@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @Lou what the flying squirrel does it matter MATHEMATICALLY whether an outside observer of CURRENT events will be doomed at some point in the future? What if Bob has cancer when Alice falls beyond the event horizon? Or maybe he has a heart attack and dies? Alice falls beyond the event horizon and WE DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE WHAT HAPPENS TO HER AFTER THAT BECAUSE WE CANNOT (BY DEFINITION OF EVENT HORIZON) OBSERVE ANY EVENTS BEYOND THE EVENT HORIZON.

Which renders the 'thought experiment' pointless...

Quote:

Besides, you said it yourself, Bob can theoretically shed mass and accelerate (he's outside the event horizon), whereas Alice is shit out of luck (she's inside it). First you said Alice wasn't doomed then suddenly Bob IS doomed even though he's further out than Alice. Does anything you ever claim actually piece together in any way or is it all just single statements without any context?

Unless Bob can crap himself at a high rate in the direction of the black hole, I doubt he will escape it. A spaceship could under the right conditions, but not Bob. Regardless, the authors made no mention of Bob crapping himself and since Bob and Alice are entangled, she'd crap herself too...we just wouldn't see it, perhaps...

The more you think about these 'thought experiments' the more stupid they become...which is my point. This whole thought experiment it also talking about a simple black hole and not the spinning ones of reality, but I digress...

@Lou

Quote:

You're on crack, BrianK, you are responding to texts you weren't mentioned in

Having used BBS message boards, listserv, and other types of discussion groups I've yet to run across any Terms Of Service or requirement that someone can only respond if their name is in the post. In fact reality shows that discussion groups are so named because groups can interact as they best see fit. If that were true than nobody could post beyond the initial poster unless that initial poster spelled out who they want to respond by name. So whatever your religion is here may be different. However, there's no requirement for me to obey your Gods.

Quote:

FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_horizon

Ah now I see you're mashing the related terms Absolute Horizon and Event Horizon into an Absolute Event Horizon. So be it. However, my point still stands there is 1 Event Horizon for a Black Hole. It is the point where any and all objects captured by the Black Hole can only escape if their velocity is greater than the speed of light. Sorry, but the meaning of Event Horizon is definitionally established. AKA not a postulate or theory. It's fairly wrong of you to declare your own meanings to words. It causes confusion as you're now meaning something the other 99.9% of the scientific community doesn't mean. Next you'll tell me the sky is red because it really means 450-495nm wavelengths.

Quote:

This whole thought experiment it also talking about a simple black hole and not the spinning ones of reality

Interesting how you can declare reality of a Black Hole without evidence. What evidence do you have that only Kerr-Newman or Ressier-Nordstrom Black Holes exist? It is mathematically possible for a Ressier-Nordstrom Black Hole to mature to a non-spinning Schwartzschild Black Hole. Your priest Haramein seems to think atoms and planets are Schwartzschild Black Holes, which by definition makes them Black Holes of the non-spin variety. What evidence do you have that your guy is wrong here?

Last edited by BrianK on 03-Jan-2013 at 06:16 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 03-Jan-2013 at 05:36 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: You're on crack, BrianK, you are responding to texts you weren't mentioned in Having used BBS message boards, listserv, and other types of discussion groups I've yet to run across any Terms Of Service or requirement that someone can only respond if their name is in the post. In fact reality shows that discussion groups are so named because groups can interact as they best see fit. If that were true than nobody could post beyond the initial poster unless that initial poster spelled out who they want to respond by name. So whatever your religion is here may be different. However, there's no requirement for me to obey your Gods. Quote: FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_horizon Ah now I see you're mashing the related terms Absolute Horizon and Event Horizon into an Absolute Event Horizon. So be it. However, my point still stands there is 1 Event Horizon for a Black Hole. It is the point where any and all objects captured by the Black Hole can only escape if their velocity is greater than the speed of light. Sorry, but the meaning of Event Horizon is definitionally established. AKA not a postulate or theory. It's fairly wrong of you to declare your own meanings to words. It causes confusion as you're now meaning something the other 99.9% of the scientific community doesn't mean. Next you'll tell me the sky is red because it really means 450-495nm wavelengths. Quote: This whole thought experiment it also talking about a simple black hole and not the spinning ones of reality Interesting how you can declare reality of a Black Hole without evidence. What evidence do you have that only Kerr-Newman or Ressier-Nordstrom Black Holes exist? It is mathematically possible for a Ressier-Nordstrom Black Hole to mature to a non-spinning Schwartzschild Black Hole. Your priest Haramein seems to think atoms and planets are Schwartzschild Black Holes, which by definition makes them Black Holes of the non-spin variety. What evidence do you have that your guy is wrong here?

Why do you persist in this absurdity? This 'thought experiment' is everything you claim to hate: none of it has EVIDENCE. You continue to prove yourself to be the troll I've always said you are. You even at the end of this post try to ask me for evidence when there is no evidence supporting the situation to begin with - typical troll.

Oh look, actual science/reality whacks gravity THEORIES again:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130103113846.htm

@Lou

Quote:

Why do you persist in this absurdity? This 'thought experiment' is everything you claim to hate: none of it has EVIDENCE.

Lou, I've got to give you a big duh! If you understand my posts nothing I posted made a claim of reality. What this demonstrates are 3 different leading postulates of how a Black Hole operates and the conflict that science has because the EVIDENCE is lacking. It's an interesting problem to be worked on. (Your claim of troll is a lie. It's your lack of understanding what others post that is the true problem.)

Quote:

You even at the end of this post try to ask me for evidence when there is no evidence supporting the situation to begin with - typical troll.

The problem here is not me trolling. It's you trolling.

Your problem here is your declared realities are in conflict. You declared only spinning black holes to be reality. At the same time you declared Haramein's non-spinning black holes to be reality. At the same time admitted you have no evidence to how Black Holes operate. Somehow you've made up your mind to hold this conflicting ideas as reality. And since the evidence lacks to support any reality decide to post conflicts if we don't accept your faith. Seems to me that's Lou being a troll.

I'm willing to accept spinning or non-spinning or both types of Black Holes exist. I'm unwilling to declare reality without evidence. To bring it back to your first statement on the last post it's you persisting in absurdity.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: Oh look, actual science/reality whacks gravity THEORIES again: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130103113846.htm

Just remember that something 'not quite right' isn't proof of your alternative. There are many many alternative postulates to Gravity. Each much sustain itself with evidence. It's by this we can determine which is a more workable and better alternative.

Here's a good start as some of the various alternatives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity

Last edited by BrianK on 04-Jan-2013 at 03:40 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Why do you persist in this absurdity? This 'thought experiment' is everything you claim to hate: none of it has EVIDENCE. Lou, I've got to give you a big duh! If you understand my posts nothing I posted made a claim of reality. What this demonstrates are 3 different leading postulates of how a Black Hole operates and the conflict that science has because the EVIDENCE is lacking. It's an interesting problem to be worked on. (Your claim of troll is a lie. It's your lack of understanding what others post that is the true problem.) Quote: You even at the end of this post try to ask me for evidence when there is no evidence supporting the situation to begin with - typical troll. The problem here is not me trolling. It's you trolling. Your problem here is your declared realities are in conflict. You declared only spinning black holes to be reality. At the same time you declared Haramein's non-spinning black holes to be reality. At the same time admitted you have no evidence to how Black Holes operate. Somehow you've made up your mind to hold this conflicting ideas as reality. And since the evidence lacks to support any reality decide to post conflicts if we don't accept your faith. Seems to me that's Lou being a troll. I'm willing to accept spinning or non-spinning or both types of Black Holes exist. I'm unwilling to declare reality without evidence. To bring it back to your first statement on the last post it's you persisting in absurdity.

Oh really, can you quote N.Haramein or myself as saying his black holes were non-spinning?

...as is typical you put words in my mouth, filling in the blanks with your trollish accusations...

All black holes spin. Show me one that doesn't.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: Oh look, actual science/reality whacks gravity THEORIES again: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130103113846.htm Just remember that something 'not quite right' isn't proof of your alternative. There are many many alternative postulates to Gravity. Each much sustain itself with evidence. It's by this we can determine which is a more workable and better alternative. Here's a good start as some of the various alternatives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/star-formation-drives-huge-bubbles-in-the-milky-way/

Oh look, it seems magnetic fields and electricity have ALOT more to do with the shape of the galaxy and star formation than gravity/relativity based theories ASSUMED.

"The overall picture they present is consistent with the wealth of data from across the spectrum, and promises to clear up a number of questions."
...for instance "dark energy" perhaps?

Queue the Indian Jones music... What was it that I said about an electric universe again?

Last edited by Lou on 04-Jan-2013 at 04:08 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

All black holes spin. Show me one that doesn't.

Your approach here is incorrect. You've said it yourself we don't have sufficient evidence. So until you can demonstrate every single black hole in the universe your statement is unable to be accepted as the truth.

What do we have? There are at least 4 different mathematical postulates for Black Holes. Out of those types there are 2 which spin - Kerr-Newman and Kerr. And there are two types which are non-spinning - Ressier-Nordstrom and Schwartzschild . The Penrose Process is thought to eventually stop a Kerr-Newman's spin thereby producing a non-spinning Schwartzschild. What we do not have is sufficient evidence to claim any of these types exist or do not exist. It's a scientific TODO.

We got to go back to you made the claim of reality. You demonstrate it to be true. AFAIK, and science knows, we're unable to verify your claim as true or false. You don't get to default to true. Instead we accept it's simply one of today's unknowns.

Quote:

can you quote N.Haramein or myself as saying his black holes were non-spinning?

I hope the bolding above clued you into why I swapped your question order in my response. As Haramein makes claims of protons being Schwartzschild Black Holes. He's using a non-spinning Black Hole at the core of this claim. And as you stated he's correct you're using non-spinning Black Holes, via extension of your acceptance and claim of his version of reality.

Quote:

Oh look, it seems magnetic fields and electricity have ALOT more to do with the shape of the galaxy and star formation than gravity/relativity based theories ASSUMED

What I don't see here or in anything you've prevented is the definitive evidence that EM is the ONLY factor you claim it to be.

And as always as we improve our ability to gain evidence we'll see where the evidence leads. The great thing about science is it's the only thing that's changeable. Belief systems (be it God or EM is God) have drawn a line in the sand which say it's this answer and then look no where else. Science is always undefined and follows the best available knowledge we have. And tomorrow always brings something better proven and better evidenced. If EM_is_God gets there in there the future we'll gladly accept it. Afterall we know science is indeed looking to unify the 4 fundamental forces into 1 fundamental force. Today the 'Theory of Everything' is in research...

Last edited by BrianK on 04-Jan-2013 at 05:06 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: All black holes spin. Show me one that doesn't. Your approach here is incorrect. You've said it yourself we don't have sufficient evidence. So until you can demonstrate every single black hole in the universe your statement is unable to be accepted as the truth. What do we have? There are at least 4 different mathematical postulates for Black Holes. Out of those types there are 2 which spin - Kerr-Newman and Kerr. And there are two types which are non-spinning - Ressier-Nordstrom and Schwartzschild . The Penrose Process is thought to eventually stop a Kerr-Newman's spin thereby producing a non-spinning Schwartzschild. What we do not have is sufficient evidence to claim any of these types exist or do not exist. It's a scientific TODO. We got to go back to you made the claim of reality. You demonstrate it to be true. AFAIK, and science knows, we're unable to verify your claim as true or false. You don't get to default to true. Instead we accept it's simply one of today's unknowns. Quote: can you quote N.Haramein or myself as saying his black holes were non-spinning? I hope the bolding above clued you into why I swapped your question order in my response. As Haramein makes claims of protons being Schwartzschild Black Holes. He's using a non-spinning Black Hole at the core of this claim. And as you stated he's correct you're using non-spinning Black Holes, via extension of your acceptance and claim of his version of reality.

http://dimensionalchemist.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Nassim-Haramein-Torque-Paper.pdf
As you can see Haramein is well aware of spin and added it to Einstein's equations...you're just mixing and matching information to muddy the waters...

Quote:

Quote: Oh look, it seems magnetic fields and electricity have ALOT more to do with the shape of the galaxy and star formation than gravity/relativity based theories ASSUMED What I don't see here or in anything you've prevented is the definitive evidence that EM is the ONLY factor you claim it to be. And as always as we improve our ability to gain evidence we'll see where the evidence leads. The great thing about science is it's the only thing that's changeable. Belief systems (be it God or EM is God) have drawn a line in the sand which say it's this answer and then look no where else. Science is always undefined and follows the best available knowledge we have. And tomorrow always brings something better proven and better evidenced. If EM_is_God gets there in there the future we'll gladly accept it. Afterall we know science is indeed looking to unify the 4 fundamental forces into 1 fundamental force. Today the 'Theory of Everything' is in research...

You're still of the disbelief that 'gravity' is from vacuum radiation pressure so clearly this article was lost on you to begin with...

@Lou

Quote:

http://dimensionalchemist.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Nassim-Haramein-Torque-Paper.pdf As you can see Haramein is well aware of spin and added it to Einstein's equations...you're just mixing and matching information to muddy the waters...

I never said that Haramein wasn't aware of spin. Here he's defining a Kerr-Newman Black Hole. If you read what I wrote I never stated that Haramin didn't know of spin nor did I ever state he never new of Kerr-Newman constructs. Clearly the problem with your answer is you're citing a different paper from the one I talked about.

The one I'm talking about is how Haramein defines a Schwarzschild Proton. Here's a quickie video that's work. Haramein's defining the Schwartzschild Proton What we see here is Nassim using the Schwarzschild Metric to define a Black Hole the size of a proton. (EDIT: Here's a good short cliffs note version : Charged Black Holes ) One which he calls a Schwarzschild Proton. The information Haramein clearly indicate his proton black holes subscribe to the Schwartzschild equations not the Kerr-Newman ones. If anything is mixed and matched the source is Haramein, not me.

Quote:

You're still of the disbelief that 'gravity' is from vacuum radiation pressure so clearly this article was lost on you to begin with...

No Lou. I've worked with enough science to understand this article and it's realted paper is clearly insufficent evidence to completely throw out gravitation and 'prove' it's all EM. You, via faith, assume it vacuum radition pressure is everything. So what you do is cherry pick a tiny amount of impact the tiny amount of vrp has on a system and falsely promote this iota is 100%.

Last edited by BrianK on 06-Jan-2013 at 03:25 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 05-Jan-2013 at 01:59 PM.

LHC to run in Jan 2013 then shutdown to start upgrading in preps for higher energies in 2014. 10K more super conducting electric cables will be laid. Energies will be close to doubled. During the interim there's a whole lot of data which people, using computers, will sift through.

Current work at the LHC shows Supersymmetry is unlikely to exist. Higher energies will allow more evidence to be uncovered.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: http://dimensionalchemist.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Nassim-Haramein-Torque-Paper.pdf As you can see Haramein is well aware of spin and added it to Einstein's equations...you're just mixing and matching information to muddy the waters... I never said that Haramein wasn't aware of spin. Here he's defining a Kerr-Newman Black Hole. If you read what I wrote I never stated that Haramin didn't know of spin nor did I ever state he never new of Kerr-Newman constructs. Clearly the problem with your answer is you're citing a different paper from the one I talked about. The one I'm talking about is how Haramein defines a Schwarzschild Proton. Here's a quickie video that's work. Haramein's defining the Schwartzschild Proton What we see here is Nassim using the Schwarzschild Metric to define a Black Hole the size of a proton. (EDIT: Here's a good short cliffs note version : Charged Black Holes ) One which he calls a Schwarzschild Proton. The information Haramein clearly indicate his proton black holes subscribe to the Schwartzschild equations not the Kerr-Newman ones. If anything is mixed and matched the source is Haramein, not me.

Once again you are mixing and matching information. This is typical of you.
Nassim wrote a paper using standard information and found an interesting relationship between the schwarzchild proton and the mass of the universe. Relativity doesn't account for spin, so the THEORETICAL black hole he used couldn't either. This is typical of you to take something out of context and relate it to something unrelated...it's your whole basis of logic. You can't see where things fit.

Quote:

Quote: You're still of the disbelief that 'gravity' is from vacuum radiation pressure so clearly this article was lost on you to begin with...

Quote:

No Lou. I've worked with enough science to understand this article and it's realted paper is clearly insufficent evidence to completely throw out gravitation and 'prove' it's all EM. You, via faith, assume it vacuum radition pressure is everything. So what you do is cherry pick a tiny amount of impact the tiny amount of vrp has on a system and falsely promote this iota is 100%.

Why must you always twist what I say?? You say you've "worked with enough science", ok where? You are an IT Administrator. What science credentials do you have? I will repeat my statement in a wording that you should not be able to pick apart:

YOU, WHEN THE TOPIC OF GRAVITY COMES UP, ARE STILL DISBELIEVING THAT IT IS THE RESULT OF RADIATION PRESSURE OF THE VACUUM SO WHENEVER IT IS MENTIONED YOU CONTINUE TO CLING ON THE NOTION THAT IT IS A SEPARATE FORCE DESPITE THE FACT THAT ALL SCIENTISTS BELIEVE THE FORCES CAN BE UNIFIED BUT SIMPLY HAVEN'T AGREED OR VERFIIED BEYOND BRIANK's UNREASONABLE DOUBT.

You cherry pick every time you quote ONE sentence out of the context of my paragraph(s) to continue your trollish tirades...

Last edited by Lou on 06-Jan-2013 at 09:57 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Nassim wrote a paper using standard information and found an interesting relationship between the schwarzchild proton and the mass of the universe

Not quite. In the 'The Physics of the Schwarzschild Proton' Haramein defined what a 'Schwarzschild Proton' means. It's his own term. So he didn't find a relation there. He created the term for the relation. He used the Schwarzschild instead of Kerr-Newman so in fact is using a non-spinning equation.

Quote:

Relativity doesn't account for spin

Assuming you mean General Relativity this is false. GR does indeed account for spin in a black hole. It bases a 'Black Hole' on 3 constituents, charge, mass, and angular momentum (what we call spin). Schwarzschild Black Holes have 0 charge and 0 angular momentum. Because he's using that equation he gets those properties. If he really wants spinning black holes he should be using Kerr-Newman or Reissner-Nordström equations. I suggest you want to use Kerr-Newman as that provides you the most consistent item within your faith. Those types of Black Holes give you spin, mass, and charge. Though noteably that's not what Haramein does.

Quote:

What science credentials do I have?

Do we really have to go through the appeal to authority fallacy again. I started college as an undeclared major, but know I wanted to do science. My degree is in Mathematics. I minored in Physics and Chemistry. I, also, took a couple doctorial classes as I played with getting a PhD. So yeah, I have more work than the average Joe on the street but not as much as some others. Dealing with science is not a foreign language for me.

Return the favor - what science credentials do you have?

Quote:

SCIENTISTS BELIEVE THE FORCES CAN BE UNIFIED

Yes believe an article of faith. Not proven! Not proven for me and not proven for them. Our differences are simple. You claim this unproven belief is reality. I claim to be unable to accept an article on faith and demand proof.

Quote:

You cherry pick every time you quote ONE sentence out of the context of my paragraph

No Lou. You have the misbelief that unless every word is quoted then the context is lost. I have a hard time believing you quote every word your Mom just said before answering her questions to 'ensure context is kept'. The fact is we have a different style and you dislike mine. I don't care nor should I. That problem is yours, not mine.

Last edited by BrianK on 07-Jan-2013 at 05:23 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Nassim wrote a paper using standard information and found an interesting relationship between the schwarzchild proton and the mass of the universe Not quite. In the 'The Physics of the Schwarzschild Proton' Haramein defined what a 'Schwarzschild Proton' means. It's his own term. So he didn't find a relation there. He created the term for the relation. He used the Schwarzschild instead of Kerr-Newman so in fact is using a non-spinning equation.

You continue to miss the point.
Quote:

Quote: Relativity doesn't account for spin Assuming you mean General Relativity this is false. GR does indeed account for spin in a black hole. It bases a 'Black Hole' on 3 constituents, charge, mass, and angular momentum (what we call spin). Schwarzschild Black Holes have 0 charge and 0 angular momentum. Because he's using that equation he gets those properties. If he really wants spinning black holes he should be using Kerr-Newman or Reissner-Nordström equations. I suggest you want to use Kerr-Newman as that provides you the most consistent item within your faith. Those types of Black Holes give you spin, mass, and charge. Though noteably that's not what Haramein does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein-Cartan_theory
"Although general relativity can accommodate particles with spin, including spin-1/2, by using the tetrad formalism, it cannot couple the spin to orbital angular momentum. Spin-orbit coupling is a well documented phenomenon in quantum mechanics, so a theory of gravitation that hopes to be fit eventually into a quantum theory of gravity should be expected to incorporate spin directly into its field equations."

Quote:

Quote: What science credentials do I have? Do we really have to go through the appeal to authority fallacy again. I started college as an undeclared major, but know I wanted to do science. My degree is in Mathematics. I minored in Physics and Chemistry. I, also, took a couple doctorial classes as I played with getting a PhD. So yeah, I have more work than the average Joe on the street but not as much as some others. Dealing with science is not a foreign language for me. Return the favor - what science credentials do you have?

Slightly less than you but it's not MY science that is up for debate. I present work of actual scientists that you dimiss with opinion.

Quote:

Quote: SCIENTISTS BELIEVE THE FORCES CAN BE UNIFIED Yes believe an article of faith. Not proven! Not proven for me and not proven for them. Our differences are simple. You claim this unproven belief is reality. I claim to be unable to accept an article on faith and demand proof.

...and so goes the rhetoric of BrianK...and the clipping that comes it...

Quote:

Quote: You cherry pick every time you quote ONE sentence out of the context of my paragraph No Lou. You have the misbelief that unless every word is quoted then the context is lost. I have a hard time believing you quote every word your Mom just said before answering her questions to 'ensure context is kept'. The fact is we have a different style and you dislike mine. I don't care nor should I. That problem is yours, not mine.

Lou: BrianK, you're a spade
BrianK: No I'm not.
/yawn

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130106145751.htm
Funny that this article is published in 2013 yet the predictions of it are in line with what Sitchin said in the 1970's... /yawn keep catching up science, you'll get there someday...

@Lou

Quote:

I will repeat my statement in a wording that you should not be able to pick apart: YOU, WHEN THE TOPIC OF GRAVITY COMES UP, ARE STILL DISBELIEVING THAT IT IS THE RESULT OF RADIATION PRESSURE OF THE VACUUM SO WHENEVER IT IS MENTIONED YOU CONTINUE TO CLING ON THE NOTION THAT IT IS A SEPARATE FORCE DESPITE THE FACT THAT ALL SCIENTISTS BELIEVE THE FORCES CAN BE UNIFIED BUT SIMPLY HAVEN'T AGREED OR VERFIIED BEYOND BRIANK's UNREASONABLE DOUBT.

Lou, there seems to be something wrong with your keyboard. I think that the caps lock key has got stuck!
Firstly let me reiterate the basic statement that in science belief is irrelevant. If you wish to ascertain that there is sufficient radiation pressure to push stuff around you need to demonstrate measurements of the levels of EM radiation and demonstrate that the levels of EM produce the pressure that you claim.

I am not trying to claim that there is no such thing as radiation pressure, I am merely pointing out that the vacuum energy can be measured, and from that figure the resulting radiation pressure can be determined. It is because the assertions made by Brandenburg cannot be demonstrated to be true that the rule of scientific scepticism considers them to be nothing more than unproven assertions

The fact that most scientists believe that one day a set of unifying equations will be found does not imply that they have already been found, nor does it guarantee that such equations can be found or that there is such a unification. This is because belief is irrelevant.

Quote:

Quote: Return the favor - what science credentials do you have? Slightly less than you but it's not MY science that is up for debate. I present work of actual scientists that you dimiss with opinion.

Scientific credentials are not some game of top trumps. the deciding factor in scientific acceptance of a new theory is e v i d e n c e, and once there is reproducable and verifiable e v i d e n c e all else falls into place.
I would also state that most of the sources for your claims are most definitely not scientists, and their claims have so little credibilty that they are quite simply incredible.

Quote:

Funny that this article is published in 2013 yet the predictions of it are in line with what Sitchin said in the 1970's...

Yes, a very nice article about binary star systems, but where is the e v i d e n c e that this solar system is a binary system. All you have is a second rate fantasy story written by a con artist who seems to be of the opinion that a spacecraft can be built out of wattle and daub.

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

@Lou

Quote:

You continue to miss the point.Quote: Assuming you mean General Relativity this is false. GR does indeed account for spin in a black hole. It bases a 'Black Hole' on 3 constituents, charge, mass, and angular momentum (what we call spin). Schwarzschild Black Holes have 0 charge and 0 angular momentum. Because he's using that equation he gets those properties. If he really wants spinning black holes he should be using Kerr-Newman or Reissner-Nordström equations. I suggest you want to use Kerr-Newman as that provides you the most consistent item within your faith. Those types of Black Holes give you spin, mass, and charge. Though noteably that's not what Haramein does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein-Cartan_theory "Although general relativity can accommodate particles with spin, including spin-1/2, by using the tetrad formalism, it cannot couple the spin to orbital angular momentum. Spin-orbit coupling is a well documented phenomenon in quantum mechanics, so a theory of gravitation that hopes to be fit eventually into a quantum theory of gravity should be expected to incorporate spin directly into its field equations."

No Lou you continue not to understand these constructs.
Haramein used the Schwarzschild Solution which is "describes the gravitational field outside a spherical, uncharged, non-rotating mass such as a (non-rotating) star, planet, or black hole. ". So when Haramein used this he obtained a non-rotating Black Hole. Had he been able to use Kerr-Newman Solution he would be able to obtain a spinning Black Hole. If there's spin here Haramein failed to account for it, and there are indeed ways within General Relatively to account for it. The equations are there for you to read and understand.

Quote:

Slightly less than you but it's not MY science that is up for debate. I present work of actual scientists that you dimiss with opinion

Lou I posted facts. It's a fact there are 4 types of mathematical constructs for Black Holes. It's a fact that indeed a rotating Black Hole and non-rotating Black Holes have their formulas derived from General Relativity. It's a fact that Haramein used the non-rotating formulas in his work. It's a fact you claimed that only rotating Black Holes exist. It's a fact you've been unable to prove that claim. It's a fact that you declared Haramein to be correct. It's a fact that your two claims are in conflict because you claim Black Holes of type that your choosen to support opinion of a supposed scientist doesn't demonstrate.

I'd add your 'science' is up for debate. You're the one that is pressing this 'science' is the gospel truth. Much of your 'science' are unproven postulates that make inaccurate predictions in relation to the current state of evidence. The most honest and accurate statement you've made is when you bitched that I was attacking your faith. I was and you're right!

Quote:

Lou: BrianK, you're a spade BrianK: No I'm not. /yawn

I agree. You made a pointless comment that adds nothing but derails conversation.

Until about 10 years ago we had no evidence of planets outside of our solar system. They were postulated, but not evidenced. Since that time our ability and focus to discover planets has increased. Having a larger swath of evidence has narrowed the predictive estimates of planets to 100Billion in the Milky Way. Out of those 17Billion will be earth sized. LINK As we discover more planets this estimate is certainly to get better. Now remember the observed universe has ~80Billion galaxies.

NASA says an asteroid will hit us in 2035

But somehow the Nibiruians believe NASA is covering up another planet will impact earth? Well, not only NASA but every world government is part of the conspiracy. Even though they're in competition with NASA they join in the cover up. And along with them every major software company. Cuz you know Google and Microsoft work together so well to ensure a conspiracy happens. And not only that the throws of amateur astronomers that point their telescopes every night to the sky. They work together to ensure we don't know about Nibiru. too.

I'm sure after they decided to all work together to ensure UFOs are covered up a planet was just a minor step.