constant-and-the-schwarzschild-proton/ This site explains nothing, demonstrates nothing, and proves nothing except that there is another bromance going on. Harameins 10^14g proton may sit very prettily on some fantasy graph, as is asserted in this lovein, but it does not match the real world model proton with a mass of 10^-11. If your assertion does not match reality, there is no point claiming reality is defective.

...this coming from Nimrod the physics noob...

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Yes I ignored the additional postulates presented in the 2nd video. I'm waiting for evidence not postulates on postulates. As for your bullshit claim I've produced nothing I've provided and cited scientific work and provided you how to get them for yourselve and review. It was you that choose to ignore obtaining let alone reviewing the evidence. Quote: always dodge the production of evidence and always throw it back on me. You say Haramein is true then You must prove it. You say there's a planet X out there because Google is missing data. You reject all the other data that says No. Sure I can get a telescope and take a picture of nothing. Are you going to believe it then, that there's nothing there? The best way to prove to someone is have them conduct the collection of evidence themselves. The truth here is you blame others and make excuses so you don't have to do any real work. That's even been the case with Nimrod you claimed his math wrong because he might have made a mathematical mistake on some other formula at some time in the past of something unrelated. You failed to do the real work to figure out if the new formula he addressed had any mistakes. Just another excuse so you didn't have to be bothered with doing anything.

I love quoting yours and Nimrod's text for truth so that they can't be edited later.

You ask for evidence, I prodive it then you ignore it and admit to ignoring it.

Go suck a thumb then since it's all you really want to do.

@Lou

Quote:

Its getting pretty obvious that rather than follow thru any link I post which will put your own beliefs in question

Again another complete bullshit claim.

Your Haramein work is a great example. I followed through on his work. I pointed out where the real world evidence fails to comply with the claims of his postulates. The mass of an atom is much smaller than he says it is.

Heck out of my complaint you came back and said (in effect) oh yeah Haramein does know he doesn't match there instead you somehow forgot to mention it. And instead you claimed Haramein will fix it in the future so I don't have to worry.

You're judging truth on an unreleased future paper that none of us could read let alone Haramein had yet to create? FAITH based C.R.A.P.

It's no wonder you can't be bothered to read the evidence. Then you might actually destroy your trival understanding. You accuse people of reading an old textbook. When in fact Nimrod and I have accepted your postulates and demonstrated where they are wrong. When in fact I have provided you recent evidences that weren't in text books 20 years ago because the experiments happend a couple years ago. So as bad as that text book might be it's still worlds better than a Haramein Bible.

@Lou

Quote:

You ask for evidence, I prodive it then you ignore it and admit to ignoring it.

Postulates are not evidence. You are unable or unwilling to grasp the difference.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: You ask for evidence, I prodive it then you ignore it and admit to ignoring it. Postulates are not evidence. You are unable or unwilling to grasp the difference.

Oh really? When are you going to realize it's called the theory of general relativity because its still a theory? When are you going to realize its called the big bang theory because its still a theory?

If there was hard evidence, they would not be theories. In fact there is hard evidence against them.

So what makes your bullshit theories fact and my mathematically sound ones fiction BrianK? Oh I know I know: you think your CRAP don't stink.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Its getting pretty obvious that rather than follow thru any link I post which will put your own beliefs in question Again another complete bullshit claim. Your Haramein work is a great example. I followed through on his work. I pointed out where the real world evidence fails to comply with the claims of his postulates. The mass of an atom is much smaller than he says it is. Heck out of my complaint you came back and said (in effect) oh yeah Haramein does know he doesn't match there instead you somehow forgot to mention it. And instead you claimed Haramein will fix it in the future so I don't have to worry.

This is you putting words in my mouth. There was nothing to "fix", its just most people lack understanding of quantum mechanics.
He did infact clarify what that mass was...which you continue to ignore.

Quote:

You're judging truth on an unreleased future paper that none of us could read let alone Haramein had yet to create? FAITH based C.R.A.P. It's no wonder you can't be bothered to read the evidence. Then you might actually destroy your trival understanding. You accuse people of reading an old textbook. When in fact Nimrod and I have accepted your postulates and demonstrated where they are wrong. When in fact I have provided you recent evidences that weren't in text books 20 years ago because the experiments happend a couple years ago. So as bad as that text book might be it's still worlds better than a Haramein Bible.

Oh this is where because something is "unreleased" then it's just wrong, right? Like when a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it falls hence it made no sound, right? This paper is going to be the written form of the lecture from December that you also ignored.

You are the one running on FAITH, BrianK.

@Lou

It's no 'theory of general relativity' it's Theory. Why? Theory doesn't mean any old C.R.A.P. guess. Theory is a Scientific Theory. A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. So when Haramein claims the mass of an atom is X because that atom is really a black hole the next step a scientist does is put that atom on a scale and see if it's X, anything close to X, or way off. Turns off we did exactly this and Haramein's mass is wrong, not just wrong but orders of magnitudes wrong. This would considering Haramein's postulates. I 'accepted' Haramein at face value and considered his conclusion against reality. Turned out the two didn't match. I choose reality. Nimrod considered Harmein's math and found errors. Which may indeed be the reason to why comparing Haramein to reality failed. It's because Harmein failed.

So don't go around claiming false things like 'you never consider' when in fact we do. You're just upset the consideration turned out opposite of your faith. In truth, you really don't want us to consider. We're just to accept and ignore the out of alignment with reality problems Haramein has.

Quote:

So what makes your bullshit theories fact and my mathematically sound ones fiction BrianK?

Can't really answer your loaded question as I never stated any theory was fact. (Read above to understand what a scienctific theory is) What I did state was those Scientific Theories were supported by facts which is a subtle difference you aren't grasping. Whereas the Haramein ideas are not supported by facts, and actually are betrayed by facts. Again this is why you hope we aren't actually considering Haramein's work.

@Lou

Quote:

There was nothing to "fix", its just most people lack understanding of quantum mechanics.

It appears the universe itself doesn't understand Haramein's quantum mechanics. His postulates have far more fixing than you grasp. In fact Haramein might have to build his own universe.

Quote:

Oh this is where because something is "unreleased" then it's just wrong, right?

An unreleased work from Haramein can be neither wrong nor right. You were the one that claimed a work, neither read nor created, is right. I simply claimed the right to reserve judgement until the postulate was created. Once created we can then read it. At that point we can then consider the postulate against evidence. This will tell us if Harmein's idea is crazy or spot on. Again you are the one claiming his unanalyzed and uncreated work is the truth! Faith.. pure unadulterated Faith.

@Lou

Quote:

It's pretty obvious Nimrod doesn't accept quantum mechanics.

And your evidence for this lie is... Non existent. You just make up any bullsht that you think makes you think you look clever.

Quote:

...this coming from Nimrod the physics noob...

I accept quantum mechanics as an improvement on earlier theories, and I also accept that one day we will know more than we do now. That does not mean that I have to accept every fairy story that every self opinionated idiot spews out, just because it is claimed to be some form of divine revelation. If his claims are correct the mass of evidence will show him to be correct. as it stands the mass of evidence, or at least the evidence of mass, contradicts him by a factor of 10^25.

Quote:

I love quoting yours and Nimrod's text for truth so that they can't be edited later

So go through my texts and show me the answer to the questions of when and where. Show where I used the word "luminance" or evidence that I have edited out that word. Do it, or admit to being nothing more than a troll.

Quote:

You ask for evidence, I prodive it then you ignore it and admit to ignoring it.

This has to be the biggest lie you have come out with to date. I clearly remember you complaining that I had investigated too deeply into one of your bullsht fantasies. Remember this? Just as an extra comment, I predicted your current attacks on the validity of mathematics over a year ago. In post #350 to be precise. I even knew that you would play silly beggers with binary counting, and 1+1=11. You will also note that these posts have not been recently edited to try and change the facts, so you can retract the dishonest assertion about about us editing posts to hide inconvenient mistakes. I have edited out one error, after you pointed it out and I acknowledged the error and apologised for it. The error in question was when I answered a comment made by MikeB but addressed it as a comment made by you. That correction and retraction is the action of honesty, however you may not be familiar with the concept.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

This has to be the biggest lie you have come out with to date. I clearly remember you complaining that I had investigated too deeply

Good catch.

I'll back this up with my own evidence that Lou accused me of digging too deeply too. He constantly rips on me finding problems in the 'small details' thereby missing the big picture. He doesn't appear to understand that if someone is considering something they should indeed be digging into the small details that he so willfully critizes us for doing.

The more I review his responses the more I'm understanding that when he says 'consider' he really means is jump on my bandwagon and ignore trying to build an actual working understanding.

Last edited by BrianK on 21-Jun-2012 at 08:49 PM.

@Lou

Rumors are next week is the Higgs Boson confirmation

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou It's no 'theory of general relativity' it's Theory. Why? Theory doesn't mean any old C.R.A.P. guess. Theory is a Scientific Theory. A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. So when Haramein claims the mass of an atom is X because that atom is really a black hole the next step a scientist does is put that atom on a scale and see if it's X, anything close to X, or way off. Turns off we did exactly this and Haramein's mass is wrong, not just wrong but orders of magnitudes wrong. This would considering Haramein's postulates. I 'accepted' Haramein at face value and considered his conclusion against reality. Turned out the two didn't match. I choose reality. Nimrod considered Harmein's math and found errors. Which may indeed be the reason to why comparing Haramein to reality failed. It's because Harmein failed. So don't go around claiming false things like 'you never consider' when in fact we do. You're just upset the consideration turned out opposite of your faith. In truth, you really don't want us to consider. We're just to accept and ignore the out of alignment with reality problems Haramein has. Quote: So what makes your bullshit theories fact and my mathematically sound ones fiction BrianK? Can't really answer your loaded question as I never stated any theory was fact. (Read above to understand what a scienctific theory is) What I did state was those Scientific Theories were supported by facts which is a subtle difference you aren't grasping. Whereas the Haramein ideas are not supported by facts, and actually are betrayed by facts. Again this is why you hope we aren't actually considering Haramein's work.

You are guilty of standing by old theories as facts by calling others that you admitted to never investigating as being bullshit. That implys your faith in old archaic theories are not bullshit. So while you didn't call them facts, you defend them as facts based on your faith alone.

Oh gee, another paper from another scientist about gravity being a result of radiation pressure and shielding but from 1995: http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/Research/RadiantPressure.pdf
Another site that explains it:
http://www.rhythmodynamics.com/Gabriel_LaFreniere/sa_gravity.htm

