@Lou

Quote:

The point of origin was a sun (aka large surface area emitting photons)

.. That is correct, a large spherical surface emitting photons in all directions As the photons move away from the source, they also move further from each other, and eventually they will be so diffused that only one every so often arrives at a given location. in the graphic shown all nine photons are contained within tha area marked as A at distance r. At distance 2r the photons are spread out and the same nine photons are distributed about a much larger area, which means that the area A recieves fewer photons than previously. By distance 3r each area A only recieves one photon. This is a vastly simplified explanation of what happens to light coming from any source. I am aware that the photosphere of the sun is not a point source but this spreading occurs at every point on the apparent surface and the overall effect is the same.
The minimum amount of photons that can hit a surface is one, since if it doesnt, the surface has not been hit. When all points of a surface are covered that is the maximum number of photons that can be at that surface. The lie that you are trying to slip through my BS filter is that because the Earth has a given surface area that could recieve radiant energy from a galaxy far far away, it therefore is recieving radiant energy from a galaxy far far away. This is not borne out by actual measurements taken.

Quote:

Lets be perfectly clear here. You have "calculated" the "estimated" RP from a star. You did not measure it

Lets be perfectly clear here, the radiant energy from Proxima centauri has been measured We know how to convert the figures for radiant energy into figures for radiation pressure, so although the pressure was not directly measured we know how much pressure is being exerted, and it is minuscule.

Quote:

What the theory I highlighted does is explain the gravitational effect under a new paradigm that matches the observations of the old paradigm

correction, the meandering waffle that you linked to explains nothing other than how gullible you are in your desperation to show that you are brighter than a penny candle. The BS that Brandenburg has sold you matches nothing and directly contradicts the other steaming heap of BS that Haramein has sold you.

Quote:

And I still stand by those statements. What does that 'tirade' as you put it have to do with the belittling tone you began?

At the risk of sounding as childish as you I can only repeat that you started it, with the tone that you took in the post that I linked to. I merely answered your comments. If I responded in a way that made you feel belittled, perhaps you should not act like a spoiled little child and throw insults and stupid assertions around all of the time.

Quote:

Why are you talking about pyramids when I am talking about gigantic figures drawn on the ground?

There are also no gigantic figures drawn on the ground in, or near Gaza. You are really showing yourself up for your lack of education here. Although once again your first resort is to insult and abuse simply because you cannot think of a better response.

Quote:

The major difference being that my father isn't a senile old man, perhaps?

The major difference is that I taught my children that respect for others is the first step towards self respect. Your father taught you nothing, and as a consequence, you know nothing and you are nothing

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

@BrianK

I wrote:
Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: BrianK wrote: Some missing mass is found. Right under our noses floating around just outside the Milky Way . While dimensions and size need to be finalized it appears this mass is roughly the same amount as the Milky Way. Yes, this fills in more 'dark matter'.

In a reply, BrianK writes:
Quote:

According to the article it fills in some of the missing bayronic matter.

A small proportion of dark matter may be baryonic dark matter: astronomical bodies, such as gas or massive compact halo objects, that are composed of ordinary matter but which emit little or no electromagnetic radiation.

@BrianK

Quote:

I believe I did this dance before either with you or MikeB on the first thread concerning the complete CRAP that Hutchinson has. I'd recommend you reading up on that. If you don't have anything new to review in the last ~year. I think this topic is DOA.

I think that Lou himself inadvertently gave the best answer that Hutchinson deserves in one of his comments aimed at me.
Quote:

hello, nimrod, you have yet to prove the video uploader is a scholar, hence your link is ####

It is, of course the inverse of his usual appeal to authority, and is not a valid rational argument, but somehow it is all that he deserves.

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

@Lou

Quote:

BrianK writes: Quote: According to the article it fills in some of the missing bayronic matter. A small proportion of dark matter may be baryonic dark matter: astronomical bodies, such as gas or massive compact halo objects, that are composed of ordinary matter but which emit little or no electromagnetic radiation.

R.ead T.he F.ine A.rticle! How about starting with something logical like the first sentence. "While approximately 80 percent of all matter in the Universe is in the form of dark matter, a substantial fraction of ordinary matter is also "missing." "... the rest of the article goes on to describe the 'missing matter' is part of this group of ordinary matter. It does not make the claim that it's Dark Matter. Again RTFA. ". In particular, we know how much ordinary—or baryonic—matter there is. Since those atoms could not have disappeared, they must be present in the modern Universe as well, but they don't seem to be part of the disk or bulge that make up the luminous regions of galaxies. Figuring out what happened to them has become known as the "missing baryon problem."


I know your trying to tread water hard to keep an iota of your wrong claim afloat. But, come one just admit to being wrong and not taking the time or car to get off your lazyboy and read. You instead act like there's some posting quota you have to meet and do your damnest to do so even when you are so clearly wrong.

@Nimrod

Quote:

think that Lou himself inadvertently gave the best answer that Hutchinson deserves in one of his comments aimed at me.

Lou has a problem with people not having credentials. Their works are completely non-dependent upon creditentals. They are dependent upon accuracy of prediction and understanding of reality. It's what evidence is for. Something that continually goes over Lou's head.

But wait it's a "new" tactic claim there's evidence but don't produce it because the evil empire has it under lock in key. Therefore the universe must wait to evidence it's effects. What a frickin' joke.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: The point of origin was a sun (aka large surface area emitting photons) .. That is correct, a large spherical surface emitting photons in all directions As the photons move away from the source, they also move further from each other, and eventually they will be so diffused that only one every so often arrives at a given location. in the graphic shown all nine photons are contained within tha area marked as A at distance r. At distance 2r the photons are spread out and the same nine photons are distributed about a much larger area, which means that the area A recieves fewer photons than previously. By distance 3r each area A only recieves one photon. This is a vastly simplified explanation of what happens to light coming from any source. I am aware that the photosphere of the sun is not a point source but this spreading occurs at every point on the apparent surface and the overall effect is the same. The minimum amount of photons that can hit a surface is one, since if it doesnt, the surface has not been hit. When all points of a surface are covered that is the maximum number of photons that can be at that surface. The lie that you are trying to slip through my BS filter is that because the Earth has a given surface area that could recieve radiant energy from a galaxy far far away, it therefore is recieving radiant energy from a galaxy far far away. This is not borne out by actual measurements taken.

What is totally amusing about this picture you chose to include is that this is precisely what I was saying circa page 100ish of this thread with my 3x3 array of photons.

The LIE you are trying to pass that you have a slightly better understanding of photons now compared to when you had no clue about 25 pages ago.

Quote:

Quote: Lets be perfectly clear here. You have "calculated" the "estimated" RP from a star. You did not measure it Lets be perfectly clear here, the radiant energy from Proxima centauri has been measured We know how to convert the figures for radiant energy into figures for radiation pressure, so although the pressure was not directly measured we know how much pressure is being exerted, and it is minuscule.

Right, so calculated in a way you think is accurate...just like I said. Gotcha.

Quote:

Quote: What the theory I highlighted does is explain the gravitational effect under a new paradigm that matches the observations of the old paradigm correction, the meandering waffle that you linked to explains nothing other than how gullible you are in your desperation to show that you are brighter than a penny candle. The BS that Brandenburg has sold you matches nothing and directly contradicts the other steaming heap of BS that Haramein has sold you.

Any correction made by you has NO VALUE.

Let's look at this post from you where you claim nothing escapes in a black hole further demonstrating you lack of grasping modern physics...
In it you say:
Quote:

Despite your lies to the contrary I am also aware that even light cannot escape from inside the event horizon of a black hole. Add to that the fact that I have frequently referreed to the fact of gravitational lensing, and it can be seen that I am aware of the fact that the energy of light has a mass equivalence, but unlike some, I am also aware of what that equivalence is.

I have frequently tried to correct your archaic view of black holes.
They emit "Hawking Radiation". Do you know what that is? It's LIGHT. Ligt is EM and EM is light. Get it thru your thick skull. In addition to that I told you they emit MATTER as well. Here's proof:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/09/first-images-of-particle-jets-at-edge-of-a-supermassive-black-hole/

You are so out of touch with reality, it's a crime.


Quote:

Quote: And I still stand by those statements. What does that 'tirade' as you put it have to do with the belittling tone you began? At the risk of sounding as childish as you I can only repeat that you started it, with the tone that you took in the post that I linked to. I merely answered your comments. If I responded in a way that made you feel belittled, perhaps you should not act like a spoiled little child and throw insults and stupid assertions around all of the time.

You responded like a pompous rear. I now realize that this is simply your nature, so I now respond accordingly.

Quote:

Quote: Why are you talking about pyramids when I am talking about gigantic figures drawn on the ground? There are also no gigantic figures drawn on the ground in, or near Gaza. You are really showing yourself up for your lack of education here. Although once again your first resort is to insult and abuse simply because you cannot think of a better response.

Oh yes, because I quickly typed Gaza when I meant Nazca, it automatically makes me a raving lunatic. I see your logic now, Mr. Nothing Escapes A Black Hole...

Quote:

Quote: The major difference being that my father isn't a senile old man, perhaps? The major difference is that I taught my children that respect for others is the first step towards self respect. Your father taught you nothing, and as a consequence, you know nothing and you are nothing

What brings me the most joy is watching you become what you claim to despise!

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: BrianK writes: [quote] According to the article it fills in some of the missing bayronic matter. A small proportion of dark matter may be baryonic dark matter: astronomical bodies, such as gas or massive compact halo objects, that are composed of ordinary matter but which emit little or no electromagnetic radiation.

BrianK still doesn't get it and contues on to write:
Quote:

R.ead T.he F.ine A.rticle! How about starting with something logical like the first sentence. "While approximately 80 percent of all matter in the Universe is in the form of dark matter, a substantial fraction of ordinary matter is also "missing." "... the rest of the article goes on to describe the 'missing matter' is part of this group of ordinary matter. It does not make the claim that it's Dark Matter. Again RTFA. ". In particular, we know how much ordinary—or baryonic—matter there is. Since those atoms could not have disappeared, they must be present in the modern Universe as well, but they don't seem to be part of the disk or bulge that make up the luminous regions of galaxies. Figuring out what happened to them has become known as the "missing baryon problem." I know your trying to tread water hard to keep an iota of your wrong claim afloat. But, come one just admit to being wrong and not taking the time or car to get off your lazyboy and read. You instead act like there's some posting quota you have to meet and do your damnest to do so even when you are so clearly wrong.

Listen Mr. Rocket Scientist, 'Dark Matter' is a category, not a scecification.
Go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Matter
And read the second section about : Baryonic and nonbaryonic dark matter

Last edited by Lou on 27-Sep-2012 at 10:04 PM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @BrianK Quote: I believe I did this dance before either with you or MikeB on the first thread concerning the complete CRAP that Hutchinson has. I'd recommend you reading up on that. If you don't have anything new to review in the last ~year. I think this topic is DOA. I think that Lou himself inadvertently gave the best answer that Hutchinson deserves in one of his comments aimed at me. Quote: hello, nimrod, you have yet to prove the video uploader is a scholar, hence your link is #### It is, of course the inverse of his usual appeal to authority, and is not a valid rational argument, but somehow it is all that he deserves.

In continuing to live up to your username, you failed to recognize the voice in the video...and he is a scholar.

@Lou

Quote:

Listen Mr. Rocket Scientist, 'Dark Matter' is a category, not a scecification. Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Matter And read the second section about : Baryonic and nonbaryonic dark matter

Yes Lou I know that Dark Matter has different type of classifications. You seem to be focused on making claims that articles do not. Reread the article and please quote me where they state Dark Matter. I quoted you the 'Ordinnary Matter - baronic' section. So do some work where's your evidence the article says what you claim it does? Or is this another of those claims by Lous we must believe? Do it quick the government might order redaction and lock the article up so you can't get at the evidence.

@Lou

Quote:

What is totally amusing about this picture you chose to include is that this is precisely what I was saying circa page 100ish of this thread with my 3x3 array of photons.

So why are you assuming that all of the divergent photons will impact the area A when area A is at the distance 10r. You keep pushing the lie that they are all contributing to the radiation pressure fely at infinite distance.

Quote:

Right, so calculated in a way you think is accurate...just like I said. Gotcha.

calculated in a manner that has been proved correct by measurements on the voyager probe and the 68 million tonne asteroid that occasionally gets a 14 gramme push from solar radiation presure.

Quote:

I have frequently tried to correct your archaic view of black holes. They emit "Hawking Radiation"

Yes I know that they emit Hawking radiation. From my post is the line "even light cannot escape from inside the event horizon of a black hole" but Hawking radiation is produced by quantum effects near the event horizon, not insidethe event horizon.

Quote:

Oh yes, because I quickly typed Gaza when I meant Nazca,

If you can't be bothered to type what you mean, how can I be expected to know what you mean? There is a huge difference between the Nazca plateau and the Gaza strip, and I can't read your mind, mainly because the print is too ***king small.

Edit:- Fix link to Hawking radiation

Last edited by Nimrod on 29-Sep-2012 at 11:58 AM.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

So why are you assuming that all of the divergent photons will impact the area A when area A is at the distance 10r. You keep pushing the lie that they are all contributing to the radiation pressure fely at infinite distance.

Actually I recall Lou posing a question of what's the minimum number of photons that hit an object. I believe you answered 1, which is technically the least # of photons. I said 0 because it's possible no photons hit. Though technically you're more right on the question as he asked hitting photons and my state was no hitting photons. Though I think for what he was looking for, radiative pressure. The 0 answer needs to be included. Because it could be the photon simply drives on by and misses. I don't think Lou had any constructive reply there. I think he was expecting some other answer that was more align with his model of unreality.

Turns out, no surpise by your diagram, the earth is more often impacted by our sun than by a distant star. The rate of photons and amount of photons will be more from our sun than any other star. No real surprise. Though without comparing to other forces, like the solar wind, like gravity from sun, from moon, from other planets we really can't understand the whole picture. Once we consider all forces it turns out gravity imparts a much greater % of force than photons do. But, then again that's something that hasn't changed in a few hundred posts. Simply someone doesn't understand.

And I must add...

Last edited by BrianK on 28-Sep-2012 at 12:35 AM.

@Lou

If you haven't read it yet it's worth reading: http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/09/the-complicated-truth-behind-scientific-findings/

Nice conclusion - a small cottage industry that builds papers to circumvent Einstein by assuming space is different than what Einstein said. And that's true, Brandenburg for your example, isn't the only one. However, the other points in this paper hold true - acceptance comes through experimentation and evidence. Today there's insufficent evidence to accept Brandenburg and reject all others. Rightly so there's insufficent evidence to fully reject Brandenburg. His postulates reside on the table with all of the other contemporaries until we have better evidence to demonstrate them more or less false. Though I haven't dug into Brandenburg as much as Nimrod.

I dig into Haramein and there is hundreds of years of evidence and experimentation that show his ideas are incongruent with reality. Science never says never. But, he's wrong enough that he can be set aside until (if ever) some major change is found.

@Lou

OMG! It's a UFO Cop sees strange light in the sky ... To ruin the suprise for you. The cop was simply an idiot and yet another case of someone not knowing WTF the moon looks like.

@physics noobs,
you failed at the photon issue back around page 100....
why bring it up again? Oh yea, I showed you that vacuum energy exists so you had to change the radiation pressure angle coming primarily from the vacuum to RP from far away stars.

Oh nimrod among nimrods, you still get a failing grade on black holes because of jets...which are proven to exist.

you both change the subject when something comes up you can no longer attempt to debunk

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Listen Mr. Rocket Scientist, 'Dark Matter' is a category, not a scecification. Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Matter And read the second section about : Baryonic and nonbaryonic dark matter Yes Lou I know that Dark Matter has different type of classifications. You seem to be focused on making claims that articles do not. Reread the article and please quote me where they state Dark Matter. I quoted you the 'Ordinnary Matter - baronic' section. So do some work where's your evidence the article says what you claim it does? Or is this another of those claims by Lous we must believe? Do it quick the government might order redaction and lock the article up so you can't get at the evidence.

stop being retarded...
you corrected me saying "BARYONIC MATTER" and I said that is part of what is considered dark matter, the missing baryonic matter. So now that we find some, it's not so "dark"...

Add to this, I never disputed undiscovered matter...some of which is now discovered. That's all 'dark matter' is, the classifications don't matter.

Last edited by Lou on 28-Sep-2012 at 11:24 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 28-Sep-2012 at 11:23 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

you corrected me saying "BARYONIC MATTER" and I said that is part of what is considered dark matter, the missing baryonic matter. So now that we find some, it's not so "dark"... Add to this, I never disputed undiscovered matter...some of which is now discovered. That's all 'dark matter' is, the classifications don't matter.

Again - not interested in your poor excuses. I'm interested in evidence. Quote to me the section of the article that supports you Dark Matter claim. Pull on the big boy pants for a change and prove your claim. And yes Dark Matter is clearly not Ordinary matter else there wouldn't be two names for it. I'd call you a retard as you did me, but I have more respect for retards than to insult them by associating you with their handicap.

Last edited by BrianK on 29-Sep-2012 at 05:09 AM.
Last edited by BrianK on 29-Sep-2012 at 05:08 AM.

@The village idiot

Quote:

you still get a failing grade on black holes because of jets...which are proven to exist.

I first came across the hypothesis proposing the theoretical existence of spinning black holes having polar jets some time after I left school, and when indirect observations demonstrated the existence of signature signals predicted by the theory, I accepted the existence as validated many years ago. The theory had made predictions that were measurably and recognisably correct The jets do exist, but despite what you may believe, they are not produced by matter coming from inside the event horizon.
This is in direct contrast to the postulates made by Brandenburg that would only work if the vacuum energy of free space were in the order of MegaJoules per cubic metre, instead of the measured 0.6 J/kM3. His hypotheses contradict the evidence.

As to your claim that BrianK and I are debunkers, I would point out that in order for us to debunk, there has to be bunkum there in the first place. By referring to us as debunkers, you accept that you are perpetuating the supply of bunkum.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

I first came across the hypothesis proposing the theoretical existence of spinning black holes having polar jets some time after I left school, and when indirect observations demonstrated the existence of signature signals predicted by the theory, I accepted the existence as validated many years ago

This is called Hawking Radiation. Why? Well because Stephen Hawking postulated this happening. The observations that were indirect were by using lasers to simulate a Black Hole.

Here's something I see as important. Because this event exists what it means is eventually the Black Hole grows so large it burns itself out and releases all it's radiation. Discoveries are always a two edged sword. They often confirm a postulate while negating other postulates. Noteably in this case the feedback of radiation back at us means the idea of White Holes in other universes from this universe is much less likely to be true. This plays to the multiverse idea. There may be other multiverses but again this demonstrates it's unlikely our universe outputs into theirs. In short, one gets some better (but less applicable) Science Fiction if they ignore Hawking Radiation.

Quote:

This is in direct contrast to the postulates made by Brandenburg that would only work if the vacuum energy of free space were in the order of MegaJoules per cubic metre, instead of the measured 0.6 J/kM3. His hypotheses contradict the evidence.

Understaning scale appears to be difficult sticking point for Lou. Dominance of forces in a system is all about the scale and direction.

Last edited by BrianK on 29-Sep-2012 at 02:43 PM.

Note to Haramein...

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: you corrected me saying "BARYONIC MATTER" and I said that is part of what is considered dark matter, the missing baryonic matter. So now that we find some, it's not so "dark"... Add to this, I never disputed undiscovered matter...some of which is now discovered. That's all 'dark matter' is, the classifications don't matter. Again - not interested in your poor excuses. I'm interested in evidence. Quote to me the section of the article that supports you Dark Matter claim. Pull on the big boy pants for a change and prove your claim. And yes Dark Matter is clearly not Ordinary matter else there wouldn't be two names for it. I'd call you a retard as you did me, but I have more respect for retards than to insult them by associating you with their handicap.

Again, stop being a retard. Read the damn WIKI:

"In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a type of matter hypothesized to account for a large part of the total mass in the universe. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level.[1] Instead, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large scale structure of the universe. Dark matter is estimated to constitute 84% of the matter in the universe and 23% of the mass-energy."

This means ANY missing "mass" is considered dark matter until it is actually "found".