@Lou,

I thought you and your Nibiru brethern might like this Vote a Telescope If you get enough of you together you can vote to have the ESO Telescope look at that spot that Google Sky Map is missing and get the data. (Of course you could look at other sources that have that data.) Or look at the spot where Nibiru should be now if it's junction is upcoming with earth. Can you see that thing that no one else has to date? Why not that'd be a huge exciting discovery. And a good blow to the people that believe real scientists over Stichin.

@Lou

Voyager leaving solar system It appears Voyager may have left the solar system. It's a bit hard to exactly say. For a week in May and 1 day in July the direction and amount of EM hitting the probe changed. I know you were claiming this huge swatch of EM out there and we'd soon know it. (Relying on evidence are you?) Right now things are mostly calm those couple of blips were about a 5% increase in EM. Not much but enough. (Hardly the huge amounts you told us it would be.)

I'd hope within the next 6 months we could ascertain if it left the solar system or not. It's a bit difficult as it's the first one so there's lots of data to analyze. Especially if the huge swath of EM you claim will happen doesn't.

Science (and I) are open to seeing how much of that EM stuff is out there.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Voyager leaving solar system It appears Voyager may have left the solar system. It's a bit hard to exactly say. For a week in May and 1 day in July the direction and amount of EM hitting the probe changed. I know you were claiming this huge swatch of EM out there and we'd soon know it. (Relying on evidence are you?) Right now things are mostly calm those couple of blips were about a 5% increase in EM. Not much but enough. (Hardly the huge amounts you told us it would be.) I'd hope within the next 6 months we could ascertain if it left the solar system or not. It's a bit difficult as it's the first one so there's lots of data to analyze. Especially if the huge swath of EM you claim will happen doesn't. Science (and I) are open to seeing how much of that EM stuff is out there.

Actually, this 'huge swath' is you, AS USUAL, putting words in my mouth. The sun outputs light. At some distance, the rest of the universe is sending more light in the direction of the sun given the surface area of the craft vs. the sun emitting. It's an interesting way to define "the edge of the solar system", no?

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: You have a Newton is God view of the universe Bahaha funny joke. Of course no one is the God of the universe. Newtonian gravity works but not for macro or micro events. Einsteinian works well for Newtonian + Macro events. Which is why it's even better and more accepted. When we get a proven micro event that may, or may not, be incorporated with Einstein's methods. It all depends on the EVIDENCE. Quote: He then persued unification Grand Unification Theory combines 3 fundamental forces adding in Gravity will give us what is called TOE (Theory of Everything.) Science has clearly not decided on 1 single TOE. The quality and quantity of the evidence isn't available, to date. So science is open to all that can bring their EVIDENCE. You've already staked out the answer EM=TOE and don't bring any worthwhile evidence. Science (and I) am open to this. But, again EVIDENCE is lacking ol' chap. Yous gots lots of work to do. As much as a TOE is a great ideal the Universe itself lives by it's own rules. Not Lou's.

Stop being ignorant. GEM theory is what I presented. Stick your TOE in your mouth...

@Lou

As usual you take one tiny little detail of how the universe works, twist it to suit your fantasy, and get the real facts totally wrong. For example.
Quote:

The sun outputs light.

well spotted old boy. So far so good. Lets just see if you can keep it up.
Quote:

At some distance, the rest of the universe is sending more light in the direction of the sun given the surface area of the craft vs. the sun emitting.

There you go again, and you were doing so well. There are some 300 billion stars in this one small galaxy, all of them radiating light and energy across the entire EM spectrum in all directions This sets a background energy level, or "white noise" that is like the "Hiss" that you get when you have an old AM radio tuned off a main transmitter. What you do not have is the 300 billlion stars of this galaxy, together with multiples of this number for the number of galaxies in the universe concentrating their output on this one insignificant spot.
Quote:

It's an interesting way to define "the edge of the solar system", no?

What better definition can there be than the one that states that there is a definite influence that exceeds the random background levels of white noise. This is no different from the local influence of a magnet if close enough being able to lift iron filings against the background level of the planets gravity. At the current distance that the Voyager probe is rom the sun the detectable energy from the sun no longer exceeds background energy levels, which gives an indication of what the background level is. Had background energy levels been higher, the boundary would have been crossed sooner. The fact that this event is roughly on schedule demonstrates that our scientific understanding is better than you choose to imply.

Quote:

Stop being ignorant. GEM theory is what I presented.

Stop being deliberately ignorant. GEM is not a theory, in fact it barely even qualifies as a hypothesis.
There is no gap in our understanding of gravity that is explained by the invention of GEM.
There is no functional mathematical basis for the ideas expounded by GEM that explain any observable interactions of bodies in the universe
GEM makes no predictions with any level of accuracy to match any field of scientific inquiry.
Quote:

Stick your TOE in your mouth...

Hmmm... Very intellectual.
Please redefine your GEM as Aggregated Random Stellar Energy, or to put it another way
Stick your GEM in your ****

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

or "white noise" that is like the "Hiss" that you get when you have an old AM radio tuned off a main transmitter

The background radiation of the Big Bang is part of the hiss. As well as the snow one sees in those olden days when a TV Channel would stop broadcasting for the snow. 1% of snow is Cosmic Background That's a very pretty thing which my kids in the digital era will miss out on.

I'd say GEM is a as in guess similar to the "theory" of intelligent design. The snakeoil salesmens continue to misuse and abuse what science means by theory. Mostly in hopes of using the word they could gain a modicum of credibility. Though between the two I see intelligent design having more evidence.

@Nimrod

Hotest Particle Soup ever! link . It'll be very interesting to see what stuff they can find in there.

@Nimrod

Stop living up to your name. GEM is a formal theory. Your alzheimer's disease must be kicking into high gear.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Nimrod Quote: or "white noise" that is like the "Hiss" that you get when you have an old AM radio tuned off a main transmitter The background radiation of the Big Bang is part of the hiss. As well as the snow one sees in those olden days when a TV Channel would stop broadcasting for the snow. 1% of snow is Cosmic Background That's a very pretty thing which my kids in the digital era will miss out on. I'd say GEM is a as in guess similar to the "theory" of intelligent design. The snakeoil salesmens continue to misuse and abuse what science means by theory. Mostly in hopes of using the word they could gain a modicum of credibility. Though between the two I see intelligent design having more evidence.

Apparently you suffer from the same disease as nimrod. I should have guessed as much with the #'s of times I've had to repeat myself throughout these threads.

@the people who should take omega-3 fatty acids

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AIPC..813.1197B

@Lou

Quote:

@the people who should take omega-3 fatty acids http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AIPC..813.1197B

As I have already explained a long time ago "The ideas put forward by Brandenburg are just so much technobabble, worthy of any sci-fi 'engineer' from Scotty onwards."
The equation cited in this link does not fill any of the gaps in our current understanding of how the universe works simply because it makes a demonstrably false assumption. Since the equation is not synchronised to the operation of the universe, either the equation is meaningless, or the universe is defective.
His equation is also not required to explain the anomalous weight loss in gyroscope experiments because after many years of experimentation and measurement, Laithwaite was able to demonstrate that they obey Newton and consequently his 'equation' is no more relevant to modern science than the equations used by Gene Roddenberry to explain his FTL spacecraft in Star Trek

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Since the equation is not synchronised to the operation of the universe, ...

Did you really just say that?

Let me go get a shovel. It's piling up.

Last edited by Lou on 15-Aug-2012 at 11:35 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

@Nimrod Quote: Nimrod wrote: @Lou Since the equation is not synchronised to the operation of the universe, ... Did you really just say that?

Yes I did, and now let me explain why.
From the equation g^2/(2π G) + S^2/(c^2 L)= Constant, I checked the values
g has not varied and as a consequence g squared has also remained fixed.
c has not varied and as a consequence c squared has also remained fixed.
G is a constant, as is 2 and π.
Over the past decade the constituents of S (E x H) emitted by the Sun have both varied ,and not as a reciprocal of each other, which means S has varied as has S^2
In order for the result of this equation to remain a constant, L would have to equal 1/S^2 under all circumstances which would reduce your much vaunted equation to 1/S^2=1/S^2. How very profound.
The alternative is of course that the resultant of the equation is not a constant and as a result Brandenburg is wrong.

Please feel free to demonstrate your religious faith in Brandenburg by launching an ad hominem because I do not have a string of doctorates, nor do I work for the US government.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Did you really just say that? Yes I did, and now let me explain why. From the equation g^2/(2π G) + S^2/(c^2 L)= Constant, I checked the values g has not varied and as a consequence g squared has also remained fixed. c has not varied and as a consequence c squared has also remained fixed. G is a constant, as is 2 and π. Over the past decade the constituents of S (E x H) emitted by the Sun have both varied ,and not as a reciprocal of each other, which means S has varied as has S^2 In order for the result of this equation to remain a constant, L would have to equal 1/S^2 under all circumstances which would reduce your much vaunted equation to 1/S^2=1/S^2. How very profound. The alternative is of course that the resultant of the equation is not a constant and as a result Brandenburg is wrong. Please feel free to demonstrate your religious faith in Brandenburg by launching an ad hominem because I do not have a string of doctorates, nor do I work for the US government.

You continue to expose yourself.
G is not a constant.
Data Set number Author Year G (x10-11 m3Kg-1s-2) Accuracy % Deviation
from CODATA
1 Cavendish H. 1798 6.74 ±0.05 +0.986
2 Reich F. 1838 6.63 ±0.06 -0.662
3 Baily F. 1843 6.62 ±0.07 -0.812
4 Cornu A, Baille J. 1873 6.63 ±0.017 -0.662
5 Jolly Ph. 1878 6.46 ±0.11 -3.209
6 Wilsing J. 1889 6.594 ±0.015 -1.202
7 Poynting J.H. 1891 6.70 ±0.04 +0.387
8 Boys C.V. 1895 6.658 ±0.007 -0.243
9 Eotvos R. 1896 6.657 ±0.013 -0.258
10 Brayn C.A. 1897 6.658 ±0.007 -0.243
11 Richarz F. & Krigar-Menzel O. 1898 6.683 ±0.011 +0.132
12 Burgess G.K. 1902 6.64 ±0.04 -0.512
13 Heyl P.R. 1928 6.6721 ±0.0073 -0.031
14 Heyl P.R. 1930 6.670 ±0.005 -0.063
15 Zaradnicek J. 1933 6.66 ±0.04 -0.213
16 Heyl P.,Chrzanowski 1942 6.673 ±0.003 -0.018
17 Rose R.D. et al. 1969 6.674 ±0.004 -0.003
18 Facy L., Pontikis C. 1972 6.6714 ±0.0006 -0.042
19 Renner Ya. 1974 6.670 ±0.008 -0.063
20 Karagioz et al 1975 6.668 ±0.002 -0.093
21 Luther et al 1975 6.6699 ±0.0014 -0.064
22 Koldewyn W., Faller J. 1976 6.57 ±0.17 -1.561
23 Sagitov M.U. et al 1977 6.6745 ±0.0008 +0.004
24 Luther G., Towler W. 1982 6.6726 ±0.0005 -0.024
25 Karagioz et al 1985 6.6730 ±0.0005 -0.018
26 Dousse & Rheme 1986 6.6722 ±0.0051 -0.030
27 Boer H. et al 1987 6.667 ±0.0007 -0.108
28 Karagioz et al 1986 6.6730 ±0.0003 -0.018
29 Karagioz et al 1987 6.6730 ±0.0005 -0.018
30 Karagioz et al 1988 6.6728 ±0.0003 -0.021
31 Karagioz et al 1989 6.6729 ±0.0002 -0.019
32 Saulnier M.S., Frisch D. 1989 6.65 ±0.09 -0.363
33 Karagioz et al 1990 6.6730 ±0.00009 -0.018
34 Schurr et al 1991 6.6613 ±0.0093 -0.193
35 Hubler et al 1992 6.6737 ±0.0051 -0.008
36 Izmailov et al 1992 6.6771 ±0.0004 +0.043
37 Michaelis et al 1993 6.71540 ±0.00008 +0.617
38 Hubler et al 1993 6.6698 ±0.0013 -0.066
39 Karagioz et al 1993 6.6729 ±0.0002 -0.019
40 Walesch et al 1994 6.6719 ±0.0008 -0.035
41 Fitzgerald & Armstrong 1994 6.6746 ±0.001 +0.006
42 Hubler et al 1994 6.6607 ±0.0032 -0.202
43 Hubler et al 1994 6.6779 ±0.0063 +0.055
44 Karagioz et al 1994 6.67285 ±0.00008 -0.020
45 Fitzgerald & Armstrong 1995 6.6656 ±0.0009 -0.129
46 Karagioz et al 1995 6.6729 ±0.0002 -0.019
47 Walesch et al 1995 6.6685 ±0.0011 -0.085
48 Michaelis et al 1996 6.7154 ±0.0008 +0.617
49 Karagioz et al 1996 6.6729 ±0.0005 -0.019
50 Bagley & Luther 1997 6.6740 ±0.0007 -0.003
51 Schurr, Nolting et al 1997 6.6754 ±0.0014 +0.018
52 Luo et al 1997 6.6699 ±0.0007 -0.064
53 Schwarz W. et al 1998 6.6873 ±0.0094 +0.196
54 Kleinvoss et al 1998 6.6735 ±0.0004 -0.011
55 Richman et al 1998 6.683 ±0.011 +0.132
56 Luo et al 1999 6.6699 ±0.0007 -0.064
57 Fitzgerald & Armstrong 1999 6.6742 ±0.0007 ±0.01
58 Richman S.J. et al 1999 6.6830 ±0.0011 +0.132
59 Schurr, Noltting et al 1999 6.6754 ±0.0015 +0.018
60 Gundlach & Merkowitz 1999 6.67422 ±0.00009 +0.0003
61 Quinn et al 2000 6.67559 ±0.00027 +0.021
-- PRESENT CODATA VALUE 2004 6.6742 ±0.001 ±0.0150

G is used as a constant for physics noobs as one of many shortcuts taken to simplify things for nubile physics students who get brain-washed into accepting General Relativity at a young age only later to be smacked across the face with the 'dark' broom(theory) to clean up the mess that happens on galactic scales. In fact his calculated value for G is probably more accurate than the varying measured value.

So tell me again how you aren't religiously brainwashed into believing G is constant? ... not to mention everything else about the physics you think you know...

Apparently it is you who is not in tune with the universe...

Last edited by Lou on 16-Aug-2012 at 02:32 PM.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120815142052.htm

It is amusing reading this article for a couple of reasons:

1) science fiction/magic comes closer to being science fact
2) measuring radiation pressure fluctuations is mentioned as a 'gravity wave detector', like - I mean - who would have thunk it?

@Lou

Quote:

You continue to expose yourself. G is not a constant.

When Pythagoras first calculated a value for the ratio between the radius of a circle and its circumference, he came up with a value of 22/7. When I started secondary school the value for π was listed in the tables as 3.142, and later as 3.14159. When electronic calculators became sufficiently advanced to have more than the basic four functions π became 3.1415927. It is not the true value of π that has been changing, merely our ability to measure or calculate the value. The same applies to the measured or calculated value for G, or do you truly think that Cavendish was able to measure to the same levels of accuracy as modern equipment is capable of.
From the start of the 20th century the calculated values for G have all fallen into the renge of 6.67±0.01. Even if we were to accept your claim that there have never been errors of measurement, and the value of G has varied by 0.6% over the period of a century this fades into insignificance when compared with the measured variations in the values for E and H that fail to produce any measurable variation in local gravitation.


Quote:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120815142052.htm It is amusing reading this article for a couple of reasons:

It is indeed amusing reading this article for a couple of reasons.
1) It clearly demonstrates that the power levels of radiation pressure are so low that a resonance effect can be used as a potential detector for an as yet undetected propogation wave for gravity.
2) it even more clearly demonstrates that some people have absolutely no ability to comprehend the simple concept of scale.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: You continue to expose yourself. G is not a constant. When Pythagoras first calculated a value for the ratio between the radius of a circle and its circumference, he came up with a value of 22/7. When I started secondary school the value for π was listed in the tables as 3.142, and later as 3.14159. When electronic calculators became sufficiently advanced to have more than the basic four functions π became 3.1415927. It is not the true value of π that has been changing, merely our ability to measure or calculate the value. The same applies to the measured or calculated value for G, or do you truly think that Cavendish was able to measure to the same levels of accuracy as modern equipment is capable of. From the start of the 20th century the calculated values for G have all fallen into the renge of 6.67±0.01. Even if we were to accept your claim that there have never been errors of measurement, and the value of G has varied by 0.6% over the period of a century this fades into insignificance when compared with the measured variations in the values for E and H that fail to produce any measurable variation in local gravitation.

Just a bunch of BS. You just can't admit you are wrong. Nice apples to oranges example...NOT!!!

Quote:

Quote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120815142052.htm It is amusing reading this article for a couple of reasons: It is indeed amusing reading this article for a couple of reasons. 1) It clearly demonstrates that the power levels of radiation pressure are so low that a resonance effect can be used as a potential detector for an as yet undetected propogation wave for gravity. 2) it even more clearly demonstrates that some people have absolutely no ability to comprehend the simple concept of scale.

I agree, you do have scaling issues. Radiation pressure affects every molecule in your body. Once again the forest is not visible from the trees...

@Lou

Quote:

I agree, you do have scaling issues. Radiation pressure affects every molecule in your body. Once again the forest is not visible from the trees...

yes. again compare the Radiative pressure to the gravity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure

Or again think about the 300inches it changes out of a 3 million mile journey for a probe. Your scaling issue is quickly very clear.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: I agree, you do have scaling issues. Radiation pressure affects every molecule in your body. Once again the forest is not visible from the trees... yes. again compare the Radiative pressure to the gravity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure Or again think about the 300inches it changes out of a 3 million mile journey for a probe. Your scaling issue is quickly very clear.

Again, you don't see the forest from the trees. You continue to only look at the sun while ignoring ZPF.

It's actually not worth discussing anything any more with either of you two. You are still hamstrung by highschool level physics. Every other concept is lost on both of you until it makes it to a highschool book where it is dumbed down and merely accepted as a fact/religion (like G being a constant, among many other instances...).

@Lou

Quote:

Radiation pressure affects every molecule in your body. Once again the forest is not visible from the trees...

This is perfectly true, radiation pressure is exerted on my entire surface area. It is exerted at between 2.3µPa and 4.6µPa depending on how reflective/absorptive I am. If we split the difference then the pressure is 3.45µPa. This compares with a pressure of 9.79055536 × 10^10µPa of air pressure at sea level.
The level of radiation pressure I have quoted is the pressure from the Sun at a distance of 8,33 light minutes. At its current distance from the Sun, Voyager1 is recieving pressure from the Sun of 0.239 nanoPascals, and the radiation pressure pushing it away from the sun is only very slightly greater than the interstellar radiation pressure pushing in towards the sun.

Quote:

You continue to only look at the sun while ignoring ZPF

There are two reasons why we look at the energy output from the Sun as opposed to the ZPF.
1) Even at 120AU the energy output of the sun has more influence over a body than the interstellar energy levels. If this were not the case then Voyager would have been measuring the interstellar energy before now.
2) Even the comparatively weak power levels of the interstellar medium are much greater than the ZPF. Zero point energy is not some infinite well of untapped free energy just waiting for us to exploit it. It is the minimum energy, below which a thermodynamic system can never go. Therefore none of this energy can be withdrawn without altering the system to a different form in which the system has a lower zero-point, which would mean that the original "Zero point", wasn't.

The assumption that there is an infinite amount of zero point energy is a result of two false assumptions.
The first false assumption is that regardless of how low the density of zero point energy, since the universe is infinite the amount of energy must be infinite. Although the universe is big, it is not infinite.
The next false assumption is thatthere is an infinite range of frequencies available to use to integrate the power level. There is no evidence that frequencies are available whose wavelength is shorter than the planck length.
Removing these two "infinities" from the equation makes zero point energy have approximately zero use, and your idea that gravity is a side effect of EM is like claiming that you can float the Exxon Long Beach on a Cumulo-Nimbus because it contains a lot of water.

Quote:

You are still hamstrung by highschool level physics

At least we are not hamstrung by a total lack of ability to comprehend even the most basic mathematics.

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