@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @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.

You epically failed. GEM Theory defined G which in the theory you worship is just a magical number with no reason for existing other than it just does. Because your science is ancient, things are simply accepted because someone told you that's just the way it is. You are content with that. This is why we need no further discussion. You claim openess but act complacent. The ultimate hypocrit.

Quote:

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.

I also linked where Nassim derived the 'standard' proton mass from his Schwartzchild proton. However you've chosen 'science by proclamation' and 'don't tell me the facts' debunking rules to the tee, among others of course. You should start your own business: BrianK Debunker For Hire. You posted regurgitated ancient science. You've brought crap to the table. I'm pretty sure someone could have programmed a social media bot to pretend to be you.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @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.

It's pretty naive and amusing to watch humans attempt to communicate with 'aliens' using electronic signals and expecting them to 1) be listening for them and 2) understand that the signal may actually be from an intelligent source and 3) be able to interpret them and send a reply ... and vice versa
SETI is a joke.

I love your foundation for 'science'. It speaks volumes...

http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/bre85r0js-us-higgs-cern/

from the article:
Quote:

A definitive 'we've found it' would be a surprise and a major scientific milestone. ... Even if its existence is finally proven, it will only apply to the relatively small part of the universe explained by the Standard Model. It won't tell us about so-called dark matter or dark energy, which scientists believe make up about 96 percent of the cosmos. ... In a hard-up world paying the bill for multiple financial crises, some question the value of big science projects like the Large Hadron Collider and scientists feel an ever increasing pressure to justify the expense to policymakers. The LHC cost about 3 billion euros to build. CERN's highest profile gift to the real economy was the source code for the World Wide Web, written by scientist Tim Berners-Lee when he worked at the research centre in the 1990s. Asked what the Higgs hunt could bestow on the world, Nash says the research is too leading edge and too nascent to say. At this point it's about the thirst for knowledge, something he argues the public well understands.

Well, atleast the world wide web was somewhat useful...

Last edited by Lou on 28-Jun-2012 at 08:00 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

GEM Theory defined G which in the theory you worship is just a magical number with no reason for existing other than it just does

Do you realize that Big G was postulated by Newton? Do you realize Big G was confirmed via experimentation about 70 years after Newton's death? Do you realize the value to Big G has been tightened over the last 200 years by continuing to improve upon the evidence? For the last 200 years it wasn't like Big G was a placeholder without evidence. Your statement is worded such that you believe we're just fudging this for the last couple of centuries.

Is it commendable that GEM found Big G 200 years after the study of Gravity found Big G? Perhaps. Though if memory serves didn't Nimrod take you up on some mathematical error from a GEM postulater who in the end stated Big G = Big G? So feel free to repost how GEM did this in it's mathematical postulate and link to the experiment they conducted to confirm this.

Quote:

You posted regurgitated ancient science

Again you continue to politic instead of bringing evidence to the table.

You asked me to bring evidence. I did so and I provided you with instructions on how you can get more. First, you claimed being too busy to be bothered to read the evidence. Then, you tried to claim I never provided the evidence. Now, you try to claim the evidence I provide is too old. So while focusing on the politic you're failing to focus on the only thing that matters - the quality and quantity of the evidence itself. It doesn't matter how old the evidence was. What matters is if the experimentation was valid or invalid.

(Side note: I find it laughable you try to claim 2010 is simply too old to be considered. I see it going back to your first point which is when you claimed that you can't be bothered to read the evidence you requested.)

@Lou

Quote:

l, atleast the world wide web was somewhat useful...

Your included post quotes demonstrates the naivete of some individuals. The arguement that the LHC isn't worth it is a political one. It compares the LHC against other projects. We could do something else with the 3 billion. In this case that individual doesn't care if the LHC confirms or denies science. He just believes that whatever the LHC does it's not worth his nor his Country's time. Similar arguements are made all the time against space missions and landing men on the moon. Some people believe that until we clean up all problems with humanity across the Globe we shouldn't focus on anything else. Again his is an economic and political arguement. Not a scientific one.


Scientifically the LHC is useful. It conducts experiments. If it validates our understanding we know we're headed in the correct direction. If it invalidates our understanding we know we need to head in a different direction. Either way we know more than we did prior to the LHC's construction. And if you want something more directly the LHC uncovered a new Bottium State which we didn't have prior knowledge of existing (eg. never before evidenced.)


I'd think you find the LHC useful scientifically. It's already narrowed the range of where the Graviton must exist IF the current Standard Model is correct. That is the last major particle left undiscovered. Now you claim the Standard Model is wrong. Wouldn't it be great to be actually able to say we have looked everywhere postulated for the Graviton's existence and couldn't find it? That's not something you can say today (well without lying.) And actually it might be nice to see you whip out some evidence and not try rely on your typical insults.

Last edited by BrianK on 28-Jun-2012 at 08:22 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

s pretty naive and amusing to watch humans attempt to communicate with 'aliens' using electronic signals

I agree. Though this is National Geographic desiring to do this, not SETI. Looks to me to be a stunt to promote their shows and gain viewership more so then well thought out science. I always find those sad as it doesn't help the vast innumerate public.

@Lou

Quote:

You epically failed. GEM Theory defined G

Nice assertion, but where is the E V I D E N C E to back it up? Or are you just making up stories again?

Quote:

Because your science is ancient, things are simply accepted because someone told you that's just the way it is.

I had to re-read this line several times to get my head around the magnitude of this lie. We are not the ones claiming "Niibiru is coming because Stitchin says so", or "There are anti-gravity machines, because Podkletnov says so". The scientific method considers all possibilities, checks the E V I D E N C E and cross checks the experimental data. As a result of these endeavours we now have computers that did not exist 30 years ago, mobile telecommunications and satellite navigation that did not exist 30 years ago, and even quasi-crystals that did not exist 30 years ago. On the subject of ancient science, it was neither BrianK nor myself that cited a 1958 theory that got superseded in 1967. That is a shade over thirty years ago.

Quote:

I also linked where Nassim derived the 'standard' proton mass from his Schwartzchild proton

Correction Lou, you linked to a video where Haramein made various claims, some mathematical errors and at least one arithmetical error. What he did not do was provide one single iota of E V I D E N C E that demonstrated that his mathematical fudge had any validity. If you have any actual E V I D E N C E then feel free to post it, but simply repeating the same dishonest fudge over and over is not, in fact adding new E V I D E N C E, so if that, and stupid insults is all you have got, then kindly don't bother.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: You epically failed. GEM Theory defined G Nice assertion, but where is the E V I D E N C E to back it up? Or are you just making up stories again? Quote: Because your science is ancient, things are simply accepted because someone told you that's just the way it is. I had to re-read this line several times to get my head around the magnitude of this lie. We are not the ones claiming "Niibiru is coming because Stitchin says so", or "There are anti-gravity machines, because Podkletnov says so". The scientific method considers all possibilities, checks the E V I D E N C E and cross checks the experimental data. As a result of these endeavours we now have computers that did not exist 30 years ago, mobile telecommunications and satellite navigation that did not exist 30 years ago, and even quasi-crystals that did not exist 30 years ago. On the subject of ancient science, it was neither BrianK nor myself that cited a 1958 theory that got superseded in 1967. That is a shade over thirty years ago. Quote: I also linked where Nassim derived the 'standard' proton mass from his Schwartzchild proton Correction Lou, you linked to a video where Haramein made various claims, some mathematical errors and at least one arithmetical error. What he did not do was provide one single iota of E V I D E N C E that demonstrated that his mathematical fudge had any validity. If you have any actual E V I D E N C E then feel free to post it, but simply repeating the same dishonest fudge over and over is not, in fact adding new E V I D E N C E, so if that, and stupid insults is all you have got, then kindly don't bother.

Nimrod,
When are you going to realized that you have discredited yourself to me with regards to science. Your UNSCIENTIFIC opinion is worthless to me. You can feel free to never respond to any of my posts, trust me, I won't be offended.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: GEM Theory defined G which in the theory you worship is just a magical number with no reason for existing other than it just does Do you realize that Big G was postulated by Newton? Do you realize Big G was confirmed via experimentation about 70 years after Newton's death? Do you realize the value to Big G has been tightened over the last 200 years by continuing to improve upon the evidence? For the last 200 years it wasn't like Big G was a placeholder without evidence. Your statement is worded such that you believe we're just fudging this for the last couple of centuries. Is it commendable that GEM found Big G 200 years after the study of Gravity found Big G? Perhaps. Though if memory serves didn't Nimrod take you up on some mathematical error from a GEM postulater who in the end stated Big G = Big G? So feel free to repost how GEM did this in it's mathematical postulate and link to the experiment they conducted to confirm this. Quote: You posted regurgitated ancient science Again you continue to politic instead of bringing evidence to the table. You asked me to bring evidence. I did so and I provided you with instructions on how you can get more. First, you claimed being too busy to be bothered to read the evidence. Then, you tried to claim I never provided the evidence. Now, you try to claim the evidence I provide is too old. So while focusing on the politic you're failing to focus on the only thing that matters - the quality and quantity of the evidence itself. It doesn't matter how old the evidence was. What matters is if the experimentation was valid or invalid. (Side note: I find it laughable you try to claim 2010 is simply too old to be considered. I see it going back to your first point which is when you claimed that you can't be bothered to read the evidence you requested.)

Furthermore, you probably think dinosaurs are coldblooded because that's what you were told growing up...

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: s pretty naive and amusing to watch humans attempt to communicate with 'aliens' using electronic signals I agree. Though this is National Geographic desiring to do this, not SETI. Looks to me to be a stunt to promote their shows and gain viewership more so then well thought out science. I always find those sad as it doesn't help the vast innumerate public.

SETI is a joke.
To quote Stanton Friedman:
Quote:

The cult of S.E.T.I. (Silly Effort To Investigate) with its crazy notions that nobody would travel — but that aliens, stuck at the level of radio, are trying to attract our attention — mocks the notion of flying saucers, not by dealing with the evidence, but by proclamations about the ABSENCE of evidence. This ignores science.

Two months before the Wright brothers historic flight at Kitty Hawk, a top scientist declared that "no possible combination of known substances, known forces of machinery and known forms of force can be united in a practical (flying) machine..."

Germ theory was first advanced in ancient Sanskrit texts thousands of years ago, but wasn't widely accepted until late in the 19th century.

Space travel was declared "utter bilge" in 1956 by the British astronomer Royal, one of a long line of scientists who "proved" it was impossible.

Throughout history, it has been difficult, even impossible, to promote the acceptance of new discoveries. Clearly the participants of this thread are no exception...

@Lou

Quote:

Furthermore, you probably think dinosaurs are coldblooded because

Because - you're left with politicing and hoping we won't focus on your continued lack of evidence and your continued mislabeling of postulates as evidence.

Quote:

Throughout history, it has been difficult, even impossible, to promote the acceptance of new discoveries

You do realize that SCIENCE has resolved all those issues which you complained about? It wasn't science was wrong it. It was science wasn't right soon enough. And yeah I agree with you I like fast. Though note SCIENCE's purpose is not speed it's accuracy.

And again you are commenting on the politic. Science, done by falliable people, has it's pitfalls along the way. But, through continued postulating and evidencing societies around the world have moved forward in technical progression. So indeed science is finding usable and appicable truths. Even if not as timely you or I would like.

But we've hashed this discussion before, nothing new that you're bringing to the table. If we go the other direction where we neglect science it ends up we include ideas not due to their merit but their politic. I posted a few pages back about the problems faced in Global Warming when the grey science is used in this manner. In the end neglecting evidence results in a huge magnification of politic. Something you've been against and your purposed solution worsens.

So I'll ask you the question which you've never answered. I assume the friendly, you just didn't have time too busy gambling excuse. How do you purpose to minimize the politic to better focus on the truth? (And a related question have you even bothered with Kuhn or Popper?)

EDIT: And a couple more you can add to your politic dance.
No home will ever use a computer - IBM
640K memory is more then enough for anyone - Bill Gates
I don't need doctors I'll use my strong will power to heal my cancer - Steve Jobs.

Last edited by BrianK on 29-Jun-2012 at 03:23 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 29-Jun-2012 at 03:22 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Furthermore, you probably think dinosaurs are coldblooded because Because - you're left with politicing and hoping we won't focus on your continued lack of evidence and your continued mislabeling of postulates as evidence.

Once again: EPIC FAIL!

Quote:

Quote: Throughout history, it has been difficult, even impossible, to promote the acceptance of new discoveries You do realize that SCIENCE has resolved all those issues which you complained about? It wasn't science was wrong it. It was science wasn't right soon enough. And yeah I agree with you I like fast. Though note SCIENCE's purpose is not speed it's accuracy. And again you are commenting on the politic. Science, done by falliable people, has it's pitfalls along the way. But, through continued postulating and evidencing societies around the world have moved forward in technical progression. So indeed science is finding usable and appicable truths. Even if not as timely you or I would like. But we've hashed this discussion before, nothing new that you're bringing to the table. If we go the other direction where we neglect science it ends up we include ideas not due to their merit but their politic. I posted a few pages back about the problems faced in Global Warming when the grey science is used in this manner. In the end neglecting evidence results in a huge magnification of politic. Something you've been against and your purposed solution worsens. So I'll ask you the question which you've never answered. I assume the friendly, you just didn't have time too busy gambling excuse. How do you purpose to minimize the politic to better focus on the truth? (And a related question have you even bothered with Kuhn or Popper?) EDIT: And a couple more you can add to your politic dance. No home will ever use a computer - IBM 640K memory is more then enough for anyone - Bill Gates I don't need doctors I'll use my strong will power to heal my cancer - Steve Jobs.

You do well at repeating the mantra of 'science' like it is your religion... The reality of it all always varies of course.

As for Steve Jobs, he just didn't know how to party!

@Lou

Quote:

Once again: EPIC FAIL!

You clearly didn't get my meaning. Your statement is a complete strawman as I've actually never said squat on dinosaurs here. You made up my answer so you can criticize your imagined answer. There's no value here in associating me with your imagination. Nor does it tell us anything useful about my viewpoint. (Though it does speak volumes at how you politic rather than evidence. You clearly like the imaginary over reality. It's probably due to reality being so mundane.)

Quote:

Your UNSCIENTIFIC opinion is worthless to me. ... You do well at repeating the mantra of 'science' like it is your religion

So you don't like unscientific opinions? Yet you throw out unscientific opinions and them as fact. And then you criticize me for liking science? Again just more self conflicted statements. Maybe you shouldn't work so hard at trying to politic yourself into correctness. Why not put up some valid evidence?

Quote:

The reality of it all always varies of course

Slow steady process that reveals truth with continued skeptical questioning is the hallmark of progress. Science is not static nor should it ever be.


Quote:

As for Steve Jobs, he just didn't know how to party!

Amusing association.

Though here are good science lessons for you to take away.
1) Drug was observed having negative effects on cancer .
2) Since the drug killed the patient before the cancer, Scientists then postulated they could isolate the good compounds and block the bad compounds. They expect this will work at killing cancer.
3) Scientists then validate the postulate against the real world by - isolating the compound, conducting an experiment in a test tube, conducting an experiment on animals, and finally conducting an experiment on humans.
4) After adequate observation, postulation, and validation the product will go to market.

If this was Haramein, Lou would skip steps 2&3 and overdose on XTC because it 'kills the cancer'.

Last edited by BrianK on 30-Jun-2012 at 03:46 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 29-Jun-2012 at 06:35 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 29-Jun-2012 at 06:33 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

SETI is a joke.

Let's be honest here your rejection of SETI is due to politics not science.

SETI - is a research experiment based on the postulate that lifeforms would communicate in a similar manner to humans. We certainly have evidence of how humans communicate. Since we have no clue about aliens they are indeed making a planetary if not speciest bias in their postulate. None-the-less they have defined their postulate in such a way that they put technology together and capture the suspect areas and see if they are right. Aka they are trying to build evidence in an area where none yet exists. It's called doing science and seeing where it lead.

LOU - claims SETI is wrong. You don't have any better evidence on how aliens communicate. (Well, unless you haven't shared the usefulness of the anal probe the aliens gave you. WINK) But, Lou needs to formulate his postulate into a testable hypothesis. Lou needs to put the technology together and capture his suspect areas and see if he is right. Lou's views are a bit worse off as they're not formulated in a way we could build an experiment around this.

If we're doing science the acceptance or rejection of either idea comes at the outcome of these experiments. That's when we have evidence to review. We may have both right, or perhaps one right, or perhaps the other one right, or perhaps you are both wrong.

Claiming SETI is bunk and rejecting without said evidence is politicing. You complain how science is disauded by politics. And what you, yourself, are commiting is an attempt to disauded SETI by politics. You're the enemy of science you warn us about in the case of SETI.

A scientific stance is let SETI run it's course and let Lou run his course then let's talk once the evidence is in. Until that point we simply do not know. (And another good learning area for you.)

Last edited by BrianK on 29-Jun-2012 at 07:39 PM.

@Lou

obviously we also saw Jurassic Park when we were younger. Honestly.

_________________
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:

When are you going to realized that you have discredited yourself to me with regards to science.

When are you going to realise that I have no requirement to recieve any accreditation from you regarding my application of mathematics to recognise true nature of the CRAP that you keep posting?

Quote:

Your UNSCIENTIFIC opinion is worthless to me.

Or to put it another way Lou has no valid answer to the simple question that I asked, so he wants me to go away and leave him alone.

Quote:

You can feel free to never respond to any of my posts, trust me, I won't be offended.

Or should that be "Lou really wants me to go away and stop showing up his total lack of evidence on any subject.

Quote:

Two months before the Wright brothers historic flight at Kitty Hawk, a top scientist declared that "no possible combination of known substances, known forces of machinery and known forms of force can be united in a practical (flying) machine..." Germ theory was first advanced in ancient Sanskrit texts thousands of years ago, but wasn't widely accepted until late in the 19th century. Space travel was declared "utter bilge" in 1956 by the British astronomer Royal, one of a long line of scientists who "proved" it was impossible.

People who are not in posession of all of the facts frequently make sweeping pronouncements. This is one of the reasons that scientists carry out experiments, to verify wether or not their ideas are confirmed in the real world. My own favourite statement is the one made about it being impossible for a bumblebee to fly. The person who made that particular pronouncement had calculated the lift produced by the bees wing as if it were a fixed wing structure, instead of calculating it as a moving foil like a helicopters rotor. When your calculations do not tally with the real world, don't claim that the bees are too stupid to know that they should be walking, check that you are not using the wrong mathematical formula.

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

@BrianK

Quote:

You do realize that SCIENCE has resolved all those issues which you complained about? It wasn't science was wrong it. It was science wasn't right soon enough. And yeah I agree with you I like fast. Though note SCIENCE's purpose is not speed it's accuracy.

That reminds me of the line repeated to me over and over again, when I was being taught how to shoot. "Fast is fine, accuracy is final"

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

@Lou

Fairy Circles Stump Scientists More evidence of fairies busy activities.

@BrianK

Quote:

Fairy Circles Stump Scientists More evidence of fairies busy activities.

Nice one! I think the final comment sums up the entire problem that Lou has. Quote:

"That's science, isn't it?" Tschinkel said. "If you knew the answer ahead of time, it wouldn't be much fun."

Lou always comes across like the snotty faced little kid who wants to know what is inside the surprise christmas present , and refuses to wait until the proper time to open it.

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

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Once again: EPIC FAIL! You clearly didn't get my meaning. Your statement is a complete strawman as I've actually never said squat on dinosaurs here. You made up my answer so you can criticize your imagined answer. There's no value here in associating me with your imagination. Nor does it tell us anything useful about my viewpoint. (Though it does speak volumes at how you politic rather than evidence. You clearly like the imaginary over reality. It's probably due to reality being so mundane.) Quote: Your UNSCIENTIFIC opinion is worthless to me. ... You do well at repeating the mantra of 'science' like it is your religion So you don't like unscientific opinions? Yet you throw out unscientific opinions and them as fact. And then you criticize me for liking science? Again just more self conflicted statements. Maybe you shouldn't work so hard at trying to politic yourself into correctness. Why not put up some valid evidence? Quote: The reality of it all always varies of course Slow steady process that reveals truth with continued skeptical questioning is the hallmark of progress. Science is not static nor should it ever be. Quote: As for Steve Jobs, he just didn't know how to party! Amusing association. Though here are good science lessons for you to take away. 1) Drug was observed having negative effects on cancer . 2) Since the drug killed the patient before the cancer, Scientists then postulated they could isolate the good compounds and block the bad compounds. They expect this will work at killing cancer. 3) Scientists then validate the postulate against the real world by - isolating the compound, conducting an experiment in a test tube, conducting an experiment on animals, and finally conducting an experiment on humans. 4) After adequate observation, postulation, and validation the product will go to market. If this was Haramein, Lou would skip steps 2&3 and overdose on XTC because it 'kills the cancer'.

This is clearly another desparate post by you.
Can you cite one case where MDMA is the cause of death?
The article is incorrect in stating that MDMA can kill anyone.
I love how you combine heresay and false media propaganda to arrive at your "facts".
Just MORE EPIC FAIL...