@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou You earlier accusations baseless as typical. No need to respond to prattle. Quote: So let's recap. You proposed MOND and it's determined to be wrong but you can't discredit GEM Unification Theory If you recall I introduced MOND to you because you claimed GEM was the only answer to Dark Matter. Turns out you're wrong there's about a dozen other postulates. Science fully knows Dark Matter isn't proven. Though the math works really well. As for GEM I don't need to discredit. You asserted it so it's your job to credit it. It's to your own discredit that you've failed in that task.

"Science" has discredited MOND.
"Science" has not discredited GEM Unification Theory (as opposed to GEM, which is already proven by science).
The only discrediting of GEM Unification Theory goes on here by physics noobs who can't stand to lose on the internet.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: Double the data on LHC's Higgs shows Higgs. Kinda boring as it further confirms the Standard Model.

Yes, what it most amusing about all this collider data is that you can prove anything you want. Some people look as this laughable HIGGS 'discovery' and say it means SUSY is bonk, then other people look at collider data and say 'oh look, it's SUSY'.

I told you 100 pages ago (or so) that any energy level is possible when you artificially force these collisions. The whole process is a joke and discoveries have to be made to continue to justify funding.

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @Lou Which part is it you're doubting? A planet that can form a 22 km high volcano on it's own and has impact craters up to the size of 7km deep and 2300km diameter cannot by any stretch of your imagination blow a rock into space, is that it? And a rock in space cannot by any stretch of your imagination hit earth, that's the other problem, right? You're not very good at imagination in either case. Have you got ANY idea of the amount of energy needed to create the Hellas Planitia or Olympus Mons? Now THERE is something you'll not find us trying to explain by men moving rocks any time soon Edit: An even more likely candidate is actually the North Polar Basin, as it could very well be an impact crater as well. 40% of a planet not much smaller than Earth, that's a BIIIG BADA BOOOM. How can you even start denying the possibility of something that throwing off a few rocks that eventually hit us?

You seem to be putting words in my mouth here.
I wasn't doubting anything. I was alluding to more thoughts. See the nimrod's reply ... which of course is only half right like everything else he says...

@Niolator

Quote:

Niolator wrote: @Lou Quote: The Asteroid Belt between Mars and Jupiter is presumed to be the remnant of 'something' that was there and broke up. So how come it includes bits and pieces of matter found only in the outer reaches of the Solar System? The enigma is compounded by the fact that these strange bits and pieces contain organic-rich matter. The group's findings: These are bits and pieces of "primordial trans-Neptunian objects" left in the Asteroid Belt as orbiting 'comets' or 'cometlike objects' pass through it and collide with its asteroids, leaving behind a 'footprint'. So where is this enigma you are referring to? Matter from the outer solar system is continuously being transported inwards into the inner parts of the solar system. That they contain organic matter is nothing to be surprised about. Organic matter is practically any matter containing carbon and our solar system was created in a nebula containing vast amounts of carbon. Of course some of the matter coming in from the outer reaches is caught by and stuck in the asteroid belt. If would be a real enigma if there were no organic matter from the outer solar system in the asteroid belt. If it all came from this alleged Niburu there would be nothing left of the planet as all it's matter would have gathered in the asteroid belt over the aeons. By the way, what's with you and all the other Niburu/12th of December proponents? You all seem to want the world to end. It seems like you have a death wish or something.

For the bolded text: why are you labelling me here when I have made statements to the contrary?

If you would read Sitchin's translation of the Epic of Creation from ancient Sumerian texts: http://astrologiamedicaymtch.blogspot.mx/2011/09/so-it-was-creation-of-solar-system.html then you'll know what I'm referring to. Now keep in mind, he did this in the 70's...

As for how a Martian rock ended up here on earth, there are possibilities of natural nuclear reactors on Mars as there is/was one on earth, but what I like about Sitchin is that he ties it all together and if you were interested in that, you can do your own reading. Interestingly, John Brandenburg wrote a book about Mars and how it's surface looks like most of the planet suffered from nuclear explosions...which again corraborates Sitchin. I'm alluding to the fact that these nuclear explosions are what ejected Martian rocks into space which eventually caused them to land on earth.

http://astroreview.com/issue/2012/article/the-gem-theory-of-the-unification-of-gravitation-and-electro-magnetism

I used the term 'calculated' but the proper term is derived. A derived value for G with no free parameters which is within 1 part per thousand of the measured value.

@Lou

Quote:

Quote: Lou wrote: By the way, what's with you and all the other Niburu/12th of December proponents? You all seem to want the world to end. It seems like you have a death wish or something. For the bolded text: why are you labelling me here when I have made statements to the contrary?

I must have missed your statement. The way you write about Niburu does not indicate you not being a "follower" though.

Last edited by Niolator on 20-Nov-2012 at 05:59 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

"Science" has not discredited GEM Unification Theory

Science has not accepted your so called "GEM Unification Theory" mainly because there is no evidence offered to support it. This is exactly the same status as the original unpolished turd that you call GEM theory. In order to be discredited an idea first has to be accepted, and science has never accepted either of these ridiculous fallacies. I have demonstrated mathematical evidence that Brandenburg is making false assumptions, and I have quoted measurements demonstrating that Brandenburg is wrong. All you have done is resort to ad-hominems and kept repeating the same tired, pathetic claim in the vain hope that somebody else will be stupid enough to believe assertions over evidence.

It is your religious belief that assertions have more value than evidence that enables you to accept from the existence of a few carbon compounds an entire fantasy tale woven by a collection of mutually contradictory con artists and other dubious individuals. There really is no difference between the lies perpetrated by Von Daniken or Sitchin on the matter of ancient astronauts. There is no evidence, only a collection of lies and fabrications, intended to part the gullible from their cash.

Quote:

http://astroreview.com/issue/2012/article/the-gem-theory-of-the-unification-of-gravitation-and-electro-magnetism I used the term 'calculated' but the proper term is derived. A derived value for G with no free parameters which is within 1 part per thousand of the measured value.

No Lou, this is not a scientific corroboration of the work of J. Brandenburg, this is yet another link to the same baseless assertion being made by J. Brandenburg. I do however note from the biography at the bottom of the article that his latest book has decided to sell the idea of an asteroid impact, rather than a nuclear war as the cause of mass extinctions. He still manages to equate the phrase "may have" with absolute proof of all kinds of other baseless assertions.

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

@Lou

Quote:

"Science" has discredited MOND. "Science" has not discredited GEM Unification Theory (as opposed to GEM, which is already proven by science)

Discredit is a bit harsh. The current state of the evidence says that MOND is likely to be incomplete. And if GEM is proven why have you continued to fail at being able to provide us anything more than unproven postulates? If GEM is true you should be able to provide us that evidence.

Quote:

Yes, what it most amusing about all this collider data is that you can prove anything you want

The problem here is not the science but your lack of understanding.

Quote:

As for how a Martian rock ended up here on earth, there are possibilities of natural nuclear reactors on Mars as there is/was one on earth, but what I like about Sitchin is that he ties it all together and if you were interested in that, you can do your own reading. Interestingly, John Brandenburg wrote a book about Mars and how it's surface looks like most of the planet suffered from nuclear explosions...which again corraborates Sitchin. I'm alluding to the fact that these nuclear explosions are what ejected Martian rocks into space which eventually caused them to land on earth.

This structure is a great example of how you suppose and guess then somehow think guesses give you facts. The result is an unproved guess and a leap of faith. If you are right it's due to luck.

Quote:

I used the term 'calculated' but the proper term is derived. A derived value for G with no free parameters which is within 1 part per thousand of the measured value

You told us Einstein was wrong using Big G. Now you tell us that Big G does exist because someone calculated it? Either it's wrong or it's right it Big G is not a cat in a box. Which one will you have Big G real or unreal?


@niolater
Lou believes that Nibiru will return in 2900 because his favorite author said so. Neither the 12/21/12 believers or the 2900 believers have an iota of definitive proof that their belief is real. It'd be a nice start if we could observe this supposed planet or supposed spaceship (depends on the fiction writer). Somehow none of the Nibiru lovers can commit to using a telescope.

What results here is gross incongruent demands. One set (Nimrod and I) is a demand to know if something is real it must be mapped to reality. Lou and mikeB need only to be fanciful.

Last edited by BrianK on 21-Nov-2012 at 12:20 AM.

@Niolator

Quote:

Niolator wrote: @Lou I must have missed your statement. The way you write about Niburu does not indicate you not being a "follower" though.

How do I write about Nibiru?

