@Amiboy

Quote:

Amiboy wrote: @Lou Some drunk guy in a pub has just wrote down on a beer mat that 1 gram of gold weighs more than 1 gram of feathers.......... He said he was going to give a presentation of this scrawl using powerpoint and video it for fooltube, sorry I mean youtube. OMG he has wrote it down so it must be true!!!! I completely 100% agree with what he is saying, as he has wrote it down and eveything......... Who needs evidence hey.... In case you couldn't tell I was being sarcastic about your approach to anything scientific....

Way to troll!

@physics noobs,

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120904161554.htm

but but but but but but but but but I thought they found Higgs already... Oh wait, I told you they didn't and it would just be a PR announcement, didn't I...yes I did.

From the article:
Quote:

"This is the beginning. We still don't know what this thing is," says Henry Frisch, professor in physics and a longtime member of the Collider Detector at Fermilab collaboration.

Noobs.

@Lou

Quote:

Hence, radiation pressure from the rest of the universe was assumed to be limited

And I used something called mathematics to show just how limited the radiation pressure actually is. The radiation pressure from the nearest neighbour star is less than one percent of one percent of the pressure of the intergalactic medium. Other stars are further away and any pressure from them will decrease at a ratio of the distance squared.

Quote:

So the greatest sources of pressure would be from their individual emissions of 'light'

That is absolutely correct. The greatest sources of radiation pressure are the light sources that are nearest as the pressure falls off at the rate of the reciprocal of the distance squared. I assume that you have heard of the inverse square law. If radiation pressure were as great as you claim, and gravity were nothing more than a side effect of this, then it would force the two white dwarf stars apart at an appreciable portion of speed c. The two stars are however inexorably coming together as a consequence of their gravitational attraction based on their combined masses.

Quote:

As a physics noob you ....(insert CRAP here)...

While the mathematically illiterate simply ignores any mathematical concept that he does not understand. i.e. All of them.

Quote:

you have mentioned previously that Quantim Physics is incorrect

When and where did I claim that Quantim Physics ( or even Quantum) was wrong. As ever you lack the basic mathematical ability to understand what I have told you so you make up any BS that pops into your imagination, and then convince yourself that you are smarter than all of the rest of the world combined.

Quote:

hence you don't believe in the energy of the vacuum,

Likewise I do not believe in the desk that I am resting my keyboard on. I know that it exists, and what it is used for, but I do not worship its existence as some infallible source of all knowledge. The desk is not my religion, and neither does it need my belief or faith in order to continue to exist. I know that there is zero point energy, but I also know why it is called zero point energy. The clue is in the name. There is absolutely zero point in attempting to extract the energy.

Quote:

hence you don't believe in the radiation pressure of the universe

As with the zero point energy, I am aware that it exists, but I am also aware of how much (or rather how little) there is. This is because, unlike yourself, I understand mathematics.

Quote:

I have told you flat out that nothing you say is of use to me

Yes indeed. You have admitted that you have no use for mathematics, and that you are proud of your inability to grasp the basic concepts of the most important aspect of physics.
I have more respect for Amiboys drunken friends ability with mathematics than your own because it is at least based on a misremembered fact that once upon a time an ounce of gold weighed more than an ounce of feathers while conversely a pound of gold weighed less than a pound of potatoes.

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

@Lou

Quote:

When are you going to realize that the radiation pressure & shadowing model completely displaces gravity

When we're able to review the observational evidences demonstrating such a phenomena. Postulates don't cut it.

Quote:

For instance, you say the average distance to the Sun is X,

You seem to not realize that our orbit is elipitical so unless you want a continual stream of recalculations it's easiest expressed in calculations.

Quote:

Can you explain to me how a gas giant maintains it's spherical shape when you look at the rest of the universe and see gas in anything but a spherical shape?

Planets - earth for example - is a core with an atmosphere. When the largest % of materials are gases and light materials are the majority of the body we label this item a gas giant. Why don't other gases form into such an item? We'd have to look at each case individually and determine what forces are at work in the systems. Those forces (angles, amounts, duration) are likely inconsistent with our solar system. Knowing this gives us indications of what happened.

Quote:

NASA crashed a satellite right into Jupiter and knows exactly how solid Jupiter is and the altitude of it's atmosphere

So are you trying to say here that the gas giant is a core with a large composition of atmosphere? I think you answered your own question about sphereical shape.

Quote:

This piddly "where's your work where's your math" shlock is old.

Yes it is old. But, until you start producing your work we'll be stuck there.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: I have told you flat out that nothing you say is of use to me Yes indeed. You have admitted that you have no use for mathematics, and that you are proud of your inability to grasp the basic concepts of the most important aspect of physics. I have more respect for Amiboys drunken friends ability with mathematics than your own because it is at least based on a misremembered fact that once upon a time an ounce of gold weighed more than an ounce of feathers while conversely a pound of gold weighed less than a pound of potatoes.

The definition of insanity is repeating the same steps and expecting different results, oh physics noob.

Last edited by Lou on 06-Sep-2012 at 04:04 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: When are you going to realize that the radiation pressure & shadowing model completely displaces gravity When we're able to review the observational evidences demonstrating such a phenomena. Postulates don't cut it.

You continue to be an ignoramous.
You continue to pretend to have never seen what I've posted that specifically shows this so, as I've asked before, don't waste my (and mostly your own) time with replies to me.

So read this link (that I've posted before) clearly you internet troll:
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-intro.asp
and another: http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/grav11.htm
and another: http://www.johnkharms.com/gravitation/
and another: http://matterwaves.info/sa_gravity.htm
and theres Brandenburg's book...

Clearly explained is everything wrong with gravity and everything right with the radiation pressure model for even a simpleton internet physics noob of a troll that you and the nimrod and the other tools that decide to make an occassional trolling remark are.

Last edited by Lou on 06-Sep-2012 at 04:56 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

You continue to be an ignoramous

Didn't you claim you were just going to post EM is God material? Can't help insulting first can you? Cutting others down in no way makes anything you say more valid.

Quote:

You continue to pretend to have never seen what I've posted that specifically shows this so, as I've asked before, don't waste my (and mostly your own) time with replies to me.

No Lou the simple fact is you continue to post postulates and claim them to be evidence. Your list of posts with Blazelab and Brandenburg continue in the vein of mistating postulates are validated observational evidence. (Remember I asked for evidence not postulates.) Further more Nimrod and I have provided observational evidence and explainations as to why those postulates are not correct. You can go back through these pages and refind that work if you want.

Yes, yes Nimrod and I are simpleton noob trolls. Whatever rudeness and insultatives you want to throw out go for it. I might considering it insulting had I any respect of the insulter.

Dark Matter detected and deciphered? It'll be interesting to see this checked for validation. (Always important to do prior to running around declaring truth )

Last edited by BrianK on 06-Sep-2012 at 07:25 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-intro.asp

Engineer Borgs fantasy has several huge holes in it, which can be seen exposed in this linkQuote:

http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/grav11.htm

Is almost laughable. What these two idiota are proposing is "Because gravity and magnetism both obey the inverse square law, gravity must ba a consequance of radiation pressure.
Quote:

http://www.johnkharms.com/gravitation/

In this pile of CRAP, Harms proposes that gravity is simply a symptom of a lack of photons in a given volume of space. I will accept that since this was last "updated" in May 2003 he may not have been aware of the J0651. Whatever else you think about this particular system you cannot claim a shortage of photons in the space between to white dwarf stars orbiting each other at a distance less than that between the Earth and its moon.
Quote:

http://matterwaves.info/sa_gravity.htm

This site has a lot of pretty pictures, and to be fair it correctly states that the radiation pressure coming from all directions equally cancels out. The thing that this site, in common with all the other purveyors of this particular idiocy, neglected to do was calculate the amount of pressure. Just consider the image that this site used to explain the "Shade effect"

In the case of J0651 the darkened zone is not a shade, but is instead the hottest, brightest, most intense zone of radiation pressure possible, and yet the two stars are inexorably drawing together Observable evidence that this hypothesis is pure unadulterated horse sh*t.
Incidentally, you have kept accusing us of worshipping Newton and attempting to mock us because we still use his equations as a "rule of thumb", when all we require is an approximation, and then you post a link to prove we are wrong by linking to somebody who claims "NEWTON WAS RIGHT"
Quote:

and theres Brandenburg's book...

When it becomes availble at my local library, I may feel inclined to read it. Until then I am not going to pay for the privilege of having my intelligence insulted by having to read more of the sort of CRAP that the other RP enthusiasts have been spouting.
Quote:

Clearly explained is everything wrong with gravity and everything right with the radiation pressure model

This claim only holds any semblance of truth for as long as you ignore basic mathematics. If radiation pressure is so all powerful, how come I don't get pushed over by sunlight at sunrise or sunset, when the rays of the sun are striking horizontally while gravity is pulling vertically. That is experimental physics at its most basic, and it shows your Mr Brandenburg and his acolytes as the idiots that they really are.

Last edited by Nimrod on 06-Sep-2012 at 07:35 PM.

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

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: You continue to be an ignoramous Didn't you claim you were just going to post EM is God material? Can't help insulting first can you? Cutting others down in no way makes anything you say more valid. Quote: You continue to pretend to have never seen what I've posted that specifically shows this so, as I've asked before, don't waste my (and mostly your own) time with replies to me. No Lou the simple fact is you continue to post postulates and claim them to be evidence. Your list of posts with Blazelab and Brandenburg continue in the vein of mistating postulates are validated observational evidence. (Remember I asked for evidence not postulates.) Further more Nimrod and I have provided observational evidence and explainations as to why those postulates are not correct. You can go back through these pages and refind that work if you want. Yes, yes Nimrod and I are simpleton noob trolls. Whatever rudeness and insultatives you want to throw out go for it. I might considering it insulting had I any respect of the insulter.

Yes you are both simpleton noob trolls. You for claiming I post not proof but never actually read the links (containing DATA and MATH) that fill in all the holes that 'gravity' has and that the model for radiation pressure and shadowing doesn't...and him for his mathematical stupidity swapping out complex formulas with simple ones then claiming stupid things just as "so that reduces to X=X" and always mixing formulas involving rest mass with relativistic mass. You take his stupid explanations at face value and he is just a joke. All he does is discredit everything I post (from people more educated than himself) and twist the math and you fall for it.

Brandenburg is peer-reviewed and accepted. It hasn't made it into YOUR TEXTBOOK yet so you don't accept it: not my problem, just deal with it. The fact you keep saying "it's only postulates" is bull. It's a formal theory. Other actual scientists (unlike you and das nimrod) have independently come to the SAME EXACT CONCLUSIONS which is why I posted multiple links.

This simply reduces to you and the half-employed "engineer" to trolls.

Last edited by Lou on 07-Sep-2012 at 04:34 PM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-intro.asp Engineer Borgs fantasy has several huge holes in it, which can be seen exposed in this linkQuote: http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/grav11.htm Is almost laughable. What these two idiota are proposing is "Because gravity and magnetism both obey the inverse square law, gravity must ba a consequance of radiation pressure. Quote: http://www.johnkharms.com/gravitation/ In this pile of CRAP, Harms proposes that gravity is simply a symptom of a lack of photons in a given volume of space. I will accept that since this was last "updated" in May 2003 he may not have been aware of the J0651. Whatever else you think about this particular system you cannot claim a shortage of photons in the space between to white dwarf stars orbiting each other at a distance less than that between the Earth and its moon. Quote: http://matterwaves.info/sa_gravity.htm This site has a lot of pretty pictures, and to be fair it correctly states that the radiation pressure coming from all directions equally cancels out. The thing that this site, in common with all the other purveyors of this particular idiocy, neglected to do was calculate the amount of pressure. Just consider the image that this site used to explain the "Shade effect" In the case of J0651 the darkened zone is not a shade, but is instead the hottest, brightest, most intense zone of radiation pressure possible, and yet the two stars are inexorably drawing together Observable evidence that this hypothesis is pure unadulterated horse sh*t. Incidentally, you have kept accusing us of worshipping Newton and attempting to mock us because we still use his equations as a "rule of thumb", when all we require is an approximation, and then you post a link to prove we are wrong by linking to somebody who claims "NEWTON WAS RIGHT" Quote: and theres Brandenburg's book... When it becomes availble at my local library, I may feel inclined to read it. Until then I am not going to pay for the privilege of having my intelligence insulted by having to read more of the sort of CRAP that the other RP enthusiasts have been spouting. Quote: Clearly explained is everything wrong with gravity and everything right with the radiation pressure model This claim only holds any semblance of truth for as long as you ignore basic mathematics. If radiation pressure is so all powerful, how come I don't get pushed over by sunlight at sunrise or sunset, when the rays of the sun are striking horizontally while gravity is pulling vertically. That is experimental physics at its most basic, and it shows your Mr Brandenburg and his acolytes as the idiots that they really are.

