@Lou

Quote:

http://www.space.com/2129-research-warps-hyperdrive.html

Excellent link. I think if you understand what's being said in there you'll find it's nothing new that hasn't been told to you before. This program is to build the evidence necessary to test and see if the postulates are worth anything. You continue to play the 'Chicken Little' role declaring something as gospel when the important step of evidencing is far from complete, heck it appears it's not even started. (Which is probably why when asked for evidence you fail and give us postulates.)

Quote:

there are certain people who have certifiable credentials

Credentials are important but not all inclusive or all exclusive. Appeal to Authority Fallacy A great example is Linus Pauling was wrong about his claims of Vitamin C being a panacea.

Last edited by BrianK on 10-Sep-2012 at 02:50 PM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

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

These seem to be some glaring problems. Definitely as you lay out the math Lou responds with insults to you personally and claims about unworthiness. If Lou sat down and responded demonstrating the mathematical errors Lou would have a far more compelling argument. Unfortunately his response is to compare certs, falling quickly into the fallacious argument from authority.


Quote:

which some of his links deny in favour of Newton

Yeah always great to deny the better accurate system and use the less accurate one. Especially when we're talking, in part, about accuracy.

@BrianK

The prime purpose of the STAIF conference reported in Lou's link was to bounce ideas off the wall, and see what sticks. Conferences of this type are a bit like panning for gold, you have to know what you are looking for, and shovel a whole load of sh.. gravel before you find anything shiny. A couple of very pertinent quotes from the article.
Quote:

Scientific rigor is important, Cole said, and repeatable experiments must rule the day. "Right now, there's not enough signal in the noise to be convinced that there's anything there. One has to be strongly skeptical of all these kind of things," Cole said. "But you have got to be open-minded too. Maybe somebody will find something. But if they do, it has got to be solid."

Quote:

But Cassanova cautions: "Just because you can write an equation that describes something ... doesn't mean that such an equation describes the real physics that are going on."

.
I do not for one moment dispute the fact that we need new ideas, but they do need to be good ideas.

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

@Nimrod

Good quote from Lou's own article stating Lou's sources doesn't have what Lou claims they have. Again that's probably why Lou is unable to produce it and instead spins in circles.

I love the Cassanova quote. It's something I told Lou about 1/3 of the way back. A workable mathematical equation is great. But, we still have to compare it to reality. I can create some really great equations that describe a potential universe. They all fail when they're compared to our own universe.

In short - EVIDENCE rulez.

Quote:

I do not for one moment dispute the fact that we need new ideas, but they do need to be good ideas.

Any idea is just an idea. If it's good it's one that must withstand evidence and mathematical rigor. I really wish Lou could understand this.

@Lou
Higgs passes peer review http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/135756-cerns-higgs-boson-discovery-passes-peer-review-becomes-actual-science

Another hammer blow to your Higgs isn't there CRAP

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Higgs passes peer review http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/135756-cerns-higgs-boson-discovery-passes-peer-review-becomes-actual-science Another hammer blow to your Higgs isn't there CRAP

Do you actually read the crap you post?

Here's a quote for ya':
Quote:

Before we actually know what the new particle is, CERN, the LHC, and the CMS and ATLAS teams must perform additional tests.

@Lou

You told us time and again that Science shouldn't bother looking in the unopened pantry because there's nothing there. Turns out you were wrong. As you flail on the floor kicking and screaming it's not Higgs. The evidence that something exists is stronger than what you've presented from your 'EM is God' faith. You hold up the credentials of your book's favorite authors and claim their authority is better than proof of reality. It's very much akin to the Islamist that holds up their text and declares Allah bettter than reality in this world.

I'll give you the evidence isn't fully in on if this is truly the Higgs predicted. Tests in Dec will help suss this out. I'd love to see you provide 'EM is God' evidence (not paper postulates) that is even close to as strong that a particle exists in that unresearched area. Cuz you'd failed time and again to demand from your own faith what you demand from others.

\

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou You told us time and again that Science shouldn't bother looking in the unopened pantry because there's nothing there. Turns out you were wrong. As you flail on the floor kicking and screaming it's not Higgs. The evidence that something exists is stronger than what you've presented from your 'EM is God' faith. You hold up the credentials of your book's favorite authors and claim their authority is better than proof of reality. It's very much akin to the Islamist that holds up their text and declares Allah bettter than reality in this world. I'll give you the evidence isn't fully in on if this is truly the Higgs predicted. Tests in Dec will help suss this out. I'd love to see you provide 'EM is God' evidence (not paper postulates) that is even close to as strong that a particle exists in that unresearched area. Cuz you'd failed time and again to demand from your own faith what you demand from others.

What's the matter BrianK? Hate being slapped in the face with facts?
I never said they didn't find "anything". I said they didn't fing "higgs" and the announcement was just PR.

Here's some further reading for you:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/09/too-many-heavy-particles-could-mean-trouble-for-the-standard-model/
Here's a choice quote for physics noobs like you and the nimrod:
Quote:

The SM, of course, is already known to be incomplete, so its overthrow by these data isn't anything radical.

And knowing that you and the nimrod are physics noobs, I'll just point out the "SM" is shorthand for "Standard Model"...

@Lou

Quote:

What's the matter BrianK? Hate being slapped in the face with facts?

Actually it's quite enjoyable. I'd love you to have some facts surrounding 'EM is God'.

Quote:

The SM, of course, is already known to be incomplete, so its overthrow by these data isn't anything radical.

Overthrowing the Standard Model would be good. It'd give scientists something more to research. Cuz if this is Higgs many other postulates have fallen to the wayside with this. Discovery is always bitter sweet. One knows more about the universe than before. And the universe is slightly smaller and less mysterious.

Luckily we have strange energy effects and strange gravitational effects to still focus on. Dark Energy and Dark Matter are one postule. They've been indirectly evidence but not directly observed. A nice area of investigation to see if the objects are real or some other effect and formula. There are other postulated formulas which account for this Energy and Matter without needing them to exist as physical entities.

EDIT: Serendipitous! I mentioned other alternative postulates in trouble. SuperSymmetry looks to be in trouble. And related SuperString Theory is based on SuperSymmetry and is thusly in trouble too.

Last edited by BrianK on 11-Sep-2012 at 02:47 PM.

For the record, I linked the Space.com article as proof of credentials.
Here is more proof:
http://www.eecs.ucf.edu/colloq/2005-06/110405.html

As you can see, Brandenburg has worked on DARPA-funded projects.

So there are his credentials and no, the critics' credentials here don't measure up. Not even close.

@Lou

Credentials are interesting but unimportant when comparing postulates to reality. Saying the work is true because this guy has the right papers is a logical fallacy - appealing to authority.

The case is we're not checking authority. Instead what we are doing is seeing if the Brandenburg postulates comply with reality. The comparision is exactly the same for someone with 'God' credentials or no creditionals. That is we must have validated observational evidence and experimentation.

For example, we don't select Einstein's postulates over Newton's because Einstein has more PhD's nailed to his wall. We select Einstein's postulates because they were evidenced to explain a larger swath of evidence with better accuracy. The same goes for Brandenburg when you can bring the evidence we can talk. When it comes to mapping postulates to reality comparing degrees is about as useless as comparing penis length.

@BrianK

Quote:

Credentials are interesting but unimportant when comparing postulates to reality.

Thisis the main reason why I have never listed any "credentials, and will continue not to list any. As Neil Tyson often states "If you answer that (insert CRAP here) is wrong because of my say so then I have failed to teach you to think". That is why I explain the logic that is used to disprove the postulate.

Quote:

When it comes to mapping postulates to reality comparing degrees is about as useless as comparing penis length.

A nice comparison, however Lou appears to be countersunk

@Lou

If we want to get into a p*ssing contest about credentials, I think a small quote from the Wikipedia article about theHiggs boson sets the scene nicely.Quote:

The proposal for such a spontaneous symmetry breaking mechanism originally was suggested in 1962 by Philip Warren Anderson and developed into a full relativistic model, independently and almost simultaneously, by three groups of physicists: by François Englert and Robert Brout in August 1964; by Peter Higgs in October 1964; and by Gerald Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and Tom Kibble (GHK) in November 1964 Properties of the model were further considered by Guralnik in 1965,] by Higgs in 1966 and by Kibble in 1967

Now let us ttake a look at the credentials of this little group of names.
Philip Warren Anderson From 1967 to 1975, Anderson was a professor of theoretical physics at Cambridge University. In 1977 Anderson was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics
François Englert received his PhD in physical sciences in 1959. From 1959 until 1961, he worked at Cornell University, first as a research associate of Robert Brout and then as assistant professor. He then returned to the ULB where he became a university professor. In 1998 Englert became professor emeritus.
Peter Higgs graduated with a first class honours in Physics, and later achieved a master's degree, and a Ph.D. He became a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Edinburgh, The recent discovery of the Higgs boson prompted fellow physicist Stephen Hawking to note that he thought that Higgs should receive the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work.
Gerald Guralnik received his BS degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1958 and his PhD degree from Harvard University in 1964. He went to Imperial College London as a postdoctoral fellow supported by the National Science Foundation and then became a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Rochester. While at Los Alamos, he did extensive work on the development and application of computational methods for Lattice QCD.
C. R. Hagen received his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. At MIT, his doctoral thesis topic was in quantum electrodynamics. He has been a professor of physics at the University of Rochester since 1963.

All of the names listed above have Ph.D, and several have done well enough to win prizes for their efforts. One of them even has the highest accolade in the form of a Nobel Prize, and my soon be joined by Higgs. Also one of the group has worked at Los Alamos, which is a bit more impressive than some of the stuff that DARPA has tried to do, and none of this group have invented an entire alien civilization as a result of misinterpreting a few distorted marks on a satellite picture.

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

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Credentials are interesting but unimportant when comparing postulates to reality. Saying the work is true because this guy has the right papers is a logical fallacy - appealing to authority. The case is we're not checking authority. Instead what we are doing is seeing if the Brandenburg postulates comply with reality. The comparision is exactly the same for someone with 'God' credentials or no creditionals. That is we must have validated observational evidence and experimentation. For example, we don't select Einstein's postulates over Newton's because Einstein has more PhD's nailed to his wall. We select Einstein's postulates because they were evidenced to explain a larger swath of evidence with better accuracy. The same goes for Brandenburg when you can bring the evidence we can talk. When it comes to mapping postulates to reality comparing degrees is about as useless as comparing penis length.

It's real simple BrianK.

Einstein's work is fully recognized and understood by Brandenburg, infact, all he did was continue Einstein's work in persuing unification. Einstein's biggest mistake was assuming G was always constant. Measurement shows us otherwise(you know, observation/facts). Brandenburg made no such assumption and derived G in a formula by comparing the mass of the electron to the proton in the hydrogen atom, the basis for all matter. If you bothered to read his book, you would know this, but you'd much rather paste science crap PR (public relations) announcements about the higgs that isn't HIGGS. Einstein blatantly stated General Relativity was not complete and that the forces must be unified. So you show-boat GR, like a physics noob, when it's author told you it was essentially WRONG. Like I've always said before, it's a 'shortcut', not a solution. GR is a general approximation because it uses constants that aren't constant. Then from there you can play with the mass to match observation, for instance, since the 'earth' has an agreed upon mass, you can calculate(AKA GUESS or ASSUME) the mass of the other object in question by plugging in the observed measurement(which again is an approximated average using a fixed orbital mean radius) and solving for the second mass.

You are the one trying to show a big e-peen here. When scientists have available to them all of Einstein's work as well as more modern technologies and experimental results, it's not hard to go slightly beyond his work. You are stuck at his early work because that's all the textbooks show you. Like I said before, you need to get past that.

Last edited by Lou on 12-Sep-2012 at 05:33 PM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @BrianK Quote: Credentials are interesting but unimportant when comparing postulates to reality. Thisis the main reason why I have never listed any "credentials, and will continue not to list any. As Neil Tyson often states "If you answer that (insert CRAP here) is wrong because of my say so then I have failed to teach you to think". That is why I explain the logic that is used to disprove the postulate. Quote: When it comes to mapping postulates to reality comparing degrees is about as useless as comparing penis length. A nice comparison, however Lou appears to be countersunk @Lou If we want to get into a p*ssing contest about credentials, I think a small quote from the Wikipedia article about theHiggs boson sets the scene nicely.Quote: The proposal for such a spontaneous symmetry breaking mechanism originally was suggested in 1962 by Philip Warren Anderson and developed into a full relativistic model, independently and almost simultaneously, by three groups of physicists: by François Englert and Robert Brout in August 1964; by Peter Higgs in October 1964; and by Gerald Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and Tom Kibble (GHK) in November 1964 Properties of the model were further considered by Guralnik in 1965,] by Higgs in 1966 and by Kibble in 1967 Now let us ttake a look at the credentials of this little group of names. Philip Warren Anderson From 1967 to 1975, Anderson was a professor of theoretical physics at Cambridge University. In 1977 Anderson was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics François Englert received his PhD in physical sciences in 1959. From 1959 until 1961, he worked at Cornell University, first as a research associate of Robert Brout and then as assistant professor. He then returned to the ULB where he became a university professor. In 1998 Englert became professor emeritus. Peter Higgs graduated with a first class honours in Physics, and later achieved a master's degree, and a Ph.D. He became a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Edinburgh, The recent discovery of the Higgs boson prompted fellow physicist Stephen Hawking to note that he thought that Higgs should receive the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work. Gerald Guralnik received his BS degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1958 and his PhD degree from Harvard University in 1964. He went to Imperial College London as a postdoctoral fellow supported by the National Science Foundation and then became a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Rochester. While at Los Alamos, he did extensive work on the development and application of computational methods for Lattice QCD. C. R. Hagen received his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. At MIT, his doctoral thesis topic was in quantum electrodynamics. He has been a professor of physics at the University of Rochester since 1963. All of the names listed above have Ph.D, and several have done well enough to win prizes for their efforts. One of them even has the highest accolade in the form of a Nobel Prize, and my soon be joined by Higgs. Also one of the group has worked at Los Alamos, which is a bit more impressive than some of the stuff that DARPA has tried to do, and none of this group have invented an entire alien civilization as a result of misinterpreting a few distorted marks on a satellite picture.

Attention physics noob.
Please understand that even within scientists there are different types. You have theroists and you have experimentalists. Two posts ago, I just showed you how the general consensus of scientists is that the standard model is incomplete and that there is data showing that it is broken.
(I know you have amnesia often about FACTS I post so here is the link again http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/09/too-many-heavy-particles-could-mean-trouble-for-the-standard-model/ )
The public relations announcement about higgs is a farce, but they need to announce *something* meanwhile investigations continue on what was actually found, since this "particle" seems to have over 200 times the energy of the proton...(a little odd, no?)

So I am quite amused to see you show credentials of theorists who's work has yet to be proved, and is actually being disproven... And continue to be amused by your mathematical fallacies and use of incorrect formulas for the admittedly broken physics you keep defending.

Keep posting though...surely there's a phrase that can apply to typing like the phrase "full of hot air" applies to talking... I'm sure you're doing a wonderful job fooling all the other physics noobs in the audience...

Last edited by Lou on 12-Sep-2012 at 05:46 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Einstein's work is fully recognized and understood by Brandenburg, infact, all he did was continue Einstein's work in persuing unification

Do you realize that others besides Brandenburg have declared themselves victors in this realm? All of them need to do the same thing - compare their postulates to experimentation and observational evidence. Until that's done we're unable to say they're wrong or right. The only answer we can give is 'interesting go do more work and demonstrate it to be true'

Quote:

Einstein blatantly stated General Relativity was not complete and that the forces must be unified

Sorry, but Einstein does not get to dictate the universe. This may be Einstein's feeling but clearly he did not demonstrate this as truth. Like everything else we must have experimentation and observational evidence to demonstrate this is indeed the truth. "Must be" is only true if the universe decides it is.

Quote:

You are the one trying to show a big e-peen here

You did this by trying to say look at all the pretty PhDs nailed to the wrong therefore he's right. Again certs carry no value here. Only replicated demonstratable proof does!

Quote:

When scientists have available to them all of Einstein's work as well as more modern technologies and experimental results, it's not hard to go slightly beyond his work.

It seems you believe someone said we can't go beyond Einstein. We probably can. But again - EVIDENCE is what we need to ascertain the truthfulness in the various people that purpose those Beyond Einstein(tm) solutions.

So we're still back to the thing you can't provide evidence. We'll be stuck there until you can provide some. Again a written paper is not evidence. That's the thing you're trying to prove. You sound just like the highly religious types who claim the Bible is true because one of their gods proclaim it's true. If true that work must be able to withstand extra-biblical evidence. The same is true here. Brandberg must withstand evidence outside of the paper you quoted for us to determine if that paper aligns with reality. Again you've not provided us those experiments or observations which support Brandberg. You just continue to tell us to reread the thing we're wanting to prove.

@Lou

Quote:

Two posts ago, I just showed you how the general consensus of scientists is that the standard model is incomplete and that there is data showing that it is broken.

At no point have I ever claimed that there is no further information to be learned. The undisputed fact that the standard model can be improved does not mean that adding the unproven postulates proposed by Brandenburg will do anything to improve matters, and there is strong evidence that he, and others are simply "p*ssing in the fountain of knowledge", as one of my teachers used to put it.

Quote:

So I am quite amused to see you show credentials of theorists who's work has yet to be proved, and is actually being disproven...

You once again dmonstrate your ignorance of basic mathematics when you propose that a 3 σ level of significance is solid proof that supersymmetry is broken while calling a 5 σ level of significance "a guess"

Quote:

And continue to be amused by your mathematical fallacies

Mathematical fallacies as a comment from the ... individual who posted as an equation describing the forces causing the Moon to orbit the Earth.
You have still failed to supply values for the variables in the equation, where χ is the magnetic susceptibility, ρ is the density of the material, g is the local gravitational acceleration (−9.8 m/s2 on Earth, but what is it in between Earth and Moon?), μ0 is the permeability of free space, B is the magnetic field, and dB/dz is the rate of change of the magnetic field along the vertical axis.

When you are able to understand even the basics of mathematics I will start to use real maths to show that the difference between rest mass, and a moving mass is insignificant until the mass is moving at a significant portion of speed c. The fact remains that, for example, at a speed of 10 km/s the correction to the Newtonian kinetic energy is 0.0417 J/kg (on a Newtonian kinetic energy of 50 MJ/kg) I use the simpler equations, not because I do not know of the existence of the more complex ones, but because there is no call for such accuracy at this level

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

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Einstein's work is fully recognized and understood by Brandenburg, infact, all he did was continue Einstein's work in persuing unification Do you realize that others besides Brandenburg have declared themselves victors in this realm? All of them need to do the same thing - compare their postulates to experimentation and observational evidence. Until that's done we're unable to say they're wrong or right. The only answer we can give is 'interesting go do more work and demonstrate it to be true' Quote: Einstein blatantly stated General Relativity was not complete and that the forces must be unified Sorry, but Einstein does not get to dictate the universe. This may be Einstein's feeling but clearly he did not demonstrate this as truth. Like everything else we must have experimentation and observational evidence to demonstrate this is indeed the truth. "Must be" is only true if the universe decides it is.

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!

I emphasized your statement about Einstein not getting to dictate the universe. I did so to show you your own hypocrasy. On one hand you live and die by GR and no one can superceed it (or hasn't to YOUR SATISFACTION), then on the other you say Einstein is not god despite treating him like one.

NEWSFLASH: The Universe decied GR was wrong when it decided to keep expanding and at a faster rate to boot and have varying values of big 'G'!

Holy physics noobs - BATMAN!

Quote:

Quote: You are the one trying to show a big e-peen here You did this by trying to say look at all the pretty PhDs nailed to the wrong therefore he's right. Again certs carry no value here. Only replicated demonstratable proof does! [/qoute] Let's get this straight: I did this trying to compare you and nimrod's knowledge to Brandenburg's. You default to nimrod's math in pretty much all cases. Not only have I pointed out his errors many times, I have shown that Brandenburg is both a theorist and an experimentalist via his Phd's, published papers and practical projects (see MET thruster). Quote: [quote]When scientists have available to them all of Einstein's work as well as more modern technologies and experimental results, it's not hard to go slightly beyond his work. It seems you believe someone said we can't go beyond Einstein. We probably can. But again - EVIDENCE is what we need to ascertain the truthfulness in the various people that purpose those Beyond Einstein(tm) solutions.

So I guess the author's(Einstein) admission of his flawed theory and the FACT that the universe continues to expand at a faster rate despite your (GRAVITY IS GOD) religious beliefs in the shortcut that is GR is not evidence that something better is needed...

Hello Mr. Strawman! You are picking and choosing what to accept. Even if GEM is wrong it is less wrong than GR on the sole basis of GR religiously assuming bigG is a constant.

Quote:

So we're still back to the thing you can't provide evidence. We'll be stuck there until you can provide some. Again a written paper is not evidence. That's the thing you're trying to prove. You sound just like the highly religious types who claim the Bible is true because one of their gods proclaim it's true. If true that work must be able to withstand extra-biblical evidence. The same is true here. Brandberg must withstand evidence outside of the paper you quoted for us to determine if that paper aligns with reality. Again you've not provided us those experiments or observations which support Brandberg. You just continue to tell us to reread the thing we're wanting to prove.

Strawman, troll ... a physics noob by any other name...
Let me make this perfectly clear: YOU CAN'T PRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT GENERAL RELATIVITY IS CORRECT! And! I can produce evidence that General Relativity is incorrect!

General Relativity is your bible. It's your shackle.

Last edited by Lou on 12-Sep-2012 at 09:06 PM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: And continue to be amused by your mathematical fallacies Mathematical fallacies as a comment from the ... individual who posted as an equation describing the forces causing the Moon to orbit the Earth. You have still failed to supply values for the variables in the equation, where χ is the magnetic susceptibility, ρ is the density of the material, g is the local gravitational acceleration (−9.8 m/s2 on Earth, but what is it in between Earth and Moon?), μ0 is the permeability of free space, B is the magnetic field, and dB/dz is the rate of change of the magnetic field along the vertical axis. When you are able to understand even the basics of mathematics I will start to use real maths to show that the difference between rest mass, and a moving mass is insignificant until the mass is moving at a significant portion of speed c. The fact remains that, for example, at a speed of 10 km/s the correction to the Newtonian kinetic energy is 0.0417 J/kg (on a Newtonian kinetic energy of 50 MJ/kg) I use the simpler equations, not because I do not know of the existence of the more complex ones, but because there is no call for such accuracy at this level

Attention physics noob!
Let me be perfectly clear: I don't attend the 'school for nimrods' hence I am not obliged to anwer any math question of yours.

You dangle your math prowess like it matters to me, it doesn't. Perhaps it matters to the audience... The facts are I have shown your mistakes. The facts are - as both a theorist and experimentalist, John Brandenburg has more credentials than YOU. So let me do some logical math for you:

BRANDENBURG > nimord(s)

@Lou

Quote:

On one hand you live and die by GR and no one can superceed it

No one has superceded it with sufficent evidence to embrace their particular version. Heck if Brandenburg was right we'd all have levitating cars and FTL travel, none of which exists. It may someday if his postulates have any validity.

Quote:

other you say Einstein is not god despite treating him like one

It's simply because his postulates are the best evidence we have available. Next year may bring something else, entirely.

I think our approaches are very different. I see here's the evidence and here's the best Theory we can say about those evidence. And they prove out. I say there's more out there get to work. You say here's a pretty theory with some nice math from someone with a PhD it's Gospel. Very different.

Quote:

So I guess the author's(Einstein) admission of his flawed theory and the FACT that the universe continues to expand at a faster rate despite your (GRAVITY IS GOD) religious beliefs in the shortcut that is GR is not evidence that something better is needed...

Aha you hit on exactly what I'm saying. We don't know if something better exists. Something may, but it's dependent upon construct of the universe. Now even if something better does exist that doesn't prove Brandenburg is the right answer. Turns out Brandenburg is one of the myriad of postulates we have to test against evidence to see how accurate it is.

Quote:

Even if GEM is wrong it is less wrong than GR

Considering the current state of human evidence available to us that is a completely false statement.

Quote:

I can produce evidence that General Relativity is incorrect!

We've already accepted that General Relativity has it's limitations. Especially when it comes to rectifying the quantum events. So, you haven't done anything but misunderstand a few hundred pages of this.

Again - Newton was less correct than Einstein. The reason we can say this is the EVIDENCE demonstrates such an effect. Similarily you wish to say GEM is more right than Einstein. When in fact you have been unable to display the evidence you're basing your judgement on. If it's true why are locking it in an Ark? And if you don't have anything to show then be sure you can only make your judgement on faith. I guess at this point it's faith that more PhDs mean something to your understanding of reality.

Let's get back to Haramein for example - we have EVIDENCE that blackholes do not exist in the center of the earth or the center of the sun. We have EVIDENCE that mass is not what he says it is. His version of 'GEM' is clearly less correct because his work does not overlay accurate predictions when observed against reality.

I've shown you a large number of examples of what evidence means and how it is used. It's really you that fail to apply evidence to Brandenburg. I know you'd like science to work this way but science does not assume truth unless proven wrong. Science assumes wrong until demonstrated true.

Quote:

The facts are - as both a theorist and experimentalist, John Brandenburg has more credentials than YOU

I guess I've been too wordy trying to explain your own fallacies. Let me try this the short and sweet method. --- Credentials mean jack shit.

Last edited by BrianK on 12-Sep-2012 at 09:34 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 12-Sep-2012 at 09:31 PM.

I have been following this thread on and off and it has really been on the fringes of accepted science and physics lately. Especially Lou seems to love alternate theories which can be upliftning sometimes. It is always intressenteng to find new ways to explain scientific phenomenons. That does not mean I agree with Lou all the time.

By the way Lou, your definition of noob is a well educated person with expert knowledge, right? That is the impression I have of the people you call noobs in this thread,