@a big giant nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @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.

Everything you learned in school has already been superceded and/or corrected. Black holes are just the beginning. Even the Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle has just been slapped around. This is why I keep telling you to buy a clue into "modern physics" because you are no where near it.

@physics noobs and nimrods

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002145754.htm

"The new study is based on a previous discovery by Li and collaborators in 2008 where they found that nanoscale light conduits can be used to generate a strong enough optical force with light to mechanically move the optical waveguide (channel of information that carries light). In the new device, the researchers found that this force of light is so strong that the mechanical property of the device can be dominated completely by the optical effect rather than its own mechanical structure."

@Lou

Quote:

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".

Wiki syas 'dark matter cannot be directly seen.' Yet the Chandra Observatory telescope directly saw this matter as a gas cloud. And probably why the article doesn't call this Dark Matter but instead labels it Ordinary Matter. Again RTFA. Retards are waiting for you to make the intellectual leap up to that level.

Last edited by BrianK on 03-Oct-2012 at 07:33 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002145754.htm "The new study is based on a previous discovery by Li and collaborators in 2008 where they found that nanoscale light conduits can be used to generate a strong enough optical force with light to mechanically move the optical waveguide (channel of information that carries light). In the new device, the researchers found that this force of light is so strong that the mechanical property of the device can be dominated completely by the optical effect rather than its own mechanical structure."

Wow an effect of light being able to push stuff. Just like I, and Nimrod, confirmed pages and pages ago. In this case light can flip a switch that's small (a few 10-20 nm), weights is very light (what's a few ten thousand atoms). The problem before you is the same one you've not overcome since day one. Prove it scales. How many photons did it take to move 10K atoms. How many will it take to move the earth (~10^80 atoms) and how many does the sun push out? Or more fairly how many strike the earth from the sun? (Though note science has already done this as we've measured the Radiative Pressure on the earth as ~9 µPa. But, you're welcome to work this out and present something useable.)

Last edited by BrianK on 04-Oct-2012 at 03:59 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Everything you learned in school has already been superceded and/or corrected.

Yes Lou, I know. When I left school a "pocket calculator was a small slide rule or a book of log tables, and reports were written up using a typewriter and carbon paper. Although the world had passed the mythological "five computers worldwide, the concept of a computer in the home was pure science fiction. My first job was in a research laboratory, testing and maintaining the equipment used by scientists to bring about some of these changes. Far from ignoring or opposing the advances, I have done my little bit to help the changes get proved.

Quote:

Even the Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle has just been slapped around.

Are you absolutely certain about that?
Sorry, I just couldnt resist that one. Seriously though, although advances in modern technology and measuring accuracy have led to Heisenberg is being stressed, the jury is still out on whether it can be exploited to any extent.

Quote:

This is why I keep telling you to buy a clue into "modern physics"

Just because something can be referred to as "modern" it is not exempted from the burden of proof. The mathematics has to work, and the results of the mathematics have to be consistent with obbservations. You point out (quite correctly) that the calculations for mass and energy in the universe showed a discrepancy to what has been observed to date, however as methods of observation improve matter(and energ) are being found in all of the places that theories put forward by real scientists state they should be.

Quote:

"The new study is based on a previous discovery by Li and collaborators in 2008 where they found that nanoscale light conduits can be used to generate a strong enough optical force with light to mechanically move the optical waveguide

Just out of curiousity, are you aware of what the word nanoscale implies. Here is a free clue, it doesn't mean colossal.

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

@Nimrod and @Lou

Ancient Aliens Debunked I haven't watched it all yet. The first 15 minutes, which I did watch, seemed well approached and documented.

@Lou

Another UFO that wasn't. LINK

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Everything you learned in school has already been superceded and/or corrected. Yes Lou, I know. When I left school a "pocket calculator was a small slide rule or a book of log tables, and reports were written up using a typewriter and carbon paper. Although the world had passed the mythological "five computers worldwide, the concept of a computer in the home was pure science fiction. My first job was in a research laboratory, testing and maintaining the equipment used by scientists to bring about some of these changes. Far from ignoring or opposing the advances, I have done my little bit to help the changes get proved. Quote: Even the Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle has just been slapped around. Are you absolutely certain about that? Sorry, I just couldnt resist that one. Seriously though, although advances in modern technology and measuring accuracy have led to Heisenberg is being stressed, the jury is still out on whether it can be exploited to any extent. Quote: This is why I keep telling you to buy a clue into "modern physics" Just because something can be referred to as "modern" it is not exempted from the burden of proof. The mathematics has to work, and the results of the mathematics have to be consistent with obbservations. You point out (quite correctly) that the calculations for mass and energy in the universe showed a discrepancy to what has been observed to date, however as methods of observation improve matter(and energ) are being found in all of the places that theories put forward by real scientists state they should be. Quote: "The new study is based on a previous discovery by Li and collaborators in 2008 where they found that nanoscale light conduits can be used to generate a strong enough optical force with light to mechanically move the optical waveguide Just out of curiousity, are you aware of what the word nanoscale implies. Here is a free clue, it doesn't mean colossal.

Yes, I know what the nanoscale is, now do you know what multiplication is? and pressure? You don't feel most of it because you are near equilibrium. Submerged in water, does the pressure of the water feel different at your head versus your toes? It is pressure differences that induce movement...and why the 'gravitational effect' is so weak.

@Lou

Quote:

Yes, I know what the nanoscale is, now do you know what multiplication is? and pressure? You don't feel most of it because you are near equilibrium. Submerged in water, does the pressure of the water feel different at your head versus your toes? It is pressure differences that induce movement...and why the 'gravitational effect' is so weak.

With the right tools we can measure this. Because I broke an eardrum water skiing and by infection I'm very sensitive to pressure changes in that ear. So yes the pressure does feel different to me between my head and toes.

Good question why 'gravitation' is the weakest force. Interesting enough the Strong forces overcome Electrostatic repulsion. Yet we don't know why the EM force is weaker than Strong, either. Though we can tell that they are.

It appears what happens (note a bit simplified) in interactions is the Strong force dominates the nanoscale. When those energies are tied up reacting it allows the Weak forces to emerge as dominate at a slightly larger scale. When those energies are tied up reacting it allows the EM forces to emerge as dominate (again at a larger scale) When those energies are tied up reacting it allows the Gravitational force to emerge as dominate (at even a larger scale). Since we don't know how to shield gravity and because it's only attractive it has unique effects that the other forces do not. (Including unique to RP which Borg admits BTW and tries to mathematically get around but he lacks observational evidence or experimentation to validate his postulate.) One reason we consider it a Fundamental Force is, of course, those unique differences in interactions.

@physics noobs and general worshippers of relativity

All hail your god "Einstein":
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-einstein.s-23-biggest-mistakes

Pay particular attention to #16 on this list and follow the link.

Some years after publishing the THEORY of general relativity, Einstein knew it was not complete and not right. The main reason for this is because he realized G is not a constant! I have also in a prior post provided you with over 100 years of data showing varying measured values for G. Yet, this admittedly flawed theory is the basis of your [Gravity is god] religion.

A thread or two ago, I told you GR uses too many fixed constants that are not actually constant and is nothing but a shortcut that works good enough in local space.

Where is the evidence for general relativity? I've given you the evidence against it. I keep getting no evidence for it back. In the satellite where NASA sensed an extra gravitational "pull", the determination of the source was radiation pressure from the engines...hmmm... Casimir effect....hmmm.....

Many a physics noob is still not familiar with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism (aka GEM). They are only familiar with the 'gravity' as a gravitoelectic effect and not aware of the gravitomagnetic effect. Do do some reading and notice the comparison to rotational fluid drag. All Brandenburg did is take it one step further with his GEM Unification Theory. He also didn't assume G to be constant like everyone else does (including initially Einstein who regretted that later).

Oh look, someone else if proposing a GEM Unified field theory:
http://theworld.com/~sweetser/quaternions/gravity/em2gem/em2gem.html
"The GEM action is to a surprising degree exactly what Einstein searched for over the last half of his life."

Some background info on Kaluza–Klein theory:
http://www.rtbot.net/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory

@Lou

Quote:

Pay particular attention to #16 on this list and follow the link.

YAWN! I've talked about the 'Theory of Everything' which is something scientists are trying to work towards which resolves exactly that problem. The scientists know this and have named that which will supercede Einstein. We simply don't know what that is yet. There is inadequate observerable evidence to validate one final 'ToE'. But, if one exists science, above anything else, will get us there. Alas the problem is really do to your reading and/or comprehension skills as you aren't following what was said.

Quote:

Where is the evidence for general relativity? I've given you the evidence against it.

You decided to argue it better to sit on your lazyboy then follow this when provided. It's a false assertion claiming none was provided to you. I hope you realize that your lying doesn't help an open and free discusion.

GEM? I think your link says it best
"Incomplete understanding of the meaning of the similarity of the gravitomagnetic formulas, above, and Maxwell's equations for (real) electricity and magnetism have given rise to fringe physics."
AKA what we've been telling you all along. There's inadequate observational evidence to fully embrace this at this time. Nor have you been able to provide us the observational validated repeatable evidence that your sources have it right. In fact Haramein and Borg have some different postulates to how this work and they appear to be conflicting. We can't accept either as true until adquate evidence exists.


Did you read on in your link where it states that Gravitoelectormagnetism and GEM are different for Gravitoelectromagnetism doesn't do things like make anti-gravity devices work where GEM does? So even now you have two sets of postulates and which is right depends on EVIDENCE. Which again you fail to present.

As I said I'm here and open to anything. But, when you don't bring anything to review other than a set of ideas with a severe lack of observational evidence all we can say is nice ideas. Do the science to demonstrate which one of them true!

Last edited by BrianK on 04-Oct-2012 at 06:47 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

All hail your god "Einstein":

Please allow me to offer my congratulations on a successful attack on a straw man. Nobody has claimed that Einstein was some kind of infallible deity. Einsteins theories were accepted because they were better than their predecessors, not because they were newer. When a theory comes along that is better than Einsteins then that too will become the accepted "truth" for the time being. It is called progress.

To date none of the CRAP that you have postulated has given a better explanation of how the universe works, and some of it is not only not better it is also not newer.

Quote:

In the satellite where NASA sensed an extra gravitational "pull", the determination of the source was radiation pressure from the engines...hmmm... Casimir effect....hmmm.....

This is also true, but you again overlook the evidence of scale the radiation pressure from a range of a few inches (minimal dissipation by inverse square law) has been minuscule. As was the influence of radiation pressure on a 68 million tonne asteroid. The effect of radiation pressure peaked at 14 grammes. Also "casimir effect" exists between two parallel plates

Quote:

Many a physics noob is still not familiar with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism

And many an illiterate overlooks statements such as "No scaling choice allows all the GEM and EM equations to be perfectly analogous." as a result GEM only survives because of constant fudging and falsifying the figures. The statement from the article "The two sets of equations then become identical but for the minus sign preceding 4π in the GEM equations and a factor of four in Ampere's law." says all it needs to . Simplified this says that they are identical except for the differences, and something that is identical except for the differences is simply different

Quote:

"The GEM action is to a surprising degree exactly what Einstein searched for over the last half of his life."

The fact that Einstein wanted unification does not mean that unification is possible, just as Einstein wanting a steady state universe did not mean that expansion was not occuring.

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

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Pay particular attention to #16 on this list and follow the link. YAWN! I've talked about the 'Theory of Everything' which is something scientists are trying to work towards which resolves exactly that problem. The scientists know this and have named that which will supercede Einstein. We simply don't know what that is yet. There is inadequate observerable evidence to validate one final 'ToE'. But, if one exists science, above anything else, will get us there. Alas the problem is really do to your reading and/or comprehension skills as you aren't following what was said. Quote: Where is the evidence for general relativity? I've given you the evidence against it. You decided to argue it better to sit on your lazyboy then follow this when provided. It's a false assertion claiming none was provided to you. I hope you realize that your lying doesn't help an open and free discusion. GEM? I think your link says it best "Incomplete understanding of the meaning of the similarity of the gravitomagnetic formulas, above, and Maxwell's equations for (real) electricity and magnetism have given rise to fringe physics." AKA what we've been telling you all along. There's inadequate observational evidence to fully embrace this at this time. Nor have you been able to provide us the observational validated repeatable evidence that your sources have it right. In fact Haramein and Borg have some different postulates to how this work and they appear to be conflicting. We can't accept either as true until adquate evidence exists. Did you read on in your link where it states that Gravitoelectormagnetism and GEM are different for Gravitoelectromagnetism doesn't do things like make anti-gravity devices work where GEM does? So even now you have two sets of postulates and which is right depends on EVIDENCE. Which again you fail to present. As I said I'm here and open to anything. But, when you don't bring anything to review other than a set of ideas with a severe lack of observational evidence all we can say is nice ideas. Do the science to demonstrate which one of them true!

First don't confuse GEM with "The GEM Unification Theory". The unification theory uses GEM as a basis because modern science has determined 'gravity' has a magnetic component. Brandenburg shows the intricate interweaving of Einstein’s work with that of other physicists, including Sarkharov and his “zero point” theory of gravity and the hidden fifth dimension of Kaluza and Klein.

Brandenburg's theory is more complete than the others I've mention because it uses a mathematical value for G, rather than permeating Einstein's error.

If you want to learn more, I have offered mailing you my copy in the past, but I'm pretty sure you could afford it on your own...

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: All hail your god "Einstein": Please allow me to offer my congratulations on a successful attack on a straw man. Nobody has claimed that Einstein was some kind of infallible deity. Einsteins theories were accepted because they were better than their predecessors, not because they were newer. When a theory comes along that is better than Einsteins then that too will become the accepted "truth" for the time being. It is called progress. To date none of the CRAP that you have postulated has given a better explanation of how the universe works, and some of it is not only not better it is also not newer. Quote: In the satellite where NASA sensed an extra gravitational "pull", the determination of the source was radiation pressure from the engines...hmmm... Casimir effect....hmmm..... This is also true, but you again overlook the evidence of scale the radiation pressure from a range of a few inches (minimal dissipation by inverse square law) has been minuscule. As was the influence of radiation pressure on a 68 million tonne asteroid. The effect of radiation pressure peaked at 14 grammes. Also "casimir effect" exists between two parallel plates Quote: Many a physics noob is still not familiar with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism And many an illiterate overlooks statements such as "No scaling choice allows all the GEM and EM equations to be perfectly analogous." as a result GEM only survives because of constant fudging and falsifying the figures. The statement from the article "The two sets of equations then become identical but for the minus sign preceding 4π in the GEM equations and a factor of four in Ampere's law." says all it needs to . Simplified this says that they are identical except for the differences, and something that is identical except for the differences is simply different Quote: "The GEM action is to a surprising degree exactly what Einstein searched for over the last half of his life." The fact that Einstein wanted unification does not mean that unification is possible, just as Einstein wanting a steady state universe did not mean that expansion was not occuring.

Like the illiterate physics noob that you are, you are confusing GEM with a theory which enhances GEM called "GEM Unified Field Theory".

I love your claim of "progress" when all you've done here is defend Einstein's self-admitted CRAP! In this case Brandenburg=progress.

Last edited by Lou on 04-Oct-2012 at 07:51 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

you are confusing GEM with a theory which enhances GEM called "GEM Unified Field Theory".

GEM is fatally flawed by virtue of its need for constant and persistent fudging of the ratios, and as a result this flaw will carry through to anything that is based on GEM. Enhancing GEM through "GEM Unified Field Theory" is nothing more than polishing a turd.
Unlike Brandenburgs so called "theories" Einstein made improvements on what was there previously. Brandenburgs mathematics are based on assumptions that do not match experimental results by several orders of magnitude. This means that either the universe has got it wrong, or Brandenburg has. My money is on Brandenburg to lose.

Quote:

Brandenburg=progress

Newtons theories from the 17th century were sufficiently accurate to plot a safe return to Earth for the Apollo 13 crew, but failed on calculating the orbit of Mercury. Einsteins theories "stabilised" Mercurys orbit calculations, and were accurate enough to eventually demonstrate that a discrepancy existed in the amount of matter and energy available in the universe. Improvements in technology mean that some of the missing portion of matter and energy has been detected, although I will admit that not all has been accounted for. This is work in progress. Brandenburg on the other hand is less accurate even than Newtons predecessors, and represents a retreat from knowledge.

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

@Lou

Quote:

First don't confuse GEM with "The GEM Unification Theory". The unification theory uses GEM as a basis because modern science has determined 'gravity' has a magnetic component

Modern science has NOT determined 'gravity' having a magentic component. Complete BS! Perhaps fringe has some claims. But, when people use 'modern science' they're talking mainstream not fringe elements.

Quote:

Brandenburg=progress

The ever IMPORTANT distinction here is that to make progress you must have evidence. You have provided no such experimental evidence outside of Brandenburg's self published paper (aka postulate) that this is true. That's not progress. At best it's potential progress.

Last edited by BrianK on 04-Oct-2012 at 09:14 PM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

GEM is fatally flawed by virtue of its need for constant and persistent fudging of the ratios, and as a result this flaw will carry through to anything that is based on GEM. Enhancing GEM through "GEM Unified Field Theory" is nothing more than polishing a turd.

If you don't mind I wanted to comment that Lou appears to not understand he made his job harder. First we have a set of unproven GEM claims. He's got to prove that stuff works. Second we have GEM UFT, which is work that collects GEM plus adds other postulates on top. He's got another whole set of postulates to prove that stuff works. In short he's supported an unproven set of postulates on an unproven set of postulates. The universe is just turtles all the way down...

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: you are confusing GEM with a theory which enhances GEM called "GEM Unified Field Theory". GEM is fatally flawed by virtue of its need for constant and persistent fudging of the ratios, and as a result this flaw will carry through to anything that is based on GEM. Enhancing GEM through "GEM Unified Field Theory" is nothing more than polishing a turd. Unlike Brandenburgs so called "theories" Einstein made improvements on what was there previously. Brandenburgs mathematics are based on assumptions that do not match experimental results by several orders of magnitude. This means that either the universe has got it wrong, or Brandenburg has. My money is on Brandenburg to lose. Quote: Brandenburg=progress Newtons theories from the 17th century were sufficiently accurate to plot a safe return to Earth for the Apollo 13 crew, but failed on calculating the orbit of Mercury. Einsteins theories "stabilised" Mercurys orbit calculations, and were accurate enough to eventually demonstrate that a discrepancy existed in the amount of matter and energy available in the universe. Improvements in technology mean that some of the missing portion of matter and energy has been detected, although I will admit that not all has been accounted for. This is work in progress. Brandenburg on the other hand is less accurate even than Newtons predecessors, and represents a retreat from knowledge.

First, I should point out that GEM is the new modern version of 'gravity'. GEM explains frame-dragging. You, as usual are just still clinnging on to ancient science. As for Brandenburg, as you have yet to fully review his work, you really have no basis for an educated opinion - as usual, that won't stop you from having an uneducated one which would be par for the course...

Secondly - oh look, more dark matter: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121005082539.htm

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: First don't confuse GEM with "The GEM Unification Theory". The unification theory uses GEM as a basis because modern science has determined 'gravity' has a magnetic component Modern science has NOT determined 'gravity' having a magentic component. Complete BS! Perhaps fringe has some claims. But, when people use 'modern science' they're talking mainstream not fringe elements.

It seems you don't understand what this magnetic component entails. It is responsible for frame-dragging. You should really read more before pulling out the BS flag.

Quote:

Quote: Brandenburg=progress The ever IMPORTANT distinction here is that to make progress you must have evidence. You have provided no such experimental evidence outside of Brandenburg's self published paper (aka postulate) that this is true. That's not progress. At best it's potential progress.

Right, just like when I asked for evidence of general relativity and you were right there with it, right? Especially after it's author admitted to fudging in a 'gravitational constant'. So what you worship are postulates proven to be wrong. Then you assume, while not knowing anything about GEM Unification Theory, that it cannot be more correct than the blatantly errored theory you worship despite evolving from it and other proven concepts from other established scientists without the 'fixed gravitational constant'-fudge-factor.

Go fly a kite.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Nimrod Quote: GEM is fatally flawed by virtue of its need for constant and persistent fudging of the ratios, and as a result this flaw will carry through to anything that is based on GEM. Enhancing GEM through "GEM Unified Field Theory" is nothing more than polishing a turd. If you don't mind I wanted to comment that Lou appears to not understand he made his job harder. First we have a set of unproven GEM claims. He's got to prove that stuff works. Second we have GEM UFT, which is work that collects GEM plus adds other postulates on top. He's got another whole set of postulates to prove that stuff works. In short he's supported an unproven set of postulates on an unproven set of postulates. The universe is just turtles all the way down...

Perhaps you should look up the results of Gravity Probe B? Ring a bell? It confirmed frame-dragging.

Here's a tibit from it's wiki: "This provided a test of general relativity, gravitomagnetism and related models."
...snip...
"This is the so-called frame-dragging effect, an example of gravitomagnetism. It is an analog of magnetism in classical electrodynamics, but caused by rotating masses rather than rotating electric charges."


Wait wait! Is BrianK wrong again? Say it isn't so!!!