Or! You're a pile of crap!

@Lou

Quote:

You for claiming I post not proof but never actually read the links (containing DATA and MATH) that fill in all the holes that 'gravity' has and that the model for radiation pressure and shadowing doesn't

Read them posted many feedback in these pages about them. So your claim there is invalid. As for 'filling holes' they certainly postulate filling those in. Again validated observational evidence that they actually do is where?

Quote:

Brandenburg is peer-reviewed and accepted

Neither peer review nor acceptance guarantees truth. But, we'll start there please demonstrate where comparable scientits have reviewed, accepted, and are using his work. NOTE: I don't want to go through the dance explaining to you why Computer Scientists are not Physicists.

Quote:

Other actual scientists (unlike you and das nimrod) have independently come to the SAME EXACT CONCLUSIONS

You have two fallacies in here. First is the fallacy of authority. Just because someone is a scienist doesn't mean they're right. We need demonstrable observational evidence. Second is the fallacy of popularity. Just because lots of people believe it in no way makes it true. Again observational evidence.

Quote:

You're a pile of crap!

Insult is the only response since you have no proof. Fair enough.

Last edited by BrianK on 07-Sep-2012 at 04:42 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: You for claiming I post not proof but never actually read the links (containing DATA and MATH) that fill in all the holes that 'gravity' has and that the model for radiation pressure and shadowing doesn't Read them posted many feedback in these pages about them. So your claim there is invalid. As for 'filling holes' they certainly postulate filling those in. Again validated observational evidence that they actually do is where?

I love your false claims here: you've noted nothing and generally deferred to nimrod's bull-crap math slight of hand.

"gravitational" anomolies go un-answered in your religious beliefs. Those same anomolies are easily explained in the raditation pressure/shadowing model.

Nimrod will continue to act like his namesake and will post slightly twisted math, as I've explained, because suckers like you believe he is smarter than scientists who make a living being, you know, scientists.

Quote:

Quote: Brandenburg is peer-reviewed and accepted Neither peer review nor acceptance guarantees truth. But, we'll start there please demonstrate where comparable scientits have reviewed, accepted, and are using his work. NOTE: I don't want to go through the dance explaining to you why Computer Scientists are not Physicists.

I've asked several times: other than your religious beliefs in the text books you read as a YUTE, what makes old science correct and newer science wrong? You got nothing except nimrod's turd of mouth.

Quote:

Quote: Other actual scientists (unlike you and das nimrod) have independently come to the SAME EXACT CONCLUSIONS You have two fallacies in here. First is the fallacy of authority. Just because someone is a scienist doesn't mean they're right. We need demonstrable observational evidence. Second is the fallacy of popularity. Just because lots of people believe it in no way makes it true. Again observational evidence.

Einstein was just another scientist too. Everything you say about the ones I've noted applies to them all - HOVEVER - the ones I've noted have the knowledge of the ones from the past. The reverse is not true.

Quote:

Quote: You're a pile of crap! Insult is the only response since you have no proof. Fair enough.

His proof is crap and you simply accept his crap. Fair enough.

Saturn's moon sprays ice into a ring

@Lou

Quote:

I love your false claims here: you've noted nothing and generally deferred to nimrod's bull-crap math slight of hand.

I provided you feedback on Brandenburg's failure to align with observational evidence. I provided you feedback on where Haramein fails to align with observational evidence. I provided you feedback on where Blazeburg failed to align with observational evidence. I may have commented on Nimrod's work but it clearly was not my sole support.

Quote:

"gravitational" anomolies go un-answered in your religious beliefs

Unanswered simply gives us more work to do. To no one's suprise science isn't finished and continues to do this work. Wrong answers masquerading as truth is a religion. Unfortunately Radiative Pressure, which has been observed, is thousands of factors too small. Which again is why I ask you for your observational evidence. You simply continue to argue that a paper without real world experimentation is observational. Ya can't get much more of a failure in understanding of what is being asked of you.

Quote:

what makes old science correct and newer science wrong

I provided you links to experiments and observational evidence. I provided you guidance of where to gather more documentation of observational evidence. You choose to sit in your lazyboy. No one can make you think but you ole chap.

BTW - where is your evidence that Brandenburg has been fully sussed by peers and is accepted by scientists all over the world?

Quote:

His proof is crap and you simply accept his crap

I think you'll find in most cases I've been mum about Nimrod's math. I've neither voiced an accepting opinion or a denying opinion. As it's his review of the mathematics I let him and you work on those issues. What I do find is you proclaim his math wrong, fail to demonstrate where or why the error exists. Instead you insult and move on. It's almost as if you believe insulting a person is a valid demonstration to a mathematical (supposed) error.

Last edited by BrianK on 07-Sep-2012 at 08:51 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Yes you are both simpleton noob trolls

Typical. In the absence of logical rational debate, the first resort is to expose your own ignorance by resorting to stupid attempts to irritate by insult. What are you trying to achieve here. Is it your intent to elicit an angry response leading to somebody other than you being given a fortnights holiday?

Quote:

but never actually read the links (containing DATA and MATH) that fill in all the holes that 'gravity' has [/b] Your so called evidence no more fills in the "holes" than I could fill in the grand canyon using a handful of gravel. The data is made up, and the maths is very carefully reverse engineered numerology designed to decieve the eye of the unwary and the gullible. I am still unwilling to categorise you as either a victim of this fraud, or one of its perpetrators. [quote]and him for his mathematical stupidity swapping out complex formulas

I do not "Swap out" any formulae as that would constitute fraud. What I have done is follow the mathematics, and balance the equations. The fact that these equations are not as good at proving anything other than x=x is the fault of the equation, not my investigation.

Quote:

Brandenburg is peer-reviewed and accepted.

You keep making this claim, so let me take a closer look at the evidence. The best and most effective way to search for scientific papers is to use the web of knowledge, but google scholar is almost as good. I entered the name John Brandenburg and searched for peer reviewed scientific papers, and came up with.... nothing. I widened the search and came up with "Evidence for a large, natural, paleo-nuclearreactor on Mars". This is not a scientific paper, it was not in a scientific journal, and it was not reviewed by scientists. It was one of over 1800 "items for discussion" presented at a conference.
All of Brandenburgs output is baseless speculation with absolutely no scientific credibility.

Quote:

Other actual scientists (unlike you and das nimrod) have independently come to the SAME EXACT CONCLUSIONS which is why I posted multiple links.

Please allow me to give you some information. Real actual scientists are working at CERN getting proof of the Higgs Boson.

Quote:

Those same anomolies are easily explained in the raditation pressure/shadowing model.

No they aren't, and the existence of J0651 proves it.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Yes you are both simpleton noob trolls Typical. In the absence of logical rational debate, the first resort is to expose your own ignorance by resorting to stupid attempts to irritate by insult. What are you trying to achieve here. Is it your intent to elicit an angry response leading to somebody other than you being given a fortnights holiday? Quote: but never actually read the links (containing DATA and MATH) that fill in all the holes that 'gravity' has [/b] Your so called evidence no more fills in the "holes" than I could fill in the grand canyon using a handful of gravel. The data is made up, and the maths is very carefully reverse engineered numerology designed to decieve the eye of the unwary and the gullible. I am still unwilling to categorise you as either a victim of this fraud, or one of its perpetrators. [quote]and him for his mathematical stupidity swapping out complex formulas I do not "Swap out" any formulae as that would constitute fraud. What I have done is follow the mathematics, and balance the equations. The fact that these equations are not as good at proving anything other than x=x is the fault of the equation, not my investigation. Quote: Brandenburg is peer-reviewed and accepted. You keep making this claim, so let me take a closer look at the evidence. The best and most effective way to search for scientific papers is to use the web of knowledge, but google scholar is almost as good. I entered the name John Brandenburg and searched for peer reviewed scientific papers, and came up with.... nothing. I widened the search and came up with "Evidence for a large, natural, paleo-nuclearreactor on Mars". This is not a scientific paper, it was not in a scientific journal, and it was not reviewed by scientists. It was one of over 1800 "items for discussion" presented at a conference. All of Brandenburgs output is baseless speculation with absolutely no scientific credibility. Quote: Other actual scientists (unlike you and das nimrod) have independently come to the SAME EXACT CONCLUSIONS which is why I posted multiple links. Please allow me to give you some information. Real actual scientists are working at CERN getting proof of the Higgs Boson. Quote: Those same anomolies are easily explained in the raditation pressure/shadowing model. No they aren't, and the existence of J0651 proves it.

many pages back I posted a link to where his paper was published
again, your half-hearted "evidence" is crap

@Nimrod

Brandenburg gave a talk last year on his GEM Theory. No real peer review. Clearly no wide acceptance. Both of which Lou stated but hasn't supported. And, of course, no evidence. Brandenburg claims that anti-gravity and FTL drives are possible with this stuff. Find an engineer then and build it! Brandenburg would be a multi-millionaire if he gave us an anti-gravity car or the ability to go see Gallifrey at a moment's notice. Side note -- it relies on Zero Point Energy. Again Zero Point means that level at which no usable energy can be further extracted from a system. Either he's breaking the law of the conservation of energy OR he's not at a Zero Point. Either way he's wrong.

@BrianK

Quote:

What I do find is you proclaim his math wrong, fail to demonstrate where or why the error exists

There are two grievances that Lou has with my use of mathematics. The first and most obvious is that it disproves ( or at least fails to worship) his baseless hypotheses, and the second is that I use E=MC2 without multiplying E by some incredibly huge factor to take into account the speed of the mass. In this, he totally ignores the fact that despite the idiotic ramblings of "engineer" Borg there is no "fixed point"to set all speeds relative to. As a direct consequence of this kinetic energy is irrelevant, and despite his protestations to the contrary the reason I ignore relativistic speeds is not my ignorance of Einsteins theories (which some of his links deny in favour of Newton) but entirely due to the fact that we are not travelling at a multiple, or even a large fraction of speed c and therefore any variance in mass is calculated as E/C2. And since C2=8.99 x 10^16 these variances are sufficiently minor to be safely ignored (less than 0.001%).

With reference to certain attempts to cause offence, I can only state that there are people whose opinions matter to me, and then there is Lou.

edit: correct spelling mistake.

Last edited by Nimrod on 08-Sep-2012 at 01:31 AM.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @BrianK Quote: What I do find is you proclaim his math wrong, fail to demonstrate where or why the error exists There are two grievances that Lou has with my use of mathematics. The first and most obvious is that it disproves ( or at least fails to worship) his baseless hypotheses, and the second is that I use E=MC2 without multiplying E by some incredibly huge factor to take into account the speed of the mass. In this, he totally ignores the fact that despite the idiotic ramblings of "engineer" Borg there is no "fixed point"to set all speeds relative to. As a direct consequence of this kinetic energy is irrelevant, and despite his protestations to the contrary the reason I ignore relativistic speeds is not my ignorance of Einsteins theories (which some of his links deny in favour of Newton) but entirely due to the fact that we are not travelling at a multiple, or even a large fraction of speed c and therefore any variance in mass is calculated as E/C2. And since C2=8.99 x 10^16 these variances are sufficiently minor to be safely ignored (less than 0.001%). With reference to certain attempts to cause offence, I can only state that there are people whose opinions matter to me, and then there is Lou. edit: correct spelling mistake.

Yes and there are certain people who have certifiable credentials ( http://www.space.com/2129-research-warps-hyperdrive.html and published in http://journalofcosmology.com/JoC17pdfs/brandenburg2.pdf )

and then there are nimrods...

Last edited by Lou on 10-Sep-2012 at 01:49 PM.