@Lou

Quote:

You are guilty of standing by old theories as facts

Again you do not understandthe relationship. No one stated old theories are facts. Theories are the explaination that are constructed to best explain the facts. Theories change as more facts are uncovered and/or better established. And once the facts, overwhelmingly, point in a better direction a new theory surplants the older one's. These are called paradigm shifts. Let me guess... Again you didn't want to ruin your trival understanding so haven't taken the time to read Popper or Kuhn.

Quote:

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

We certainly agree Einstein did pursue unification theory. And I think you can go back and see that I've been fully aware of many different attempts at UT and GUT. The issue we have at present is the insufficent evidence to suss out 1 GUT as the truth. Where we differ you is you claim you know this GUT, but aren't able to prove it. I'm asking for proof, which is the data layer that is used to compare postulates vs reality. You keep responding with more postulates. A plethora of postulates doesn't establish truth.

Quote:

You are the king of missing the big picture

OK Mrs. Twist. Make up your mind. Either I'm not considering or I'm digging too deeply which one is it?

Quote:

believe I have linked close to 7 separate scientists ... All you got is 1

Unfortunately this comparision you're doing with worthless. Truth is not established by personal opinion and democratic vote. Truth is established through the quantiative and qualititive work of demonstion through evidence.


I thought you might this short piece. Climate use of 'grey' evidence You tell us how bad and political science is. (And yes we agree with you anything more than 1 person does is going to have an element of politics involved. It's called the human condition.) However, your method to include whatever Sam or Jane say doesn't get rid of the politic. The effect is the opposite. The politic increases as people now argue that X was included not because of the quality and validation of the work but because favoritsm . Or Y was rejected in the same way. When we give up repetition and validation the politic factor goes up. I'd love it to go down, as would you, but your recommendation here doesn't work.

The question is how do we best eliminate politic? I'd argue focus on the results of the evidence. Over time experiments are repeated by increasingly diverse individuals. The greater the spread the more likely the politic is to get washed out. So as we see things like anti-Climate groups forming studies about the Climate and finding 'oh shit they're right'. (eg Koch Bros funded climate study) It certainly helps to clear up political questions in the interworkings of science itself.

Now be careful here not to confuse the external politics (public vs science) with the internal politics (amongst the scientists themselves.) Here I'm talking about the internal politics.

Last edited by BrianK on 22-Jun-2012 at 05:59 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

Quote: believe I have linked close to 7 separate scientists ... All you got is 1 Unfortunately this comparision you're doing with worthless. Truth is not established by personal opinion and democratic vote. Truth is established through the quantiative and qualititive work of demonstion through evidence.

Somebody, somewhere doesn't realise that the work you cited in post #2136 is being done by scientists, and they are not wasting their time and effort on pointless sideshows like radiation pressure=gravity.
Incidentally, reading through the CRAP that Lou linked to the "theory" seems to rely on the aether that was effectively disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiments back in 1887, and modern improvements in technology have increased tha accuracy of these experiments, and modern resonator experiments have confirmed the absence of any aether wind down to the level of 10^-17

A theory is considered reasonable if
1) It can explain current phenomena
2) It can predict phenomena which can be verified experimentally
3) it is based on sound principles.
The ideas expounded by these seven so called "scientists" achieve none of these simple goals

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Somebody, somewhere doesn't realise that the work you cited in post #2136 is being done by scientists, and they are not wasting their time and effort on pointless sideshows like radiation pressure=gravity

No doubt. Scientists are not only building postulates they're building experiments so we can verify if their postulates are anything close to reality. Haramein throws a lot of What IF's together and then requires we accept his conclusion as truth. That's not how understanding works. That's how faith works.

Quote:

Incidentally, reading through the CRAP that Lou linked to the "theory" seems to rely on the aether

Wait I thought you didn't consider this stuff.

@Lou
New evidence on aliens
http://i.imgur.com/0Pru2.jpg

@Nimrod

Nimrod wrote:
@BrianK
Quote:

Quote: Unfortunately this comparision you're doing with worthless. Truth is not established by personal opinion and democratic vote. Truth is established through the quantiative and qualititive work of demonstion through evidence. Somebody, somewhere doesn't realise that the work you cited in post #2136 is being done by scientists, and they are not wasting their time and effort on pointless sideshows like radiation pressure=gravity. Incidentally, reading through the CRAP that Lou linked to the "theory" seems to rely on the aether that was effectively disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiments back in 1887, and modern improvements in technology have increased tha accuracy of these experiments, and modern resonator experiments have confirmed the absence of any aether wind down to the level of 10^-17 A theory is considered reasonable if 1) It can explain current phenomena 2) It can predict phenomena which can be verified experimentally 3) it is based on sound principles. The ideas expounded by these seven so called "scientists" achieve none of these simple goals

That's a strange conclusion to come to when Lorentz explained the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment as being due to a contraction in length of a moving body (the foundation of Einstein's Special Relativity), and most importantly, that this contraction occurred in an Absolute Space...

Add to that that from every description of those experiments, I did not once see it mentioned that one of the beams was aimed vertically along the direction of "gravity" which show locally show the largest difference in aether wind change. In other words, a useless experiment or atleast unrelated to the point of not being useful as argument against the radiation pressure theory of gravity.

The fact remains that yesterday's ether led to today's vacuum energy.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou New evidence on aliens http://i.imgur.com/0Pru2.jpg

...keep building a case for being a troll...

@BrianK

Quote:

Quote: believe I have linked close to 7 separate scientists ... All you got is 1 Unfortunately this comparision you're doing with worthless. Truth is not established by personal opinion and democratic vote. Truth is established through the quantiative and qualititive work of demonstion through evidence.

So what you are saying is you have blind faith in a theory over 100 years old from a man who said it was wrong but "close enough for now" vs. over half a dozen of today's scientists with better tools and more time to build on the original experiments that take into account astronomical data not available in 1905 who all came to the same conclussion independently that gravity is a result of radiation pressure...

You, BrianK, you've shown me your blind hand.

@Lou

Quote:

So what you are saying is you have blind faith in a theory over 100 years old from a man who said it was wrong but "close enough for now" vs. over half a dozen of today's scientists with better tools and more time to build on the original experiments

I think you're working harder at trying to misconstrue than trying to understand. But, I'll roll with this example to lay out the differences here.

What we have is 1 man who created a set of postulates. Over the last 100 years hundreds of scientists conducted thousands of experiments which validated the predictability and usability. Over the same time there were millions of actual uses of this data that society has integrated into our daily lives. And the original postulates collectively with the evidence this forms the Scientific Theory.

Instead what you're suggesting is I should accept 7 men who created a set of postulates. Even though these postulates have not sustained the depth, rigor, or validation.

So as you can see what you're doing is requesting a vote of popularity be used as truth instead of demonstrated evidence.

Last edited by BrianK on 25-Jun-2012 at 07:08 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @BrianK Quote: BrianK wrote: @Lou New evidence on aliens http://i.imgur.com/0Pru2.jpg ...keep building a case for being a troll...

Whatda mean? All the Theories are right there in front of you and linked at the webpages listed. It's gotta be the truth.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: So what you are saying is you have blind faith in a theory over 100 years old from a man who said it was wrong but "close enough for now" vs. over half a dozen of today's scientists with better tools and more time to build on the original experiments I think you're working harder at trying to misconstrue than trying to understand. But, I'll roll with this example to lay out the differences here. What we have is 1 man who created a set of postulates. Over the last 100 years hundreds of scientists conducted thousands of experiments which validated the predictability and usability. Over the same time there were millions of actual uses of this data that society has integrated into our daily lives. And the original postulates collectively with the evidence this forms the Scientific Theory. Instead what you're suggesting is I should accept 7 men who created a set of postulates. Even though these postulates have not sustained the depth, rigor, or validation. So as you can see what you're doing is requesting a vote of popularity be used as truth instead of demonstrated evidence.

I think you continue to twist your own words.
It was YOU that said "it's the best we got" as to be what you accept.

I have simply pointed you at "better" information.

@BrianK

Quote:

Lou wrote: @BrianK Quote: BrianK wrote: @Lou New evidence on aliens http://i.imgur.com/0Pru2.jpg ...keep building a case for being a troll...

This response to your post has to be the ultimate in hypocrisy, coming from somebody who, on being shown clear evidence refuting his ideas, either posts a blatant lie, or resorts to childish namecalling and insults.
I actually enjoyed following this link and reading the note. Given exactly the same lack of information, and intellectual ability, somebody has managed to leap to a totally different conclusion that is exactly as (in)valid as the conclusions that gravity doesn't exist but an invisible planet does. I notice, however that they also place great importance in predicting earthquakes, which happen frequently, and sudden axial shift, which T-J clearly explained to have never happened. I am only surprised that whoever wrote this note was allowed to use something other than a crayon!

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

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120625133349.htm
"Scientists Twist Light to Send Data: Beams of Light Can Be Twisted and Combined to Transmit Data Dramatically Faster"

Oh gee willickers...another DARPA-funded project...

@Lou

Quote:

I have simply pointed you at "better" information

You continue to point at postulates and call them evidence. Postulates, even mathematical proofs, are an explaination of the ideal. They, however, are not a demonstration of how well the ideal fits reality. For that one needs validated evidence. So it's hugely important that researchers create the situations where those mathematical postulates can be held up against reality to see if they are, or are not, in alignment.

For example: What we have for Haramein is some fairly strong claims about atomic sized blackholes. He shows mathematical proofs. Again which is a postulate on how it 'should' all work. It's the test against reality that demonstrates if his shoulding is anything worthwhile.

(Well and unfortunately for Haramein's case the tests have been done and his work is out of alignment with the present evidence available. Which definitely says Haramein, or his scientific supports, have got work to do before we accept his approximation to reality.)

See a better Scientific Theory must not only 'fix' a broken item of another Theory. It should perform equally if not better in areas that are already working. This sort of information is how we can suss out which item is more applicable or understood.

Also do realize 'the best we got' is always changing. And we're open to this change as our state of knowledge is ever changed. Sadly we weren't born with the cookbook of the universe tucked under our pillow.

@Nimrod

Quote:

I actually enjoyed following this link and reading the note. Given exactly the same lack of information, and intellectual ability, somebody has managed to leap to a totally different conclusion that is exactly as (in)valid as the conclusions that gravity doesn't exist but an invisible planet does. I notice, however that they also place great importance in predicting earthquakes, which happen frequently, and sudden axial shift, which T-J clearly explained to have never happened.

Why doesn't AmigaWorld have a Facebookesque 'Like Button'? Your reading and post is exactly spot on.

@Lou

Quote:

Scientists Twist Light to Send Data: Beams of Light Can Be Twisted and Combined to Transmit Data Dramatically Faster

I think your excitement here could be used for a good learning exercise for you...

1) Scientists observed light's properties
2) Scientists built the mathematical proofs and/or postulated how this can be used
3) Scientists experimented and demonstrated their postulates can work in the real world.
4) Engineers then move this information into production. Example here was satellites are likely the first candidates. (This is TBD and probably a few years off yet.)

Compare this to
1) Scientists observing EM (like Haramein)
2) Sceintists built the mathematical proofs and/or postulated how this can be used
...then....Lou claims it's all true and nothing is in production or the planning stages.

There's a distinct difference in approach here.


EDIT: And certainly this is exciting. Scientists predicted that by not only using the current WiFi SAM (Spin Angular Momentum) they could include OAM (Orbital Angular Momentum). With twice the options on twice the controls they verified in experimentation that 8x performance was acheivable. It's theorized that one can vary the OAM to diffenet levels of the SAM resulting in an infinite amount of bandwidth. (I think what we'll see in Engineering is there is a economic limit which may change over time.)

Again what we see here are (1) Scientists observed OAM. (2) Created mathematical models of how OAM could be used in WiFi. (3) Created the experiments to demonstrate if their mathematical proofs did apply to reality. What they found out is indeed they were on the right direction. So society will benefit as we move our 'best understanding' into engineering and production.

The reasons for satellites first? Situations on earth limit the transmission to a few meters. We could probably get this to a KM. In space the atmospheric conditions that impact the WiFi signal are greatly reduced. Which means (no suprise here) EM in an environment with less hinderances can travel farther.

Last edited by BrianK on 26-Jun-2012 at 03:02 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

I have simply pointed you at "better" information.

Correction, you have posted different information. Different does not automatically mean better.

A theory is considered better than the one it is trying to supplant if
1) It can explain current phenomena that the predecessor either cannot explain, or explains poorly
2) It can predict phenomena which can be verified experimentally that the original postulate either cannot predict, or predicts with a lower level of accuracy
3) it is based on sound principles.

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

@Lou,

Thought you might like this. NASA Mars Lander video discusses the difficulty in landing on Mars. And problems such as dealing with the 7 minute delay in communication. Perhaps something Russia could learn from.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: I have simply pointed you at "better" information You continue to point at postulates and call them evidence. Postulates, even mathematical proofs, are an explaination of the ideal. They, however, are not a demonstration of how well the ideal fits reality. For that one needs validated evidence. So it's hugely important that researchers create the situations where those mathematical postulates can be held up against reality to see if they are, or are not, in alignment.

Last time I checked, GEM Theory is infact a theory, just like General Relativity. Perhaps your goggles are failing you...

Quote:

For example: What we have for Haramein is some fairly strong claims about atomic sized blackholes. He shows mathematical proofs. Again which is a postulate on how it 'should' all work. It's the test against reality that demonstrates if his shoulding is anything worthwhile.

Oh? What test was that? You've posted no links to any scientific tests.

Quote:

(Well and unfortunately for Haramein's case the tests have been done and his work is out of alignment with the present evidence available. Which definitely says Haramein, or his scientific supports, have got work to do before we accept his approximation to reality.)

Oh? What evidence is that? Or will you once again make broad statements then when asked for specific evidence once again throw the burden of proof back onto me. I just love your SCIENCE BY PROCLAMATION. Debunking 101 FTW!

Quote:

See a better Scientific Theory must not only 'fix' a broken item of another Theory. It should perform equally if not better in areas that are already working. This sort of information is how we can suss out which item is more applicable or understood.

Which it does except in your world of DENIAL of course.

Quote:

Also do realize 'the best we got' is always changing. And we're open to this change as our state of knowledge is ever changed. Sadly we weren't born with the cookbook of the universe tucked under our pillow.

I realize this, unfortunately you like to stay put in 1905 until the textbooks finally get updated...

@Lou

Quote:

Last time I checked, GEM Theory is infact a theory, just like General Relativity. Perhaps your goggles are failing you...

The only way they are 'just like' each other is both include the word Theory. A scientific theory again has a definition that GEM THeory does not fall into. Similarily String Theory doesn't either. Why? String Theory is a set of postulates. Many in the form of mathematical proofs. ST is lacking in evidence. So while ST may work great as a set of ideas it has no real demonstrated use in the real world. Perhaps someday we'll see ST move out of the Theoretical Physics labs and over to the Applied Physics lab. It'll be great to move it off the chalkboard and into the real world. To date we're still waiting.

In short, just because 'Theory' is part of the wording does not mean they are equivalent to each other. And in actuality what you're attempting to do is upset the need for evidence by misconstruing the meaning of Scientific Theory.

Edit: TL:DR version of the above Edit: You're trying to argue politic so you might hopefully get an excuse for the lack of evidence for GEM.


Quote:

Oh? What test was that? You've posted no links to any scientific tests.

Edit making this shorter Edit. False - I posted links to proton size and mass experiments. I posted (and so did you) links to calculations of blackhole sizes based on Schwarzchild Radius. I, and Nimrod, did the consideration (which you falsely accused us not) to Haramein to see if his postulates align with the data from those experiments. He doesn't.

Edit shortening Edit. The rest is just more lies which are disproven by a read of these threads.

Last edited by BrianK on 26-Jun-2012 at 10:27 PM.

@Lou

Tweet to the aliens ... You certainly know of the Wow Signal. No one's responded. So the 'clever' idea is to throw Twitter at them. Now the signal is about 17K light years away so we're likely to be dead when/if they return a response. Personally if I got random prattle from Twitter instead of something more meaningful I don't know if I'd be all that excited to talk to the aliens. They'll probably think we're like their annoying in-laws that don't leave soon enough on a visit.

Though I think I'll tweet 'How to Serve Man'. That'll get their attention.

Last edited by BrianK on 27-Jun-2012 at 04:22 PM.