Last edited by Lou on 25-Nov-2012 at 05:15 PM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: "Science" has not discredited GEM Unification Theory Science has not accepted your so called "GEM Unification Theory" mainly because there is no evidence offered to support it. This is exactly the same status as the original unpolished turd that you call GEM theory. In order to be discredited an idea first has to be accepted, and science has never accepted either of these ridiculous fallacies. I have demonstrated mathematical evidence that Brandenburg is making false assumptions, and I have quoted measurements demonstrating that Brandenburg is wrong. All you have done is resort to ad-hominems and kept repeating the same tired, pathetic claim in the vain hope that somebody else will be stupid enough to believe assertions over evidence. It is your religious belief that assertions have more value than evidence that enables you to accept from the existence of a few carbon compounds an entire fantasy tale woven by a collection of mutually contradictory con artists and other dubious individuals. There really is no difference between the lies perpetrated by Von Daniken or Sitchin on the matter of ancient astronauts. There is no evidence, only a collection of lies and fabrications, intended to part the gullible from their cash. Quote: http://astroreview.com/issue/2012/article/the-gem-theory-of-the-unification-of-gravitation-and-electro-magnetism I used the term 'calculated' but the proper term is derived. A derived value for G with no free parameters which is within 1 part per thousand of the measured value. No Lou, this is not a scientific corroboration of the work of J. Brandenburg, this is yet another link to the same baseless assertion being made by J. Brandenburg. I do however note from the biography at the bottom of the article that his latest book has decided to sell the idea of an asteroid impact, rather than a nuclear war as the cause of mass extinctions. He still manages to equate the phrase "may have" with absolute proof of all kinds of other baseless assertions.

Stop being a nimrod.
Brandenburg used to have a pen name for his science fiction. He writes both fact and fiction. He recently abandoned his pen name but apparently that cofuses nimrods like you.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: "Science" has discredited MOND. "Science" has not discredited GEM Unification Theory (as opposed to GEM, which is already proven by science) Discredit is a bit harsh. The current state of the evidence says that MOND is likely to be incomplete. And if GEM is proven why have you continued to fail at being able to provide us anything more than unproven postulates? If GEM is true you should be able to provide us that evidence.

You need to get your words straight here. When you say "GEM" do you mean GEM aka gravito-electro-magnetism, which is proven thanks to 'gravity probe B' or GEM Unification Theory as presented by John Brandenburg?

Quote:

Quote: Yes, what it most amusing about all this collider data is that you can prove anything you want The problem here is not the science but your lack of understanding.

Actually it's you that doesn't understand collider data. Many times they build detectors for specific energy levels ignoring all others. They unnaturally accelerate particles, smashing them into each other and expect to find natural results. A joke.

Quote:

Quote: As for how a Martian rock ended up here on earth, there are possibilities of natural nuclear reactors on Mars as there is/was one on earth, but what I like about Sitchin is that he ties it all together and if you were interested in that, you can do your own reading. Interestingly, John Brandenburg wrote a book about Mars and how it's surface looks like most of the planet suffered from nuclear explosions...which again corraborates Sitchin. I'm alluding to the fact that these nuclear explosions are what ejected Martian rocks into space which eventually caused them to land on earth. This structure is a great example of how you suppose and guess then somehow think guesses give you facts. The result is an unproved guess and a leap of faith. If you are right it's due to luck.

It's called corroborating theories. Which is better than your complete lack of one.

Quote:

Quote: I used the term 'calculated' but the proper term is derived. A derived value for G with no free parameters which is within 1 part per thousand of the measured value You told us Einstein was wrong using Big G. Now you tell us that Big G does exist because someone calculated it? Either it's wrong or it's right it Big G is not a cat in a box. Which one will you have Big G real or unreal?

You obviously has a short memory...or have proven yourself to be a physics noob. You clearly have no idea what G represents.

Quote:

@niolater Lou believes that Nibiru will return in 2900 because his favorite author said so. Neither the 12/21/12 believers or the 2900 believers have an iota of definitive proof that their belief is real. It'd be a nice start if we could observe this supposed planet or supposed spaceship (depends on the fiction writer). Somehow none of the Nibiru lovers can commit to using a telescope. What results here is gross incongruent demands. One set (Nimrod and I) is a demand to know if something is real it must be mapped to reality. Lou and mikeB need only to be fanciful.

Funny coming from the guy who's vision of gravity is not mapped to reality.

@Lou

Quote:

When you say "GEM" do you mean GEM aka gravito-electro-magnetism,

Gravitoelectromagnetism, abbreviated GEM, refers to a set of formal analogies between the equations for electromagnetism and relativistic gravitation. Once you have spent a few minutes learning what an analogy is you may come to realise that Gravity probe B did not prove that gravity was an electromagnetic force. Quote:

or GEM Unification Theory as presented by John Brandenburg?

You mean the one that was presented with absolutely no evidence to corroborate its assumptions, and does not remotely match the real world measurements.

Quote:

Many times they build detectors for specific energy levels ignoring all others.

A scientific theory makes specific predictions. An experiment to test that theory needs to test those specific predictions. If a chemistry experiment predicts the production of Hydrogen, you test the theory by checking the production of Hydrogen. Tests for carbon dioxide are an unnecessary expense, and are not relevant to the theory being tested. The same applies to experiments looking for the Higgs Boson, and the detectors are not exactly cheap as chips.

Quote:

It's called corroborating theories. Which is better than your complete lack of one.

The pathetic work of fiction that Sitchin produced, subequently spawned another work of fiction by Brandenburg. That doesn't make the two fantasies into a reality, any more than this star trek DS9 episode corroborates the claims made here, as proof that Klingons, really do exist. (as do tribbles, apparently). And while we are on the subject of science fiction, does your rambling on about Brandenburg as a fiction writer mean that you are conceding that the stories about martian civilizations are nothing more than stories, and that GEM Unification Theory is nothing more than an imagiative fantasy, with no connection to reality?

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

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @Niolator Quote: Niolator wrote: @Lou I must have missed your statement. The way you write about Niburu does not indicate you not being a "follower" though. How do I write about Nibiru?

I really hope you don't want me to quote all the things you have written about Niburu in this thread. Let´s drop the charade. We all know this Niburu business is just a hoax to con easily fooled people in the hopes that they will open their wallets. There is far to much stuff like that circulating on the Internet and sadly far too much people with too much money that they happily waste.

@Lou

Quote:

You need to get your words straight here. When you say "GEM" do you mean GEM aka gravito-electro-magnetism, which is proven thanks to 'gravity probe B' or GEM Unification Theory as presented by John Brandenburg?

You seemed to have lost your own assertion. While you actually included it in your post here I'll requote your statement. Quote:

Science" has not discredited GEM Unification Theory

Which I asked you why you're unable to to post the validated data showing one, like Brandenburg, as correct . You tell us it is true. You seem unable to demonstrate it.

Quote:

It's called corroborating theories. Which is better than your complete lack of one.

The problem is two theories don't demonstrate each other true. That's called invalid circular logic. Collaborating fictional theories that you ascertain are just that - two fictional stories. Just because there's been lots of writers telling us about Cthulu doesn't prove that HP Lovecraft really met him.

Quote:

You clearly have no idea what G represents.

My knowledge, or lack thereof, of BigG has no bearing on your failed logic here. You claimed we must reject BigG because Einstein called it his biggest failure. You claimed BigG didn't exist. A few pages later you proclaim Brandenburg right because he mathematically proved BigG. BigG is only a failure if it does not map to reality. You either must reject both because both use BigG. Or you must accept both because both use BigG. You can't discard one and accept one for the exact same 'BigG use'. Either it's an error or it's not.

Quote:

Funny coming from the guy who's vision of gravity is not mapped to reality.

For pages you've refused to demonstrate your math or your validated data. Until you have something to show you have no base for your trumpted up belief.

Last edited by BrianK on 26-Nov-2012 at 02:11 AM.

@Niolator

This says it best.
http://i.imgur.com/cnBO3.png

@Niolator

Quote:

Niolator wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: @Niolator [quote] How do I write about Nibiru? I really hope you don't want me to quote all the things you have written about Niburu in this thread. Let´s drop the charade. We all know this Niburu business is just a hoax to con easily fooled people in the hopes that they will open their wallets. There is far to much stuff like that circulating on the Internet and sadly far too much people with too much money that they happily waste.

The dark star theory is supported:
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/11/did-a-lost-star-torque-earths-or.html?ref=wp

Again, another instance of modern science continually proving Sitchin correct.
When you have facts (vs. the OPINIONS that the nimrod keeps turning out) contradicting Sitchin, I'd be happy to see it.

Last edited by Lou on 26-Nov-2012 at 03:44 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: You need to get your words straight here. When you say "GEM" do you mean GEM aka gravito-electro-magnetism, which is proven thanks to 'gravity probe B' or GEM Unification Theory as presented by John Brandenburg? You seemed to have lost your own assertion. While you actually included it in your post here I'll requote your statement. Quote: Science" has not discredited GEM Unification Theory Which I asked you why you're unable to to post the validated data showing one, like Brandenburg, as correct . You tell us it is true. You seem unable to demonstrate it.

I'm referring to your wording in YOUR reply. I am not confused. Your wording is incomplete. You like to nit-pick the wording in my sentences ignoring context so I am returning the favor. Your nit-picking is one of the ways you twist what I say.

Quote:

Quote: It's called corroborating theories. Which is better than your complete lack of one. The problem is two theories don't demonstrate each other true. That's called invalid circular logic. Collaborating fictional theories that you ascertain are just that - two fictional stories. Just because there's been lots of writers telling us about Cthulu doesn't prove that HP Lovecraft really met him.

So in other words you have no theory and just like to sit back and try to discredit whatever you don't like. That's exactly what I've suspected all along.

Quote:

Quote: You clearly have no idea what G represents. My knowledge, or lack thereof, of BigG has no bearing on your failed logic here. You claimed we must reject BigG because Einstein called it his biggest failure. You claimed BigG didn't exist. A few pages later you proclaim Brandenburg right because he mathematically proved BigG. BigG is only a failure if it does not map to reality. You either must reject both because both use BigG. Or you must accept both because both use BigG. You can't discard one and accept one for the exact same 'BigG use'. Either it's an error or it's not.

You continue to demonstrate the noobness of your physics knowledge. Let me spell it out for you: Einstein BLUNDERED when he designated bigG as a constant. You continue to nit-pick individual phases now to try to twist things around. I am convinced you are doing this simply to troll.

Quote:

Quote: Funny coming from the guy who's vision of gravity is not mapped to reality. For pages you've refused to demonstrate your math or your validated data. Until you have something to show you have no base for your trumpted up belief.

This coming from the guy who shows nothing but demands proof from everyone else.

I don't have to demonstrate math. I don't have an epeen to prove. In the math demonstrated by the nimrod, I have exposed errors. The math I point to is in papers. Read the damn papers as the math is there. Heck, I point to the wiki for big G and you still fail to grasp it as is obvious from the trolling you posted above.

Here's another tidbit for you that you will of course fail to grasp: local realism is false.

@trolls, physics noobs and nimrods:

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-brandenburg/14/681/BB1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3-vkI16BjF4#!

when you can hold a candle to that, call me

Last edited by Lou on 26-Nov-2012 at 04:37 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

. I am not confused. Your wording is incomplete. You like to nit-pick the wording in my sentences ignoring context so I am returning the favor

To recap: You did understand what was going on so there was no need for clarification. Instead you decided to deliberately craft a message to provoke others with the intention of wasting their time and energy or just to cause anger and confrontations.

Quote:

So in other words you have no theory and just like to sit back and try to discredit whatever you don't like

Yeah my theory is that we should be talking about evidence instead of allowing Brandenburg write fiction and have Lou proclaim it as the Biblical truth.

Quote:

I don't have to demonstrate math. I don't have an epeen to prove. In the math demonstrated by the nimrod, I have exposed errors

In order to expose errors in mathematics you must demonstrate the math. You can't do one without the other. Proclaiming Brandenburg's math is right because he has a PhD and you don't know what Nimrod's certs are is not exposing an error. It's committing a fallacy - argument from authority. Certs doesn't verify math. Math verifies math.

Last edited by BrianK on 26-Nov-2012 at 08:53 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Again, another instance of modern science continually proving Sitchin correct.

There is no science that has demonstrated that any of the fabrications of Sitchin have any relationship with the truth. Sitchin was a failed fantasist with delusions of adequacy. To sum it up Sitchin is wrong and his efforts have no more validity than those of the convicted fraudster Eric Von Daniken.

Quote:

In the math demonstrated by the nimrod, I have exposed errors.

No
You
Have
Not
You keep making this assertion, but have never yet been able to state an answer to my response
when and where
This perpetual failure demonstrates that your inability to show when and where is proof that you have not found an error in my mathematics, you merely wish that you could.
I have caught Znidarsic substituting a value 0.003C in place of C, and have also pointed to an arithmetical error in one of his calculations.
I have demonstrated one of Brandenburgs basic assumptions about the universe are patently false. The EM output of the sun varies by large amounts, the measured value for G varies by an amount attributable to measurement accuracy.

Quote:

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-brandenburg/14/681/BB1

His LinkedIn entry is as irrelevant now as it was last time you posted it. This man had better credentials, but DNA still has a double helix, and Vitamin C does not cure cancer. When he found evidence to validate his theories he won Nobel prizes, but when he couldn't Watson and Crick got the prize instead.

Quote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3-vkI16BjF4#!

A very pretty presentation, but where is the evidence? until there is some actual evidence you may as well watch this.
Incidentally the claim Quote:

Brandenburg's work with unification via the "Vacuum Bernoulli Equation" can be used to understand anomalous weight loss reported in gyroscope experiments

is erroneous. Laithwaite already closed all of the loopholes that caused the apparent anti gravity actions, and answered the questions that Brandenburg is claiming to have been unanswered until this particular brainfart. This video was made in 2006, and his progress since then is exactly and precisely none.

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