Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
5716 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
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

(Uses JAVA Applet and Port 1024)
Visit the Chatroom Website

Who's Online
 66 guest(s) on-line.
 0 member(s) on-line.



You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 hth313:  5 mins ago
 Gleng:  5 mins ago
 graffias79:  21 mins ago
 kas1e:  22 mins ago
 BSzili:  23 mins ago
 michalsc:  24 mins ago
 Hypex:  26 mins ago
 nikosidis:  27 mins ago
 AmeegaGuy:  34 mins ago
 matthey:  37 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Free For All
      /   Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Register To Post

Goto 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 Next Page )
PosterThread
Moxee 
Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 28-Nov-2012 22:30:17
#1 ]
Team Member
Joined: 20-Aug-2003
Posts: 6291
From: County Yakima, WA State, USA

Part 1 is here

Part 2 is here

Carry on...

_________________
Moxee
AmigaOne X1000
AmigaOne XE G4
I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 29-Nov-2012 21:14:38
#2 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3871
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

@Lou

Quote:
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.

Way to continue to do nothing but troll!

Quote:

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.

If that's how you feel, then why don't you denounce General Relativity since it IS taken as biblical truth by physics noobs across the world but continue to be proven incorrect. For instance MOND wouldn't have has to supplement GR if GR was correct to begin with.

Quote:

Quote:
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.

Nimrod's knowledge of physics has been demonstrated to be sub-par...and that's your fall-back guy.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 29-Nov-2012 21:30:51
#3 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3871
From: Rhode Island

Once a nimrod, always a nimrod...

Quote:

@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.

When will you realize that your opinion carries no weight?

Quote:

Quote:

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

N
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.

If you're such a rocket scientist, why aren't you a rocket scientist?
I only have to look at your username for the answer...

Quote:

Quote:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-brandenburg/14/681/BB1
[quote]
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.

And what have you submitted to science that is noteworthy... Crick? More like the crickets I here about your contribution to science...

Quote:

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.

Once a nimrod, always a nimrod.
His paper is published here: http://journalofcosmology.com/JoC17pdfs/brandenburg2.pdf
and it was published AFTER this OLD video where he STATES results at 400hz but not at 60 hertz which could have been done in your home.
So he had a theory...
He ran experiments...
Then he PUBLISH the theory...but the book was published before the theory was finalized formally in order to, you know, make a living.
Science in action vs. nimrods in question.

Last edited by Lou on 29-Nov-2012 at 09:38 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 29-Nov-2012 21:37:28
#4 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3871
From: Rhode Island

To quote the journal of cosmology:

http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com/tag/beyond-einsteins-unified-field-gravity-electro-magnetism-redefined-gem-unification-theory/

"He provided the groundwork relating to Einstein and quantum mechanics, hidden dimensions, string theory, the 5th dimension, electro-magnetism & gravity theory. He also referenced many times over the Kaluza-Klein theory & work by Sakharov. An early question asked our guest to explain why there were different intensities of gravity on different planets. Dr. Brandenburg talked about Big G, all matter being electromagnetic at the molecular level & ratios (with Earth) used to predict the surface gravity of a planet made of rock. In our second segment, Dr. Brandenburg went into more detail about his GEM theory which is also referred to as the Grandis et Medianis theory."

...meanwhile I am waiting for anyone in this thread to be a guest of this site...

And since his formal theory is relatively NEW, it will be a while before it is ACCEPTED by science and the general physics noob population...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 29-Nov-2012 21:42:46
#5 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1206
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
If that's how you feel, then why don't you denounce General Relativity since it IS taken as biblical truth by physics noobs across the world but continue to be proven incorrect. For instance MOND wouldn't have has to supplement GR if GR was correct to begin with.
You have previously accused BrianK and myself of being "noobs" because we do not accept unsupported statements as Gospel Truth and now you accuse us uf treating GR as divine revelation despite the fact that we have both referred to it as the best working model to date.

Quote:
Nimrod's knowledge of physics has been demonstrated to be sub-par...and that's your fall-back guy.
Once again I ask the simple question.

When and Where?

It cannot be that difficult to point to a post where I have failed to grasp a genuine scientific statement, as opposed to my normal sceptical response to an unsupported allegation, even if the fallacious "revelation" comes from somebody who puts the letters PhD after his name.
Einstein had credentials and he still got things wrong.
Pauling had credentials and he still got things wrong.
I refuse to cite my credentials as reasons why others are wrong, because my credentials are totally irrelevant. I point out what the errors are.
The examples that you cite are not wrong because of the level of my qualifications, they are wrong because their maths doesn't work.

