@Lou

Quote:

what I see is you accept the holes in Big Bang, relativity, gravity because you are content with

science taking time to fill in the gaps and create a better definition and/or new paradigms which has been the most proven and best way to know about the universe. Fixed!


Quote:

To accept a new paradigm that may require more math seems to be unacceptable because it's not as easy

Pontifications and cute pictures don't help anything or make your point any stronger.

Again to repeat. It's all EM is acceptable when the preponderance of the evidence and the increased predictability is there. Doesn't matter if the math is easy or not. (Just as an aside with a degree in math I might be able to handle it better than most.)

Brandenburg tells us he's unified GEM and we're on the verge of a new world. Do you have any estimates when my FTL Car will be here? I always seemed rushed in the morning it'd be very advantegous for me to arrive at work before leaving home. When will GEM have the evidence and predictability to make such inroads for us?

@Lou

Quote:

I like how you ignore evidence. After all, when in doubt - deny, deny, deny.

Although this DVD is not available from the UK branch of Amazon, I have actually read the work that it reports, and the claims made.
The theory is based on two observations :
1) The experimental observation that charged particles in crossed E (electric) and B (magnetic) fields all assume the same velocity regardless of charge or mass.
2) The Cosmological observation that the Cosmos is dominated by hydrogen (protons and electrons), and its large scale dynamics appears dominated by two long range forces(gravity and EM), suggesting that these are related.
The suggestion that there may be a relationship does not mean that a direct correlation has been proved. You need evidence and you need mathematics and as yet neither you nor Brandenburg have been able to provide either.

Quote:

Phobos is interesting because it's orbit doesn't make sense.

You're right, Phobos is a very interesting moon. Its density of density of 1.88 g/cm^3 indicates that it is porous, like pumice, and indicates that it may be some form of ejectate material.
Another useful piece of information about Phobos is that back in 1959, a man named Walter Houston perpetrated an April Fool's hoax in the April edition of the Great Plains Observer, claiming that "Dr. Arthur Hayall of the University of the Sierras reports that the moons of Mars are actually artificial satellites". Both Dr. Hayall and the University of the Sierras were fictitious. The hoax gained worldwide attention when Houston's claim was repeated, apparently in earnest, by a Soviet scientist, Iosif Shklovsky. It would appear from your comment "Almost like someone doesn't want us discovering that it's an artificial satellite..." that poor old Iosif wasn't the only one to fall for it.

Quote:

John Brandenburg also studied Mars. If anything, it looks like the face was damaged. You are ignoring all the pyramids around the face as well. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1372747/Ever-wondered-Mars-red-One-scientists-thinks-knows.html Nuclear war on Mars, who would have thunk it?

While I can understand you not wanting to read drivel like the Daily Fail, especially when it lifts a story from Faux News, you really should read articles you post to "prove" your current point. The article quotes Brandenburg as claiming "a planet-shattering yet naturally occurring nuclear reaction" which you seem to conflate into global thermonuclear war (Do you want another game, Professor Falken?)

If you want to watch a video that gives you something to think about, why don't you try this one about mathematics

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

using this official, MARSIS published data -- precisely "how big" the internal reflection "structures" inside Phobos have to be ... to appear as they do (above), as "wildly varying, multiple radar echoes (and absorptions), separated by "tens of microseconds" in the radio echoes coming back from inside Phobos ..." on this first official graph .... Answers in those signals to questions like, "how large is the volume which forms the 'super big peak'?" (above) -- corresponding to "about 14 microseconds in echo-width" -- where ... the signal abruptly rises "straight up" ~ 47 dB (!) -- before falling back to the previously "low," 47dB below that peak intensity ...? Answer: ~200 feet wide .... Obviously -- some kind of "uniquely-shaped, right-angle internal corner reflection" ... part of a much larger "90-degree cavern or room ..." (hence, the relatively "huge" signal strength ...) from deep inside Phobos.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: what I see is you accept the holes in Big Bang, relativity, gravity because you are content with science taking time to fill in the gaps and create a better definition and/or new paradigms which has been the most proven and best way to know about the universe. Fixed!

More like "insert X" then ask "What is X?" then invent a new theory to plug holes in the old theory... /sigh

Quote:

Quote: To accept a new paradigm that may require more math seems to be unacceptable because it's not as easy Pontifications and cute pictures don't help anything or make your point any stronger. Again to repeat. It's all EM is acceptable when the preponderance of the evidence and the increased predictability is there. Doesn't matter if the math is easy or not. (Just as an aside with a degree in math I might be able to handle it better than most.) Brandenburg tells us he's unified GEM and we're on the verge of a new world. Do you have any estimates when my FTL Car will be here? I always seemed rushed in the morning it'd be very advantegous for me to arrive at work before leaving home. When will GEM have the evidence and predictability to make such inroads for us?

Why don't you read the book and make up your own mind instead of making snide remarks out of ignorance?

@Lou

Quote:

using this official, MARSIS published data -- precisely "how big" the internal reflection "structures" inside Phobos have to be ... to appear as they do (above), as "wildly varying, multiple radar echoes (and absorptions), separated by "tens of microseconds" in the radio echoes coming back from inside Phobos ..." on this first official graph .... Answers in those signals to questions like, "how large is the volume which forms the 'super big peak'?" (above) -- corresponding to "about 14 microseconds in echo-width" -- where ... the signal abruptly rises "straight up" ~ 47 dB (!) -- before falling back to the previously "low," 47dB below that peak intensity ...? Answer: ~200 feet wide .... Obviously -- some kind of "uniquely-shaped, right-angle internal corner reflection" ... part of a much larger "90-degree cavern or room ..." (hence, the relatively "huge" signal strength ...) from deep inside Phobos.

At first I was a little bit confused about this post, after all, why would you post a quote without attributing it. Then I found out who and what you were quoting and all became clear.

This quote is lifted from Richard Hoaglands enterprisemission.com website. Back in March 2010 the ESA's Mars Express sent radar data and pictures from Phobos, showing the moon in unprecedented detail. Hoagland claimed that "an insider" had revealed that Phobos had been found to be artificial, a "manufactured" satellite, and that ESA itself would announce this finding at the European Planetary Science Congress. The EPSC actually announced that Phobos is probably formed from re-accretion of orbiting debris. Hoaglands "insider" was as fake as the "NASA insider" who kept posting the fake images of Nibiru "from the South Polar Observatory".

Actually, I am glad you led me to find out more about Hoagland, as now I do not feel quite so embarrassed about our own home grown piece of squirrelsh*t aka David Icke.

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

@Nimrod

So..rather than do the usual cop-out of "oh I don't like the source", do you have a better explanation for the signals?

@Lou

Quote:

So..rather than do the usual cop-out of "oh I don't like the source", do you have a better explanation for the signals?

Firstly let us just sort out who and what is the source.

Is the source the ESA's Mars Express satellite data as revealed by the EPSC to show Phobos as a low density accretion of matter, or is the source Richard Hoaglands so called "insider"?
If the source is Hoaglands "insider" is he, she, or it any more reliable than the "insider" that, in 2008 posted photographs taken through a radio telescope* of of an object that is hiding behind the sun, can only be seen from the South Pole, will be visible any day now, but will not get here for another nine hundred years.(Remember the original starting point of this thread)

If I were a scientist, I would start looking to see if there were any other evidence, that could either prove, or disprove this idea. As an engineer I can judge it to be broken beyond economical repair, and move on. If somebody wants to take the time to fix it, and bring it back to me I will look at it again, to see if it works any better.

One other quick question on the reliability of the source. How often does somebody have to tell you something that turns out not to be right, before you stop blindly accepting his word? Just as I asked if you would buy into a savings plan touted by Bernie Madoff, would you accept a prediction from Harold Camping?

* Neat trick. I wonder how they did that.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: So..rather than do the usual cop-out of "oh I don't like the source", do you have a better explanation for the signals? Firstly let us just sort out who and what is the source. Is the source the ESA's Mars Express satellite data as revealed by the EPSC to show Phobos as a low density accretion of matter, or is the source Richard Hoaglands so called "insider"? If the source is Hoaglands "insider" is he, she, or it any more reliable than the "insider" that, in 2008 posted photographs taken through a radio telescope* of of an object that is hiding behind the sun, can only be seen from the South Pole, will be visible any day now, but will not get here for another nine hundred years.(Remember the original starting point of this thread) If I were a scientist, I would start looking to see if there were any other evidence, that could either prove, or disprove this idea. As an engineer I can judge it to be broken beyond economical repair, and move on. If somebody wants to take the time to fix it, and bring it back to me I will look at it again, to see if it works any better. One other quick question on the reliability of the source. How often does somebody have to tell you something that turns out not to be right, before you stop blindly accepting his word? Just as I asked if you would buy into a savings plan touted by Bernie Madoff, would you accept a prediction from Harold Camping? * Neat trick. I wonder how they did that.

The neat trick was how you skirted my question.

Look at the Marsis data and you tell me what those radio signals mean to you.

@Lou

Quote:

More like "insert X" then ask "What is X?" then invent a new theory to plug holes in the old theory...

Again yes and no. Take evolution for example. Each 'missing link' identifies 2 other 'missing links'. As such the evidence leads to more holes being filled and doesn't scrap the idea. Again it all depends on where the evidence leads.

Quote:

Why don't you read the book and make up your own mind instead of making snide remarks out of ignorance?

The evidence and formulas have been week to basically non-existent in this thread. If Brandenburg produces formulas which can be checked then excellent. Though it appears his other books he's a bit of conspiracy nut. Doesn't negate he might be right but it does seriously question his ability. So how does one check his work. Evidence, predictability, skepticism, aka science will do it's job.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Firstly let us just sort out who and what is the source.

Excellent question. Clearly Hoagland is not a source he's an interpreter. And certainly if he's using photographic images from a radio telescope there's a serious problem with his data.W hich means any conclusion from Hoagland is a leap of faith rather than evidenced. If he turns out correct he clearly didn't get there from evidence.

No aliens so far. https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/response/searching-et-no-evidence-yet

@Lou

Quote:

The neat trick was how you skirted my question. Look at the Marsis data and you tell me what those radio signals mean to you.

The information given on Hoaglands enterprisemission.com website is not available on any of the ESA websites, and as there is no actual evidence that Hoagland has a spy in the enemy camp, then I can draw no conclusions as to the reliability of the actual figures quoted. I will however, for the sake of discussion accept that the figures themselves are accurate, and look at the interpretation of the return signal as quoted.
Quote:

Answers in those signals to questions like, "how large is the volume which forms the 'super big peak'?" (above) -- corresponding to "about 14 microseconds in echo-width" -- where ... the signal abruptly rises "straight up" ~ 47 dB (!) -- before falling back to the previously "low," 47dB below that peak intensity ...?

Hoagland's conclusion was "Obviously...some kind of "uniquely-shaped, right-angle internal corner reflection" ... part of a much larger "90-degree cavern or room ..." The ESA however report the return signals as follows
Quote:

The particular class of asteroids that share Phobos’ density are known as D-class. They are believed to be highly fractured bodies containing giant caverns because they are not solid. Instead, they are a collection of pieces, held together by gravity. Scientists call them rubble piles.

So it seems that the conclusion drawn by the people who have access to all of the data, is that Phobos is a captured asteroid on a slowly decaying orbit, that will break up in approximately 7.6 million years time.

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

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: No aliens so far. https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/response/searching-et-no-evidence-yet

Even Clinton said he was told he didn't have a need to know...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3F3CXspsuo

Look what Hillary says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjJyHdrhPJQ
Sounds like Ronald Regan...

Nice to see ex-politicians come forward:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3zotvpZLnY

Last edited by Lou on 12-Nov-2011 at 06:44 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 12-Nov-2011 at 06:38 PM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: The neat trick was how you skirted my question. Look at the Marsis data and you tell me what those radio signals mean to you. The information given on Hoaglands enterprisemission.com website is not available on any of the ESA websites, and as there is no actual evidence that Hoagland has a spy in the enemy camp, then I can draw no conclusions as to the reliability of the actual figures quoted. I will however, for the sake of discussion accept that the figures themselves are accurate, and look at the interpretation of the return signal as quoted. Quote: Answers in those signals to questions like, "how large is the volume which forms the 'super big peak'?" (above) -- corresponding to "about 14 microseconds in echo-width" -- where ... the signal abruptly rises "straight up" ~ 47 dB (!) -- before falling back to the previously "low," 47dB below that peak intensity ...? Hoagland's conclusion was "Obviously...some kind of "uniquely-shaped, right-angle internal corner reflection" ... part of a much larger "90-degree cavern or room ..." The ESA however report the return signals as follows Quote: The particular class of asteroids that share Phobos’ density are known as D-class. They are believed to be highly fractured bodies containing giant caverns because they are not solid. Instead, they are a collection of pieces, held together by gravity. Scientists call them rubble piles. So it seems that the conclusion drawn by the people who have access to all of the data, is that Phobos is a captured asteroid on a slowly decaying orbit, that will break up in approximately 7.6 million years time.

LOL rubble piles! Considering the hi-res photos that we have, that sounds like a lode of croc!

If it was merely a rubble pile, there wouldn't be so much interest in it. Atleast they admitted to large open spaces inside it. ;) Lies are always more easily believed when they are 1/2 truths...

For that matter, wouldn't gravity have caused the "open space" to not be open at all? Gravity must have taken the day off when making Phobos...

Oh and if gravity is the almighty force that it is, why hasn't the asteroid belt reformed back into a planet? I mean if the all-powerful gravity can pull a tiny rubble pile together lie Phobos, why not the asteroid belt?

Once again, gravity seems to do an epic fail...

Last edited by Lou on 12-Nov-2011 at 06:45 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 12-Nov-2011 at 06:31 PM.

@Lou

why doesn't gravity cause everything to collapse? It would if it was the only force in the universe. Instead it has to contend with 3 other forces. Certain String Theory postulates a fifth

@Lou

Quote:

Look what Hillary says... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjJyHdrhPJQ Sounds like Ronald Regan...

Hillary used a fictional movie as an example of how the world worked together against a global threat. She claimed Global Warming is a global threat which we should all work together on. If you think this is evidence to knowledge of LGM you are sorrily mistaken.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou why doesn't gravity cause everything to collapse? It would if it was the only force in the universe. Instead it has to contend with 3 other forces. Certain String Theory postulates a fifth

Gravity, if it exists, is supposed to be attractive. How does a "rubble pile" form into a 33% hollow heavenly body? Considering the impact craters on the surface of Phobos, you would think it would have suffered some internal damage that would have affected the internal structures that maintained its hollow nature.

Can you show me how any other force has contributed to hollow heavenly bodies?

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Look what Hillary says... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjJyHdrhPJQ Sounds like Ronald Regan... Hillary used a fictional movie as an example of how the world worked together against a global threat. She claimed Global Warming is a global threat which we should all work together on. If you think this is evidence to knowledge of LGM you are sorrily mistaken.

Your point? Wasn't "Star Wars" fictional?

@Lou

Quote:

Gravity, if it exists, is supposed to be attractive. How does a "rubble pile" form into a 33% hollow heavenly body? Considering the impact craters on the surface of Phobos, you would think it would have suffered some internal damage that would have affected the internal structures that maintained its hollow nature.

It sounds a bit like you believe Phobos to be a type of spherical donut with a missing jelly filling? Phobos is a material that has hollows throughout the material. Like a pumice stone. When the pumice stone is impacted the cells may fracture, supposedly there's a significant layer of dirt on the surfrace from impacts. Also a cellular material collapases closer to the impact and cells farther way are unlikely to be effected as the close cells absorb the force.

How was phobos made? It's something we're working on understanding. One postulate is they are captured asteriods. If so this sort of structure comprises about 5% of asteroids. The particular creation of phobos is probably similar to those other 5%.

Quote:

Can you show me how any other force has contributed to hollow heavenly bodies?

Creation of anything depends upon the forces within the system, weak/strong/em/gravity. The theory is really yours that gravity was the ONLY force at work. So more rightly you need to demonstrate to us how other forces didn't operate in this instance.


Quote:

Your point? Wasn't "Star Wars" fictional?

My point is Hillary's statement had nothing whatsoever to indicate she knew of any sort of government conspiracy covering up aliens. It was simply wrong to include it as it clearly did not in anyway support your postulate of Visitors. And yes Star Wars is fictional. But, maybe not perhaps that hidden object photographed by a radio telescope with right angles is really the Death Star. (Oops that was round next.)

As for the Phoenix Lights they have been explained as flares. Here's one recent article. http://news.discovery.com/space/phoenix-ufo-lights-mystery-solved-111104.html -- What I do agree is that some people these items were certainly U.nidentified. One makes a leap of faith that it's LGM when the evidence hasn't been sussed out and other postulates need review. Don't forget the properties of the LGM must be proven in order for us to demonstrate it really is LGM. Otherwise you're assigning unknown properties to an unknown entity, which is fairly useless if you want a solid conclusion.

Last edited by BrianK on 14-Nov-2011 at 04:54 PM.

@BrianK

Many people, including renown scientists, have suggested that Phobos is actually the remnants of an ancient alien base. That´s why it is so hollow. Sometimes I almost believe they are right. The Russians strong interest in Phobos makes one wonder if they know something about the moon that common people don´t. What is this? Their tenth attempt, or so, to make a deep survey of Phobos? Only some flyby probes have been successful.