Now the final thing I need to say about this is: EINSTEIN persued UNIFICATION. SO THE THEORY YOU WORSHIP IS FLAWED AS DECLARED BY ITS CREATOR.
What you worship is nothing but what was declared "good enough" at the time over a 100 years ago. Radiation pressure also dispels the myth that Jupiter and the like are "gas giants". NASA knows the truth when they crashed a satellite into Jupiter. You and Nimrod can keep living in fantasy land like physics virgins, it's no sweat of my back.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: It's pretty obvious Nimrod doesn't accept quantum mechanics. And your evidence for this lie is... Non existent. You just make up any bullsht that you think makes you think you look clever. Quote: ...this coming from Nimrod the physics noob... I accept quantum mechanics as an improvement on earlier theories, and I also accept that one day we will know more than we do now. That does not mean that I have to accept every fairy story that every self opinionated idiot spews out, just because it is claimed to be some form of divine revelation. If his claims are correct the mass of evidence will show him to be correct. as it stands the mass of evidence, or at least the evidence of mass, contradicts him by a factor of 10^25. Quote: I love quoting yours and Nimrod's text for truth so that they can't be edited later So go through my texts and show me the answer to the questions of when and where. Show where I used the word "luminance" or evidence that I have edited out that word. Do it, or admit to being nothing more than a troll. Quote: You ask for evidence, I prodive it then you ignore it and admit to ignoring it. This has to be the biggest lie you have come out with to date. I clearly remember you complaining that I had investigated too deeply into one of your bullsht fantasies. Remember this? Just as an extra comment, I predicted your current attacks on the validity of mathematics over a year ago. In post #350 to be precise. I even knew that you would play silly beggers with binary counting, and 1+1=11. You will also note that these posts have not been recently edited to try and change the facts, so you can retract the dishonest assertion about about us editing posts to hide inconvenient mistakes. I have edited out one error, after you pointed it out and I acknowledged the error and apologised for it. The error in question was when I answered a comment made by MikeB but addressed it as a comment made by you. That correction and retraction is the action of honesty, however you may not be familiar with the concept.

I played silly beggars because you made a bland statement without defining the parameters. You can accuse me of anything you like as your weight is CRAP, as for concepts and familiarity, here's one you are not familiar with: current science.

Last edited by Lou on 22-Jun-2012 at 05:25 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 22-Jun-2012 at 05:24 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Nimrod Quote: This has to be the biggest lie you have come out with to date. I clearly remember you complaining that I had investigated too deeply Good catch. I'll back this up with my own evidence that Lou accused me of digging too deeply too. He constantly rips on me finding problems in the 'small details' thereby missing the big picture. He doesn't appear to understand that if someone is considering something they should indeed be digging into the small details that he so willfully critizes us for doing. The more I review his responses the more I'm understanding that when he says 'consider' he really means is jump on my bandwagon and ignore trying to build an actual working understanding.

OK Mr. Twister. I accused you of splitting sentences from paragraphs to take them out of context in order to dispel them.

You are the king of missing the big picture.
Keep on twisting!

Last edited by Lou on 22-Jun-2012 at 05:25 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou It's no 'theory of general relativity' it's Theory. Why? Theory doesn't mean any old C.R.A.P. guess. Theory is a Scientific Theory. A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. So when Haramein claims the mass of an atom is X because that atom is really a black hole the next step a scientist does is put that atom on a scale and see if it's X, anything close to X, or way off. Turns off we did exactly this and Haramein's mass is wrong, not just wrong but orders of magnitudes wrong. This would considering Haramein's postulates. I 'accepted' Haramein at face value and considered his conclusion against reality. Turned out the two didn't match. I choose reality. Nimrod considered Harmein's math and found errors. Which may indeed be the reason to why comparing Haramein to reality failed. It's because Harmein failed. So don't go around claiming false things like 'you never consider' when in fact we do. You're just upset the consideration turned out opposite of your faith. In truth, you really don't want us to consider. We're just to accept and ignore the out of alignment with reality problems Haramein has. Quote: So what makes your bullshit theories fact and my mathematically sound ones fiction BrianK? Can't really answer your loaded question as I never stated any theory was fact. (Read above to understand what a scienctific theory is) What I did state was those Scientific Theories were supported by facts which is a subtle difference you aren't grasping. Whereas the Haramein ideas are not supported by facts, and actually are betrayed by facts. Again this is why you hope we aren't actually considering Haramein's work.

Listen here o'Defender of Ancient Theories: the scientific method was used to write papers from MODERN scientist who built on the work of Einstein and his peers who are privy to more MODERN scientific data. I believe I have linked close to 7 separate scientists now since the 90's who have declared gravity as merely the effect of radiation shielding. All you got is 1 from 1905, who admitted its wrong, right?

Last edited by Lou on 22-Jun-2012 at 05:33 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 22-Jun-2012 at 05:33 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 22-Jun-2012 at 05:32 PM.