Quote:
If you're such a rocket scientist, why aren't you a rocket scientist?
I only have to look at your username for the answer...
And if you have exposed errors in my mathematics, why can you not simply link to them instead of resorting to empty headed ad hominem attacks.

Quote:
To quote the journal of cosmology: http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com/tag/beyond-einsteins-unified-field-gravity-electro-magnetism-redefined-gem-unification-theory/
so the corroboration of Brandenburgs "theories" is that Brandenburg says that Brandenburgs "theories are correct. Are you really so ignorant of what is meant by scientific corroboration, or peer review. When other scientists at recognised establishments are able to confirm that there is a gap in understanding that is filled by his "theory" and that his theory works then I may accept his ideas, but until the gaps in this "theory" are filled and the incorrect assumptions are rectified,I cannot see that happening.

Quote:
STATES results at 400hz but not at 60 hertz which could have been done in your home.
If you understood anything about electrics, you would know that UK domestic electrics operates at 50Hz. If I wanted to check his statements, I would go to my place of work and run the same tests at 200V 400Hz which is the standard supply used for aircraft electronics, defence radar etc.

Quote:
And since his formal theory is relatively NEW, it will be a while before it is ACCEPTED by science and the general physics noob population...
There is one reason that this CRAP will not be immediately accepted and worshipped around the world, and it is nothing to do with newness. It will not be accepted because he bases it on several false assumptions, some of which I have demonstrated on this site.

Last edited by Nimrod on 30-Nov-2012 at 01:14 PM.
Last edited by Nimrod on 29-Nov-2012 at 10:09 PM.
Last edited by Nimrod on 29-Nov-2012 at 10:04 PM.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 30-Nov-2012 2:30:55
#6 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
If that's how you feel, then why don't you denounce General Relativity since it IS taken as biblical truth by physics noobs across the world but continue to be proven incorrect.
This is at least the 4th time I've said it but - science readily accepts that GR is not the complete picture.

Though that's still far short of meaning GEM is a better picture. For that to be the case we need a preponderance of evidence on it's side. Which doesn't exist. And certainly you've not been able to provide us repeatable demonstrable evidence that it is any better. And for example if you're using Haramein and Brandenburg you may be worse off as their predictions have been shown to be even further out of alignment with reality.

Quote:
Nimrod's knowledge of physics has been demonstrated to be sub-par...and that's your fall-back guy
Do note I didn't accept or reject Nimrod. I noted your argument wasn't a disproof of Nimrod. Instead you favored Brandenburg and liked his degree better, thereby creating a false acceptance upon 'authority'. Your claim you proved Nimrod wrong is false. You didn't prove him wrong as you didn't use any math to do such a proof.

Quote:
His paper is published here: http://journalofcosmology.com/JoC17pdfs/brandenburg2.pdf

meanwhile I am waiting for anyone in this thread to be a guest of this site
Just because someone is published, especially in a fringe science journal, doesn't validate the postulates. It simply puts it out there for others to look at. Science still demands much validation through experimentation of the postulates. (Psst and yes even if Brandenburg has a fancy PhD the same demands must still be met.)

So publication doesn't mean one crossed the goal line. It, more often than not, means one got on the field. The point of publication is for people to take your work and beat the shit out of it. That's how it gets sussed out for application to reality. People must do experiments, find applications, and demonstrate usage to find out the relationship of a postulate to reality. And as interesting as Brandenburg proved Brandenburg right may be that's clearly an insufficent reason for acceptance. People now get to beat the shit out of the postulate and the self proof claim. It's simply more work. The problem here is likely what you say below. It's simply to NEW to have had sufficent evidence built up for or against it. Though do note many of the existing evidence is against it.

Quote:
And since his formal theory is relatively NEW, it will be a while before it is ACCEPTED by science and the general physics noob population
And thanks for making the point I've made several times. EM_is_God has insufficence evidence to be accepted let alone push a paradigm shift within science. If you accept it it's fine. It's simply false to claim you accept it based upon the evidence as it doesn't exist to a sufficent extent to make anything other than a leap of faith.

Last edited by BrianK on 30-Nov-2012 at 02:41 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 30-Nov-2012 13:42:31
#7 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3871
From: Rhode Island

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometer

Even a simple flashlight can make it move...

If you don't think Brandenburg has cred, look no further than physics forums...
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4385&st=2340

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 30-Nov-2012 13:53:03
#8 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3871
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
If that's how you feel, then why don't you denounce General Relativity since it IS taken as biblical truth by physics noobs across the world but continue to be proven incorrect. For instance MOND wouldn't have has to supplement GR if GR was correct to begin with.
You have previously accused BrianK and myself of being "noobs" because we do not accept unsupported statements as Gospel Truth and now you accuse us uf treating GR as divine revelation despite the fact that we have both referred to it as the best working model to date.

Quote:
Nimrod's knowledge of physics has been demonstrated to be sub-par...and that's your fall-back guy.
Once again I ask the simple question.

When and Where?

As I've mention several times, you were talking about luminosity when I was talking about individual photons. Luminosity is a noob way to discuss light. You've confused rest mass with relativistic mass, and I forget what else I've pointed out that you've done wrong. I've specified it to you in the past and you keep asking where in subsoquent posts which means you're going senile. Unlike you, I am not psycotic enough to dive thru hundreds of pages of posts to RE-specify when and where.

And "the best to date" isn't good enough when it only answers 4% of the universe. Now stop living up to your username and being a general all around physics noob.

Quote:
It cannot be that difficult to point to a post where I have failed to grasp a genuine scientific statement, as opposed to my normal sceptical response to an unsupported allegation, even if the fallacious "revelation" comes from somebody who puts the letters PhD after his name.
Einstein had credentials and he still got things wrong.
Pauling had credentials and he still got things wrong.
I refuse to cite my credentials as reasons why others are wrong, because my credentials are totally irrelevant. I point out what the errors are.
The examples that you cite are not wrong because of the level of my qualifications, they are wrong because their maths doesn't work.

Your level of qualifications is crap to me. There's a big difference between an electrical engineer and a plasma physicist. The difference is essentially a neanderthal to modern man.

Quote:

Quote:
If you're such a rocket scientist, why aren't you a rocket scientist?
I only have to look at your username for the answer...
And if you have exposed errors in my mathematics, why can you not simply link to them instead of resorting to empty headed ad hominem attacks.

It's not that I can't, it's that I won't because I am not psychotic about this thread like you seem to be. Get a life. I won't rummage through 2 threads and hundreds of pages. I actually have a day job and a social life.

Quote:

Quote:
To quote the journal of cosmology: http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com/tag/beyond-einsteins-unified-field-gravity-electro-magnetism-redefined-gem-unification-theory/
so the corroboration of Brandenburgs "theories" is that Brandenburg says that Brandenburgs "theories are correct. Are you really so ignorant of what is meant by scientific corroboration, or peer review. When other scientists at recognised establishments are able to confirm that there is a gap in understanding that is filled by his "theory" and that his theory works then I may accept his ideas, but until the gaps in this "theory" are filled and the incorrect assumptions are rectified,I cannot see that happening.

Then just shut up and wait for school text books to catch up with the times.

Quote:

Quote:
STATES results at 400hz but not at 60 hertz which could have been done in your home.
If you understood anything about electrics, you would know that UK domestic electrics operates at 50Hz. If I wanted to check his statements, I would go to my place of work and run the same tests at 200V 400Hz which is the standard supply used for aircraft electronics, defence radar etc.

And you being a rocket scientist should realize that Brandenburg lives in the US where we use 60 hertz, now go back to school, genius.

Quote:

Quote:
And since his formal theory is relatively NEW, it will be a while before it is ACCEPTED by science and the general physics noob population...
There is one reason that this CRAP will not be immediately accepted and worshipped around the world, and it is nothing to do with newness. It will not be accepted because he bases it on several false assumptions, some of which I have demonstrated on this site.

[/quote]
The only false assumptions are what you learned in school 40 or 50 years ago.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 30-Nov-2012 14:01:51
#9 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3871
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
If that's how you feel, then why don't you denounce General Relativity since it IS taken as biblical truth by physics noobs across the world but continue to be proven incorrect.
This is at least the 4th time I've said it but - science readily accepts that GR is not the complete picture.

Hence unless you have proof that GEM Unified Field Theory is not more complete, stop dissing it.

Quote:
Though that's still far short of meaning GEM is a better picture. For that to be the case we need a preponderance of evidence on it's side. Which doesn't exist. And certainly you've not been able to provide us repeatable demonstrable evidence that it is any better. And for example if you're using Haramein and Brandenburg you may be worse off as their predictions have been shown to be even further out of alignment with reality.

Several threads ago, all the noobs were waiting for gravity probe B to come back and find 'gravity'. You claim to champion science. Go read GEM and how gravity probe B proved it. Until then, you just look like a fish out of water.

Quote:

Quote:
Nimrod's knowledge of physics has been demonstrated to be sub-par...and that's your fall-back guy
Do note I didn't accept or reject Nimrod. I noted your argument wasn't a disproof of Nimrod. Instead you favored Brandenburg and liked his degree better, thereby creating a false acceptance upon 'authority'. Your claim you proved Nimrod wrong is false. You didn't prove him wrong as you didn't use any math to do such a proof.

Math can be correct and fundamental concepts still wrong, which is exactly what happened when I brought up photons and he says, "no, its luminosity". He just doesn't even understand how far behind the curve he is.

Quote:

Quote:
His paper is published here: http://journalofcosmology.com/JoC17pdfs/brandenburg2.pdf

meanwhile I am waiting for anyone in this thread to be a guest of this site
Just because someone is published, especially in a fringe science journal, doesn't validate the postulates. It simply puts it out there for others to look at. Science still demands much validation through experimentation of the postulates. (Psst and yes even if Brandenburg has a fancy PhD the same demands must still be met.)

So publication doesn't mean one crossed the goal line. It, more often than not, means one got on the field. The point of publication is for people to take your work and beat the shit out of it. That's how it gets sussed out for application to reality. People must do experiments, find applications, and demonstrate usage to find out the relationship of a postulate to reality. And as interesting as Brandenburg proved Brandenburg right may be that's clearly an insufficent reason for acceptance. People now get to beat the shit out of the postulate and the self proof claim. It's simply more work. The problem here is likely what you say below. It's simply to NEW to have had sufficent evidence built up for or against it. Though do note many of the existing evidence is against it.

Quote:
And since his formal theory is relatively NEW, it will be a while before it is ACCEPTED by science and the general physics noob population
And thanks for making the point I've made several times. EM_is_God has insufficence evidence to be accepted let alone push a paradigm shift within science. If you accept it it's fine. It's simply false to claim you accept it based upon the evidence as it doesn't exist to a sufficent extent to make anything other than a leap of faith.

What existing evidence against it? Again, I see empty words... You made a claim, now prove it. Note: a nimrod's mouth doesn't count as evidence.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 30-Nov-2012 14:25:30
#10 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
Hence unless you have proof that GEM Unified Field Theory is not more complete, stop dissing it.
Easy - I provided many links to scientific work of GR. I provided what I knew of GEM proofs - they're basically non-existent. I've asked you to provide the same. You've produced nothing of real value. If we put them in a pile the GR evidences far outstrip GEM. And, of course it's been demonstrated here various areas GEM is out of alignment with reality. So I'd say yeah we're fairly good that GEM hasn't the proof to sustain itself. I'll also go back to your own claims that GEM is too new to have had sufficient time to build those. So again, the GEM lovers still have much more work to do. I'll also go back to the way science works is not accept everything until it's disproven. The way science works is one must prove GEM.

Quote:
Go read GEM and how gravity probe B proved it. Until then, you just look like a fish out of water.
Not sure if you meant to do this but GEM Unified Field Theory is not the same as GEM . Whereas GEM says there's an 'analogous force to magnetism in EM related to gravity' but it does validate that the magnetic force is one and the same in both Gravity and EM. Nor does Gravity Probe B demonstrate they one and the same.

Quote:
Math can be correct and fundamental concepts still wrong, which is exactly what happened when I brought up photons and he says, "no, its luminosity". He just doesn't even understand how far behind the curve he is.
Sure like Brandenburg's off thousands compared to reality, for example. Assuming Brandenburg did the math without error we must conclude that there's some fundamental problem he's asserted instead. In question the win always goes to reality.

Quote:
What existing evidence against it?
Again to assert a scientifically valid postulate the evidence must be asserted for it. Until that's sufficient acceptance of truth is a leap of faith. Again science doesn't work by accepting assertions. Science works by validating assertions. Again I go back to your own claim that it's just to new. Fair enough it may be to new - that's an excuse for the lack of evidence. It's not a reason to accept without sufficient quantities and qualities of evidence. (Which is what you end up doing.)

Note - I haven't rejected Brandenburg to never play again. (Though I have noted areas his ideas conflict with reality. As to Haramein.) It's that I, and science, demands a higher standard of quality and a higher amount of quantity before we safely commit to a paradigm shift. You've made that shift and admitted to the sever lack of evidentiary quantity or quality, aka leap of faith.

Last edited by BrianK on 30-Nov-2012 at 02:26 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 30-Nov-2012 19:13:47
#11 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3871
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Hence unless you have proof that GEM Unified Field Theory is not more complete, stop dissing it.
Easy - I provided many links to scientific work of GR. I provided what I knew of GEM proofs - they're basically non-existent. I've asked you to provide the same. You've produced nothing of real value. If we put them in a pile the GR evidences far outstrip GEM. And, of course it's been demonstrated here various areas GEM is out of alignment with reality. So I'd say yeah we're fairly good that GEM hasn't the proof to sustain itself. I'll also go back to your own claims that GEM is too new to have had sufficient time to build those. So again, the GEM lovers still have much more work to do. I'll also go back to the way science works is not accept everything until it's disproven. The way science works is one must prove GEM.

So here you were talking about GEM and so was I. GEM is proven

Quote:

Quote:
Go read GEM and how gravity probe B proved it. Until then, you just look like a fish out of water.
Not sure if you meant to do this but GEM Unified Field Theory is not the same as GEM . Whereas GEM says there's an 'analogous force to magnetism in EM related to gravity' but it does validate that the magnetic force is one and the same in both Gravity and EM. Nor does Gravity Probe B demonstrate they one and the same.

Here you accuse me of saying GEM but meaning GEM UFT. This is your bullshit twist. I know what I'm talking about, get your crap straight. Gravity Probe B proved GEM. GEM UFT as presented by John Brandenburg takes GEM further. I swear you must be a schitzo...

Quote:

Quote:
Math can be correct and fundamental concepts still wrong, which is exactly what happened when I brought up photons and he says, "no, its luminosity". He just doesn't even understand how far behind the curve he is.
Sure like Brandenburg's off thousands compared to reality, for example. Assuming Brandenburg did the math without error we must conclude that there's some fundamental problem he's asserted instead. In question the win always goes to reality.

Reality is that all scientists dealing with EM and 'gravity' always knew they were related...just never went out and investigated it because accepting GR was too ingrained. Here, reality lost.

Quote:

Quote:
What existing evidence against it?
Again to assert a scientifically valid postulate the evidence must be asserted for it. Until that's sufficient acceptance of truth is a leap of faith. Again science doesn't work by accepting assertions. Science works by validating assertions. Again I go back to your own claim that it's just to new. Fair enough it may be to new - that's an excuse for the lack of evidence. It's not a reason to accept without sufficient quantities and qualities of evidence. (Which is what you end up doing.)

Here, you wrote alot of words but said nothing in the end except doing your typical "no, you prove it". You are just a troll.

Quote:

[quote]Note - I haven't rejected Brandenburg to never play again. (Though I have noted areas his ideas conflict with reality. As to Haramein.) It's that I, and science, demands a higher standard of quality and a higher amount of quantity before we safely commit to a paradigm shift. You've made that shift and admitted to the sever lack of evidentiary quantity or quality, aka leap of faith.

Acutally, you noted shit.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 30-Nov-2012 19:27:40
#12 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3871
From: Rhode Island

In news that shatters what you'd expect:

MERCURY HAS ICE

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121129151336.htm

Scratch that off the astronomy books from 40 years ago that told you it was soooooooo hot all over the planet because its soooooo close to the sun....

Amazing how you thought you knew something but were wrong all along...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 30-Nov-2012 20:31:12
#13 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1206
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

@Lou

Quote:
As I've mention several times, you were talking about luminosity when I was talking about individual photons
You claimed that every photon emitted from every star or galaxy in the entire universe is aimed directly at this planet, and cannot by any stretch of the imagination miss. You claimed that as many photons per square metre that impact a planet orbiting close to a star, will also impact tha same area at a distance of millions of light years. You are claiming that light exerts pressure, and this is true, however the pressure exerted by an individual photon is not measured in tonnes. You need lots of photons to be able to even detect the energy, and even more to be able to detect actual pressure rather than calculating it from the energy levels.

Quote:
You've confused rest mass with relativistic mass
Wrong, I did not confuse these two terms, I merely used the simpler equation for the purposes of brevity because it was not necessary to calculate to 100 decimal places to demonstrate the enormous disparity between claimed and observed results. You on the other hand have used equations that only work if you accept that the speed of light is less than half of 1 percent of its well known value of 3 x 10^8 ( yes I know that this is a rounded up approximation, but you are not important enough for me to work to 100 places to demonstrate that your figure was off by a factor of almost 300)

Quote:
There's a big difference between an electrical engineer and a plasma physicist
And if the plasma physicist states that 2 x 2 = 5, is a six year old primary school child under qualified to correct the error? Your have linked to assertions by your pet PhD from 1988 onwards making the same assertion supporting the original assertion, but as yet I see no independent research, or corroboration from reputable sources. It has been over 24 years, and the only person calling this particular dogs breakfast "Grandis et Medianis" is Brandenburg himself

Quote:
It's not that I can't, it's that I won't
No Lou, it is because you can't. For comparison I can refer to your equation for explaining why the moon is magnetically repelled from the Earth in your reply to BrianK in late May last year. Not because I reread the entire thread, but because I remember things. It is because I have a memory and can remember things that I too can hold down a full time job, have an active social life and a family life, and still know where to look to find where you have made a fool of yourself.

Quote:
And you being a rocket scientist should realize that Brandenburg lives in the US where we use 60 hertz,
It was you that suggested I do the tests at 60Hz in UK. There is no indication in this document demonstrating variance in gravitational strength from switching on 50Hz, 60Hz 400Hz or even signals in the hundreds of MHz. The most common phrase is Let us assume that.... or let us further assume that.... to which my response is "why assume?" This document keeps making assumptions none of which can be demonstrated as valid

Quote:
Hence unless you have proof that GEM Unified Field Theory is not more complete, stop dissing it.
You still either cannot understand the principle of scientific advancement, or are demonstrating your trolling skills. Scientific advances are not made by real scientists having to stop what they are doing every five minutes to disprove some idiot who thinks that ideas tested and rejected two hundred years ago are some new and astonishing discovery. It is not for "the establishment" to prove Brandenburg wrong, it is for Brandenburg et al to demonstrate that their particular piece of crackpottery is even valid, and then demonstrate that it is more valid than the current best estimate. You keep disregarding the postulates and theories of Peter Higgs, yet the main reason that CERN spent so much money on the large hadron collider is because a lot of people with PhD's couldn't find fault with his mathematics. And now the experimental results are verifying the predictions made. I will also point out that the science behind this discovery is accepted despite the fact that Peter Higgs hadn't published his ideas when I left school.

Quote:
Go read GEM and how gravity probe B proved it.
What Gravity probe B confirmed was not what you are claiming to think it proved. GEM (Gravitoelectromagnetism) refers to a set of formal analogies between the equations for electromagnetism and relativistic gravitation. It does not claim that gravity is a subset of EM. Claims that Gravity probe B demonstrate that Gravity=EM arise either from ignorance of the meaning of the word analogy, or deliberate attempts to defraud. The bunk that Brandenburg is selling under the GEM label is not GEM as referred to by the scientific community.

Quote:
He just doesn't even understand how far behind the curve he is.
And you do not realise just how far round the bend you are.

Quote:
Scratch that off the astronomy books from 40 years ago that told you it was soooooooo hot all over the planet because its soooooo close to the sun....
Mercury is known to have a very long "day" and we have always been aware thet it gets cooler at night. As a result one hemisphere is extremely hot, rising to approximately 700K by the early afternoon and the hemisphere facing away from the sun is cold falling to about 90K at night. This allows Ice to melt and then evaporate shortly after dawn, and precipitate gently elsewhere, where it is still night. Although it has only recently been confirmed doesn't mean that it has not been suspected for some time.

Last edited by Nimrod on 30-Nov-2012 at 08:50 PM.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 30-Nov-2012 21:52:40
#14 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
GEM is proven
GEM was demonstrated by an experiment - Gravity Probe B. GEM Unified Theory, which isn't the same, isn't proven. And you've been unable to evidence it.

Quote:
Reality is that all scientists dealing with EM and 'gravity' always knew they were related
Question - if scientists believe what you say then why is GEM ascribed as an analogous force to EM but not the same force? Also then why is there four fundamental forces Gravity, Weak, Strong, and EM? If this wasn't the case wouldn't we have an evidenced answer of 3 forces? Or perhaps more formally have a working of 'Theory Of Everything' which is that heading which describes all the 4 fundamental forces as a single unified entity.

But, we don't. Science and I, and what I read from Nimrod, get that GR isn't everything. How it overlays with the quantum such as ToE would provide us are well accepted open areas for discovery. Again readily admitted by myself and I.

Quote:
Here, you wrote alot of words but said nothing in the end except doing your typical "no, you prove it". You are just a troll.
What I read here is that you want the shoe on my foot to accept EM_is_God or prove it wrong. That's not the way science works. You contended the idea it true. You have the responsibility to demonstrate it's better. You've failed that. You continue to push postulate as a support of postulate. You've seem to be arguing popularity and/or degrees instead of speaking to truth.

Last edited by BrianK on 30-Nov-2012 at 09:54 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 1-Dec-2012 0:40:43
#15 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
In news that shatters what you'd expect:

MERCURY HAS ICE

Amazing how you thought you knew something but were wrong all along...

Oops with the recent ice on Mars news I misread this. Thanks Olegil.

Though water has been suspected on Mercury for the last 20 years so it is cool they found improved evidence showing that this is a reality. If anything Lou this should show you that as good as any idea is once sufficient evidence exists science does accept the newer and improved understanding.


Quote:
If you don't think Brandenburg has cred, look no further than physics forums...
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4385&st=2340
Just so you don't think we didn't love your claims I reviewed a page before your link and a couple after your link. I see nothing with cred for Brandenburg. Can you perhaps citing what you believe to credit him? Cross referenced with Brandenburg's original claim would be equally as helpful.

Last edited by BrianK on 01-Dec-2012 at 11:49 AM.
Last edited by BrianK on 01-Dec-2012 at 12:56 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
olegil 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 1-Dec-2012 9:30:10
#16 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 22-Aug-2003
Posts: 5887
From: Work

@BrianK

Mercury, not Mars.

But I fail to see the shattering news in that. Mercury rotates, and the day side is bloody hot while the night side is frickin cold. Here ice was found in permanent shadows. Cool discovery, but me personally didn't get my view of the universe shattered.

Edit: And according to the article, this has been suspected since radar echoes hinted at ice in the 90's but hasn't been verified until now.

The problem in this "discussion" is that Lou keeps seeing these "new result means we have to throw away all science" stories everywhere while the rest of us are seeing the slow and steady progress of science.

Last edited by olegil on 01-Dec-2012 at 09:55 AM.

_________________
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: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 1-Dec-2012 11:55:19
#17 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@olegil

Quote:

The problem in this "discussion" is that Lou keeps seeing these "new result means we have to throw away all science" stories everywhere while the rest of us are seeing the slow and steady progress of science.

Indeed. Lou has issued complaints that science takes too long to figure it out. Science is made, and is, a continual process of skepticism. It takes all ideas and tests them. Even the things accepted are continually tested. The process shouldn't be expedient. The process is to be as accurate as possible. And the simply takes time. Well, and money of course. Telescopes, colliders, or experiments don't build themselves.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 1-Dec-2012 15:25:16
#18 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

Superconductivity stops if the temps too cold

While stated by I (and I believe Nimrod) that General Relativity is incomplete. It appears that EM is incomplete. LINK It appears that highly charged atoms do not follow current EM theory. More experiments need to be done but it appears EM may need it's own 'dark matter/dark energy fudges' to make it more right.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 1-Dec-2012 21:23:50
#19 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Nimrod

I'd safely call us the Person Ones - Arguing the pseudscientific mind

Last edited by BrianK on 01-Dec-2012 at 09:27 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 3-Dec-2012 2:41:10
#20 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

You saw a UFO or BigFoot or a Yeti or a Ghost right?! Listen to this talk as Steven Novella talks about how the body's senses deceive us. This is one of several reasons why, as Carl Sagan says, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". It's good to understand more of the conditions being human introduces into the equation. Afterall being a person is the most common instrument used. To ensure experimental quality we callibrate all other instruments. Evidence is that item that is used to callibrate the human instrument.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto 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 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright 2000 - 2017 Amigaworld.net.

Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle