Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6071 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
» Home
» Features
» News
» Forums
» Classifieds
» Links
» Downloads
Extras
» OS4 Zone
» IRC Network
» AmigaWorld Radio
» Newsfeed
» Top Members
» Amiga Dealers
Information
» About Us
» FAQs
» Advertise
» Polls
» Terms of Service
» Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
8 crawler(s) on-line.
 119 guest(s) on-line.
 1 member(s) on-line.


 OlafS25

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 OlafS25:  20 secs ago
 outlawal2:  20 mins ago
 AndreasM:  23 mins ago
 sibbi:  32 mins ago
 saimo:  46 mins ago
 DiscreetFX:  47 mins ago
 vox:  58 mins ago
 kolla:  1 hr 9 mins ago
 Mr_DBUG:  1 hr 10 mins ago
 Gunnar:  1 hr 49 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Free For All
      /  Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 Next Page )
PosterThread
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 2-Nov-2012 11:11:20
#2661 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@olegil

Quote:

Lou is also trying to make it sound like confirming frame-dragging negates the work of Einstein, while in fact Einsteins theory of general relativity predicts it in the first place.
From what I read here your assertion is correct.

I wonder if Lou's problem is one of misunderstanding. Frame-dragging indeed confirms the "magnetic" property of Gravitomagnetism However (and why I used quotes) is the "magentism" property of Gravitomagnetism is analogus to the magnetism within Electo-Magneism. But, not the same. The confusion of claiming them to be one in the same appears to be, at least one, a cause to Lous's inflation of an unproven postulate to answer the Theory of Everything.

Last edited by BrianK on 02-Nov-2012 at 11:39 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 2-Nov-2012 15:33:57
#2662 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@olegil

Quote:

Lou is also trying to make it sound like confirming frame-dragging negates the work of Einstein, while in fact Einsteins theory of general relativity predicts it in the first place.
From what I read here your assertion is correct.

I wonder if Lou's problem is one of misunderstanding. Frame-dragging indeed confirms the "magnetic" property of Gravitomagnetism However (and why I used quotes) is the "magentism" property of Gravitomagnetism is analogus to the magnetism within Electo-Magneism. But, not the same. The confusion of claiming them to be one in the same appears to be, at least one, a cause to Lous's inflation of an unproven postulate to answer the Theory of Everything.

I am not confused. You two are confused because bigG was used by Einstein because vacuum energy exists and the reality is GR treats masses like one big ball of radius R1 with mass M1, hence a fixed mass-energy density measured locally. So even here you see why the inverse square law applied because R1 as distance increases is shrinking from R2's view of view at that rate. M1 could be a flat disc in space as long as it shielded vacuum radiation pressure from behind it, the effect would be the same as a ball/planet. This is also why larger planets are considered "less dense" hence called "gas giants" when in reality they have a large solid radius and shallow atmosphere just like earth but perphas propotionally thicker. I've explain this to you many times but your skulls are too thick.

Einstein realized bigG isn't so constant yet there it is in the THEORY you worship, which it why it fails outside of our solar system, like I've said before. The accepted value of big G is for our neck of the woods. As the resident nimrod likes to point out, VOYAGER 1 is leaving or has left our neck of the woods. The question remains - can Voyager 1 measure the energy density of the space it is travelling thru.

The fact is that Brandenburg figured out a better way to handle variable energy density but looking at the hydrogen atom, essentially unifying the forces because once you remove the 'gravitational constant' it's all based on EM...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 2-Nov-2012 16:06:39
#2663 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
This is also why larger planets are considered "less dense" hence called "gas giants" when in reality they have a large solid radius and shallow atmosphere just like earth but perphas propotionally thicker. I've explain this to you many times but your skulls are too thick.
You've explained your opinion and again failed to provide valid evidence.

Gas means a small to no solid radius and mostly gas/liquid in composition. I also linked to several scientific sites which define a gas planet as one comprised primarily of gases (hydrogen, helium, ammonia, and methane) with a small to no solid radius. I provided evidence that Jupiter (a Gas giant) is primarly gas and liquid as shown by the measures of our probing and the reaction of asteroid/meteor crashing.

Quote:
The question remains - can Voyager 1 measure the energy density of the space it is travelling thru.
The only question here is the external energy density so low it's under the measureable range for Voyager's instruments. If the density is within or above the range we'll get measures.

Quote:
The fact is that Brandenburg figured out a better way to handle variable energy density
The fact is to date this is an unproven postulate. You keep quoting Brandenburg back at us when we ask for your evidence of Brandenburg. Circular logics with only postulates do not prove your point.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 2-Nov-2012 19:35:50
#2664 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Angkor Wat canals Seen on satellite pictures appear to be filled in canals between the quarry and build sites of these monuments. It's believed the ~2 ton sandstone blocks were floated to their site.

It'd appear that aliens built these cuz they are only visible to satellites so therefore they must have only been thought of by aliens.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 2-Nov-2012 20:51:59
#2665 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
This is also why larger planets are considered "less dense" hence called "gas giants" when in reality they have a large solid radius and shallow atmosphere just like earth but perphas propotionally thicker. I've explain this to you many times but your skulls are too thick.
You've explained your opinion and again failed to provide valid evidence.

Gas means a small to no solid radius and mostly gas/liquid in composition. I also linked to several scientific sites which define a gas planet as one comprised primarily of gases (hydrogen, helium, ammonia, and methane) with a small to no solid radius. I provided evidence that Jupiter (a Gas giant) is primarly gas and liquid as shown by the measures of our probing and the reaction of asteroid/meteor crashing.

Actually, it is you who have provided no evidence of Jupiter being a gas giant. I have linked pictures of comets hitting Jupiter and *shock* *horror* the planet retained it's SOLID shape. In fact, gas is found all over the universe in no particular form and quite disperse. These 'gas giant' planets actually defy the rest of the universe according to the CRAP you worship.

Once again, you accept ancient textbooks at face value while throwing out newer more reasonable theories simply because it's not what they told you in school.

Quote:

Quote:
The fact is that Brandenburg figured out a better way to handle variable energy density
The fact is to date this is an unproven postulate. You keep quoting Brandenburg back at us when we ask for your evidence of Brandenburg. Circular logics with only postulates do not prove your point.

Right, because general relativity is a proven postulate despite the inclusion of the biggest blunder of someone's career, right?

Last edited by Lou on 02-Nov-2012 at 08:52 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 2-Nov-2012 20:54:45
#2666 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote:
@Nimrod

Lou is also trying to make it sound like confirming frame-dragging negates the work of Einstein, while in fact Einsteins theory of general relativity predicts it in the first place.

Perhaps you need to learn what the work of Einstein actually is and how HE HIMSELF said general relativity is incomplete and includes his biggest blunder and what that blunder was supposed to represent.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 2-Nov-2012 20:55:32
#2667 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
You still have no idea what you are talking about and always changing parameters.
The accusation of changing parameters coming from somebody who claims to believe two mutually contradictory postulates is quite frankly ridiculous. The only one who persistently moves the goalposts while either refusing to attempt to produce evidence, or dishonestly claiming to have produced evidence is the same deluded individual who is proud of his unwillingness to ever investigate a claim, preferring to simply parrot any and every conspiracy nutjob and snake oil salesman that has a book to sell. This is evidenced by your original claim of "evidence of giants" that turned out to be an entry to a photoshop competition, and all of the "photograpic evidence" of Nibiru's impending arrival that turned out to be lens flare or reflections off windows. To make matters worse you then celebrated a decision to teach religious gogma in science classes as "progress".

Quote:
Gravity Probe B confirmed frame-dragging. Once you understand what that means then come back to me.
There is a clue to what Gravity Probe B was measuring in the name of the probe, but it is probably too complex for you to understand. Just as it is too complex for you to realise that "analogous to magnetism", and "magnetic attraction" are not the same thing

Nimrods will be nimrods...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 2-Nov-2012 23:13:13
#2668 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
Actually, it is you who have provided no evidence of Jupiter being a gas giant
Jupiter is primary Hydrogen by Cassini and Helium LINK Because science classifies objects comprised of Hydrogen and Helium as 'gas' this is a Gas planet. Because it's concentration of Oxygen is as a trace element it does not get classified as 'icy'. Because it's carbon concentration is also a trace element it does not get classified as a 'rock'. Galileo's gravitational measures detected what may be a solid core that comprises about 10% of the entire mass of the planet and of unknown materials. LINK Even if that was all carbon it wouldn't give the planet a rock classification such as that as earth.

Quote:
I have linked pictures of comets hitting Jupiter and *shock* *horror* the planet retained it's SOLID shape.
Galileo saw hydrogen and helium ejected above the planet's atmosphere. More properly stated the planet retained it's SPHERICAL shape. Solid isn't a shape.

Quote:
Once again, you accept ancient textbooks at face value
Once again you pull bullshit claims out of your ass. View the links previously and above we're talking the 1980s-2000 observations. The last part of the 20th century and first part of the 21st Century - hardly ancient.

I suggest you put up your evidence! Let us compare. You've done so with stunning failure to date and I expect you to be unable and try to dance more semantics then actually use common definitions and evidence.

Quote:
because general relativity is a proven postulate
General Relatively is clearly not the beat all and end all of the universe. No one claimed it was. You try to claim that Brandenburg's GEM Theory is everything. It's your statement you need to prove it. You've again failed to do so in hundreds of pages. Roll on avoiding evidence. Lou's Observed Universe

Last edited by BrianK on 02-Nov-2012 at 11:15 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 2-Nov-2012 23:19:48
#2669 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
Perhaps you need to learn what the work of Einstein actually is and how HE HIMSELF said general relativity is incomplete and includes his biggest blunder and what that blunder was supposed to represent.
Biggest Blunder may be right afterall

I like your double faced attempt here. You claim Big G to be wrong. But, just a few posts ago you told us how Big G was derived by Brandenburg and that's how you know he's right. If Big G is wrong then deriving it is mathematically interesting, but wrong too. You don't get to accept and reject Big G here. Choose 1 side.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 5-Nov-2012 4:28:57
#2670 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Warp drives, cloaking devices all possible in a new scientific paper. Physics of Necronomicon mathematically work great! The problem is there's no evidence the material actually exists.

Science and math showed my previous statement about creating workable math which may be incongruent with reality was recently demonstrated. It speaks to how incredibly important it is to indeed demonstrate those mathemathical formulas reflection of reality.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
olegil 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 5-Nov-2012 10:42:20
#2671 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 22-Aug-2003
Posts: 5895
From: Work

@BrianK

That was awesome. Both the concept and the presentation.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 5-Nov-2012 18:44:49
#2672 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou
Quote:
Perhaps you need to learn what the work of Einstein actually is and how HE HIMSELF said general relativity is incomplete and includes his biggest blunder and what that blunder was supposed to represent.
Biggest Blunder may be right afterall

I like your double faced attempt here. You claim Big G to be wrong. But, just a few posts ago you told us how Big G was derived by Brandenburg and that's how you know he's right. If Big G is wrong then deriving it is mathematically interesting, but wrong too. You don't get to accept and reject Big G here. Choose 1 side.
You actually just made yourself a laughing stock proving that you don't understand the fundamental science behind what you are linking.

I attempted to should you what bigG represented to Einstein (vacuum energy density, causing the RADIATION PRESSURE OF THE VACUUM).
I have many times over this thread told you that dark energy was a joke and that it's fluctations in vacuum energy.
I have told you bigG isn't constant.

Then you come back an link me an article that says dark energy is bigG.

I'm surrounded by idiots.

Last edited by Lou on 05-Nov-2012 at 06:46 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 5-Nov-2012 19:29:29
#2673 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
(vacuum energy density, causing the RADIATION PRESSURE OF THE VACUUM)
You keep on repeating this baseless assertion but have yet to give any accurate mathematical backing to support it. The radiation pressure generated by 0.6J/kM3 is insufficient to account for the observed and measured effects of gravity. The radiation pressure generated by 0.6J/kM3 of free space is less than the measured radiation pressure of the sun measured out to a distance of 16.9 light hours.Before you once again claim that I am reciting obsolete information from my schooldays, this information is a result of measurements taken by a probe that hadn't even been launched when I left school, but is now in the process of leaving the solar system and is taking measurements of its environment.

Quote:
I have many times over this thread told you that dark energy was a joke and that it's fluctations in vacuum energy.
Yes Lou, I am aware that you keep repeating the same tired and unevidenced mantra. Just saying that Brandenburg claims that it is true is not evidence that it actually is true. The measured levels of vacuum energy are insufficient to produce the pressure requires to do what is claimed. The whole "vacuum pressure is the cause of gravity" scam relies on certain assumptions about the levels of vacuum energy and radiation pressure being correct, and then claim that because the assumed values for vacuum energy support the so called theory, then the theory is true which proves that the assumptions are also true. This is called circular logic, and has as much validity as the idea that you can pick yourself up by your own bootlaces.

And before you set up the straw man that I do not believe in vacuum energy, just remember these two caveats.
1) Belief is irrelevant. If I stop believing in the laws of aerodynamics, it will not cause aircraft to fall out of the sky.
2) If, as you claim, I disbelieve in the existence of vacuum energy, how do you explain my continual quoting its measured value of 0.6J/kM3?

Quote:
I'm surrounded by idiots.
Only when you are trawling the web for all of the C.R.A.P. that you keep spewing forth on these pages. Here you are surrounded by rational skeptics. We read your posts, we assess your posts, we investigate your posts, and then we treat your posts with all of the respect that they deserve.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 5-Nov-2012 20:50:27
#2674 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
(vacuum energy density, causing the RADIATION PRESSURE OF THE VACUUM)
You keep on repeating this baseless assertion but have yet to give any accurate mathematical backing to support it. The radiation pressure generated by 0.6J/kM3 is insufficient to account for the observed and measured effects of gravity. The radiation pressure generated by 0.6J/kM3 of free space is less than the measured radiation pressure of the sun measured out to a distance of 16.9 light hours.Before you once again claim that I am reciting obsolete information from my schooldays, this information is a result of measurements taken by a probe that hadn't even been launched when I left school, but is now in the process of leaving the solar system and is taking measurements of its environment.

Stop being a nimrod.
Look at Einstein's equation.
Look at all the approxiations it does such as using point-masses and recall that the word "relativity" is used it it's name. This is because "force" required units so some of this units got thrown into G since the other two are mass and distance. I know you're a nimrod so perhaps you didn't realize that bigG is constant of proportionality and not an absolute value.

Quote:

Quote:
I have many times over this thread told you that dark energy was a joke and that it's fluctations in vacuum energy.
Yes Lou, I am aware that you keep repeating the same tired and unevidenced mantra. Just saying that Brandenburg claims that it is true is not evidence that it actually is true. The measured levels of vacuum energy are insufficient to produce the pressure requires to do what is claimed. The whole "vacuum pressure is the cause of gravity" scam relies on certain assumptions about the levels of vacuum energy and radiation pressure being correct, and then claim that because the assumed values for vacuum energy support the so called theory, then the theory is true which proves that the assumptions are also true. This is called circular logic, and has as much validity as the idea that you can pick yourself up by your own bootlaces.

the only scam going on here is you scamming your own mind of real information

Quote:
And before you set up the straw man that I do not believe in vacuum energy, just remember these two caveats.
1) Belief is irrelevant. If I stop believing in the laws of aerodynamics, it will not cause aircraft to fall out of the sky.
2) If, as you claim, I disbelieve in the existence of vacuum energy, how do you explain my continual quoting its measured value of 0.6J/kM3?

You call yourself a nimrod. I have nothing to set up after that.

Quote:

Quote:
I'm surrounded by idiots.
Only when you are trawling the web for all of the C.R.A.P. that you keep spewing forth on these pages. Here you are surrounded by rational skeptics. We read your posts, we assess your posts, we investigate your posts, and then we treat your posts with all of the respect that they deserve.

rational skeptics with little knowlege

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 5-Nov-2012 21:14:39
#2675 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Actually, it is you who have provided no evidence of Jupiter being a gas giant
Jupiter is primary Hydrogen by Cassini and Helium LINK Because science classifies objects comprised of Hydrogen and Helium as 'gas' this is a Gas planet. Because it's concentration of Oxygen is as a trace element it does not get classified as 'icy'. Because it's carbon concentration is also a trace element it does not get classified as a 'rock'. Galileo's gravitational measures detected what may be a solid core that comprises about 10% of the entire mass of the planet and of unknown materials. LINK Even if that was all carbon it wouldn't give the planet a rock classification such as that as earth.

Quote:
I have linked pictures of comets hitting Jupiter and *shock* *horror* the planet retained it's SOLID shape.
Galileo saw hydrogen and helium ejected above the planet's atmosphere. More properly stated the planet retained it's SPHERICAL shape. Solid isn't a shape.

Quote:
Once again, you accept ancient textbooks at face value
Once again you pull bullshit claims out of your ass. View the links previously and above we're talking the 1980s-2000 observations. The last part of the 20th century and first part of the 21st Century - hardly ancient.

I suggest you put up your evidence! Let us compare. You've done so with stunning failure to date and I expect you to be unable and try to dance more semantics then actually use common definitions and evidence.


That's Shoemaker hitting Jupiter. Considering Jupiter's atmosphere contains alot of ionized gas, I doubt any "measurements" have gone too deep into the atmosphere. Meanwhile, observations DO NOT match both theory or data.

I suspect you need to actually buy a clue.

Quote:

Quote:
because general relativity is a proven postulate
General Relatively is clearly not the beat all and end all of the universe. No one claimed it was. You try to claim that Brandenburg's GEM Theory is everything. It's your statement you need to prove it. You've again failed to do so in hundreds of pages. Roll on avoiding evidence. Lou's Observed Universe

Stop trying to back-track on general relativity. You accept what was told to you in a text book and live and breathe it with every inaccurate CRAPtastic General Relativity-based counter-explanation. Don't say it's not the best then use it to call me a liar who is spreading CRAP. CRAP is what you believe and I'm the one refining it into something better.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
olegil 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 5-Nov-2012 21:17:05
#2676 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 22-Aug-2003
Posts: 5895
From: Work

@Lou

You keep referring to bigG. Are you sure you're not talking about lambda? The cosmological constant? That's the one Einstein didn't like having put in there... And it's not a proportional constant, unlike G.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 5-Nov-2012 21:40:13
#2677 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@olegil

Quote:
That was awesome. Both the concept and the presentation.
Glad you liked it. Scientists have the best humor. The problem is their audience is so small. The deadpan humor of a serious take on an important, but often not read, horror writer simply flies over the heads of many.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 5-Nov-2012 22:19:10
#2678 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Nimrod did a good job of response of your duplicitous acceptance of Big G to prove you're right and rejection of Big G to prove you're right, I don't think I need to add more.

Quote:
That's Shoemaker hitting Jupiter. Considering Jupiter's atmosphere contains alot of ionized gas, I doubt any "measurements" have gone too deep into the atmosphere. Meanwhile, observations DO NOT match both theory or data.
Here you are claiming that Jupiter has inadequate study. Fair enough if you want to claim that. Do note that 'not enough study' doesn't mean solid. 'Not enough study' means 'we don't know'.

However bad our measures are it turns out that Jupiter is the most extensively studied out of all of the Gas Giants. Along with earth based observations we have Galileo, Cassini, and the Infrared Space Observatory. Which is where the ~10% at most rock comes from. And why it's thought to be mostly superfluid.

Quote:
Stop trying to back-track on general relativity.
No one's back tracking on General Relativity. I've constantly said it's the best Theory we have to date and we know it's lacking. I've constantly said it's better than Newton but the quantum level still hasn't been fully overlaid. This is one large area in process. I wanted to be clear because you made it seem like there could be nothing else. There, can, of course be something else. However, that something else doesn't just get postulated and accepted. (As you do with Brandenburg.) That something else must be postulated and evidenced so we might understand if and how we can accept it. (Which we've asked for and you've failed to do.)

Quote:
I'm the one refining it into something better.
It's not better. Why? There's no evidence to demonstrate it better -- for example Brandenburg has made any accurate predictions or forwarded us anywhere we weren't prior to his postulates. Along with which it does evidence (Haramein noteably) is wrong when overlaid to reality. Which means he does a worse job. Then some is just plain wrong, such as people hacking into government records which were so accurate they tell us 10 years ago that we'll have anti-gravity in 7 years. Again none of this, to date, has proven any better.

But you can do this! All you need to do is provide us 1 area that was a direct result of Brandenburg. What evidence exists for his statement. (We'll skip over your claim he proved 'BigG' as you just told us 'BigG' was a blunder. So we'll take that Brandenburg replicated a blunder. That clearly wasn't better.) So back to again what you're missing... EVIDENCE?

Last edited by BrianK on 06-Nov-2012 at 01:09 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 6-Nov-2012 16:20:04
#2679 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
perhaps you didn't realize that bigG is constant of proportionality and not an absolute value.
This assumption, like all of its predecessors, is based on a false premise.

Quote:
the only scam going on here is you scamming your own mind of real information
The only real information that is being ignored is the measured value of vacuum energy. It is 0.6J/kM3. This measured value does not match Brandenburgs assumed value that he uses to make his equations balance when "proving" that it is all Clearly RAdiation Pressure

Fudging the maths doesn't work in this case, any better than it did when you tried to get away with using c=1.049 x 10^6. as opposed to its traditional value of 3 x 10^8


Please note:- figures used are rounded to reasonable levels of precision and are not intended as absolute final answers.

Last edited by Nimrod on 07-Nov-2012 at 01:20 PM.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 8-Nov-2012 14:52:07
#2680 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote:
@Lou

You keep referring to bigG. Are you sure you're not talking about lambda? The cosmological constant? That's the one Einstein didn't like having put in there... And it's not a proportional constant, unlike G.


A quote from the wiki:

"The constant of proportionality, G, is the gravitational constant."

END QUOTE

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle