@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: You continue to miss the point. Quote: No Lou you continue not to understand these constructs. No, you continue to put words in my mouth to argue a misrepresentation... Quote: 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.

Haramein's paper was on engergy/mass/gravity relationships. YOU just like to twist the facts as usual.

Quote:

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.

You post unrelated facts. Take your Kerr-Newman black hole then add Penrose mechanism and you are left with a Schwartzchild Black Hole. So take your twisting of the information and shove it.

Quote:

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!

No Mr. Twist. You have opinion not facts on your side. You also warp the original scope to introduce unrelated information so that your defending a twisted argument that was never made.

Quote:

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.

This coming from the king of taking a sentence with meaning in a paragraph and removing its meaning then adding his own wording around it...


This is an example of your twisting things:
Me: I turned left.
Mr. Twist: You never turned right. Well because you never turned right, you probably went straight ,,, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah - now its up to you to prove never turning right when heading north on a highway will get you to the west.

@Nimrod

Welcome back!

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @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!

No, just sick of his constant habit of pulling one sentence out of a paragraph and going on a tirade on that sentence ignoring the point of the paragraph. So what does the troll do? He yanks a few words of the sentence and goes on a tirade...

Quote:

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.

You're right, belief is irrelevant. That's why I'd hoped you all would stop posting. Over time more and more scientists are proving what I have chosen to believe. You all just blinding yourselves to that.

Quote:

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.

With regards to Sitchin, I don't care if details are off. I told you I simply believe the overall view. What is amusing in all this is how plausible he seems to be with the solar system creation. Amazing for a non-scientist!

As for Brandenburg, you really can't argue with him. You do try but its useless.

Quote:

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.

Rather than continue to post more senseless crap, why don't you show where Sitchin is a con artist and where he made this statement about wattle and daub?
Or will you fall back to the BrianK method of always putting the burden of proof on me?

Like it or not, this article is a notch in Sitchin's belt. :P

Oh look: the impractical solar sail suddenly becomes practicle

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130108084144.htm

"The tether factory has so far produced ultrasonic welds for one kilometre of aluminium tether"

Last edited by Lou on 08-Jan-2013 at 08:26 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

You post unrelated facts

NOTE: You are the one that claimed ALL Black Holes in our universe have spin. We clearly do not have sufficient data at this juncture to make that the proven fact you claim. You really haven't even bothered to try. (Certainly we've given you ample time. Do you an ETA at when you'll provide us the evidence for your 'fact'?)

You were unaware that you hold two incongruent 'facts' as your belief. The one is you claiming an unproven all Black Holes at spin. The other is that Haramein is right about the universe, while Haramein uses non-spinning Black Holes as his proton. These two facts are both related as you and Haramein define your Black Holes as different constructs.

Quote:

This coming from the king of taking a sentence with meaning in a paragraph and removing its meaning

Bullocks. You've yet to demonstrate this to be true either. Even recently I lost nothing from the drivel you posted when your keyboard was broken and all-caps stuck on. Fact is what you claimed in caps is false. Shouting doesn't make it any less false.

Quote:

You're right, belief is irrelevant. That's why I'd hoped you all would stop posting. Over time more and more scientists are proving what I have chosen to believe. You all just blinding yourselves to that.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. Most of what you've posted is not proven by science. It's postulated (at best) by Science. When we ask for proof you post more postulates. You clearly don't have a backing in science as you clearly do not understand the difference between postulate and evidence.

Quote:

With regards to Sitchin, I don't care if details are off.

Obviously. If you did care about details being off you'd be put off by Stichin. Faith is defined as believing without knowing. You'd need to give up faith if you wanted to understand the factual details.

Quote:

why don't you show where Sitchin is a con artist

In order to do that we'd first need to falsely assuming that you care if details are off. We know from recent comments (cited above) you do not.

Last edited by BrianK on 08-Jan-2013 at 10:07 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Oh look: the impractical solar sail suddenly becomes practicle

Yawn - false impressions by you creating Strawmen. Color me unimpressed.

Using Solar Sails by understanding and utilizing their practicable application is something I have 'faith' that science will accomplish.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: 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.

15 planets in habitable Zones Including 1 found by amateur astronomers.

But the Nibiru cover-up continues.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Oh look: the impractical solar sail suddenly becomes practicle Yawn - false impressions by you creating Strawmen. Color me unimpressed. Using Solar Sails by understanding and utilizing their practicable application is something I have 'faith' that science will accomplish.

Why don't you rewind back a few weeks where I posted that NASA tested a solar sail in orbit already.

Color yourself un-informed and blind to most actual science going on.

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

"Direct piezoelectricity of some substances, like quartz, can generate potential differences of thousands of volts.
The best-known application is the electric cigarette lighter: pressing the button causes a spring-loaded hammer to hit a piezoelectric crystal, producing a sufficiently high voltage electric current that flows across a small spark gap, thus heating and igniting the gas. The portable sparkers used to ignite gas stoves work the same way, and many types of gas burners now have built-in piezo-based ignition systems.
A similar idea is being researched by DARPA in the United States in a project called Energy Harvesting, which includes an attempt to power battlefield equipment by piezoelectric generators embedded in soldiers' boots. However, these energy harvesting sources by association have an impact on the body. DARPA's effort to harness 1–2 watts from continuous shoe impact while walking were abandoned due to the impracticality and the discomfort from the additional energy expended by a person wearing the shoes. Other energy harvesting ideas include harvesting the energy from human movements in train stations or other public places[24][25] and converting a dance floor to generate electricity.[26] Vibrations from industrial machinery can also be harvested by piezoeletric materials to charge batteries for backup supplies or to power low-power microprocessors and wireless radios.[27]
"

Just a matter of time before we stop paying for electricity. The industry needs to convert from remote power generation and delivery to an industry that develops local power storage devices along with pre-fab'd components that can generate electricity from various "free" sources.

Yes, NIMROD, you can throw this in the "free energy" bucket if you wish, but this is science-fact and is how sonar works.

And yes, this does prove that crystals are an energy 'source'...whoa is that more 'science-fiction becoming science-fact?'

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: You post unrelated facts NOTE: You are the one that claimed ALL Black Holes in our universe have spin. We clearly do not have sufficient data at this juncture to make that the proven fact you claim. You really haven't even bothered to try. (Certainly we've given you ample time. Do you an ETA at when you'll provide us the evidence for your 'fact'?) You were unaware that you hold two incongruent 'facts' as your belief. The one is you claiming an unproven all Black Holes at spin. The other is that Haramein is right about the universe, while Haramein uses non-spinning Black Holes as his proton. These two facts are both related as you and Haramein define your Black Holes as different constructs.

....more BrianK rethoric...
You keep using these words like 'your claiming' and subsoquently put words in my mouth. Basically: stfu already. You simply read into what I post something different and twisted. You are blind to this of course, but seriously, I'm quite sick of it.

Quote:

Quote: This coming from the king of taking a sentence with meaning in a paragraph and removing its meaning Bullocks. You've yet to demonstrate this to be true either. Even recently I lost nothing from the drivel you posted when your keyboard was broken and all-caps stuck on. Fact is what you claimed in caps is false. Shouting doesn't make it any less false.

I call you out on it all the time. Stop lying.

Quote:

Quote: You're right, belief is irrelevant. That's why I'd hoped you all would stop posting. Over time more and more scientists are proving what I have chosen to believe. You all just blinding yourselves to that. I reject your reality and substitute my own. Most of what you've posted is not proven by science. It's postulated (at best) by Science. When we ask for proof you post more postulates. You clearly don't have a backing in science as you clearly do not understand the difference between postulate and evidence.

And you have a problem with reading and replying to paragraphs and instead reply to sentences.

Quote:

Quote: With regards to Sitchin, I don't care if details are off. Obviously. If you did care about details being off you'd be put off by Stichin. Faith is defined as believing without knowing. You'd need to give up faith if you wanted to understand the factual details.

faith has roughly 5 definitions, which one are you using? regardless, you have faith in GR even though it's wrong in 96% of the observable universe...
Is that a spade being a spade again?

Quote:

Quote: why don't you show where Sitchin is a con artist In order to do that we'd first need to falsely assuming that you care if details are off. We know from recent comments (cited above) you do not.

aka: you got nothing, gotcha.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @BrianK Quote: BrianK wrote: 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. 15 planets in habitable Zones Including 1 found by amateur astronomers. But the Nibiru cover-up continues.

hey rocket scientist, do you know how these planets are found?

@Lou

Quote:

You keep using these words like 'your claiming' and subsoquently put words in my mouth

No Lou you seem to be unable to follow your own posts. You made various claims that Haramein is right about his view of the universe and about the Schwarzschild Proton being a Black Hole. Mathematically Haramein handled this as a non-spinning Black Hole. (Remember you asked us to read this stuff and we did.) Also you did claim that reality spinning Black Holes. Here's your own words so you can remember that.
Quote:

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

... Clearly I did not make any claims that you had not. The main difference if I took your two different versions Black Holes you used to claim reality and made you critique the inconsistent and incongruent faith.

Quote:

I call you out on it all the time. Stop lying.

There's a difference between running around calling the sky is falling and proving the sky is falling. While you run around calling foul, you've never proved foul. Show me how I lost the context - what piece of the meaning was missed? I know Lou it's that whole tricky evidence thing again. Proclaiming postulates and failing to prove them is indeed a faith you hold dear.

Quote:

And you have a problem with reading and replying to paragraphs and instead reply to sentences.

This is a threaded topic. One need not contain a whole paragraph to maintain the context. I contend that even keeping a full paragraph may lose context because there's a many paragraphed conversation. Many (if not most) read threads as an ongoing conversation not just 1 post out of the middle. We simply have different expectations and use of communication. I appreciate and respect yours as an individual. I ask that you do the same and realize you're not the boss of me or of Amigaworld.

Quote:

faith has roughly 5 definitions, which one are you using?

Let me requite what you quote. As you quoted the whole paragraph and lost that context. (hmm...) 'Faith is defined as believing without knowing. '

Quote:

regardless, you have faith in GR even though it's wrong in 96% of the observable universe...

Actually no. I have faith that science will get to a fuller explanation. And I have the knowledge that at present the best and most available evidence indicates that gravity is one of 4 Fundamental Forces. I also have the faith that I may have to change this in the future if better evidences become available. My 'faith' accepts there are that unknown 96%. It doesn't presume an answer that your EM_is_God excuse does.

Quote:

aka: you got nothing, gotcha.

If you are really going to care about these details then you have to focus on them. You can't do the 'trick' you did with Gravity and not bother to read the evidence. Start with http://www.stichiniswrong.com to look at the linguistics and mistakes Stichin has made. It's a good site detailing why other linguists see that the untrained Stichin made some serious linguistic mistakes.


Quote:

hey rocket scientist, do you know how these planets are found?

There are various ways planets outside our solar system are discovered. Effects of gravity are one way - their local sun moving due to gravitational forces between the planets and sun. Another effect of gravity is microlensing - where a nearby star amplifies the planet image. There's direct imaging with a telescope. There's the transit method where a planet travelling between us and their local star blocks a bit of light (think eclipse). Easy to have a computer compute the % of light change and a moving dark spot. Similar to the transit method is when the planet blocks a Pulsar. ... There's a few off the top of my head from various readings.

@Lou

Quote:

Yes, NIMROD, you can throw this in the "free energy" bucket if you wish, but this is science-fact and is how sonar works.

If you went back to school and learned how to read you would be in a better position to learn other things. but of course you just never bother with the basics. The energy harvested in the various piezo electric systems does not miraculously appear from nowhere, it is a conversion of the mechanical energy applied into electrical energy. The simple fact remains that at best you can recover 1 watt of electrical energy for each watt of mechanical energy supplied. That is at best, however it is highly unlikely that any system will run at 100% efficiency, and this is what lets your fantasies down eleven times out of ten. You do not get the full one point eight one jiggerwatts output from the flux capacitor for a 1mW input from your Mr fusion flying DeLorean.

The "Free energy" fantasy that you espouse is the attept to convince either yourself or others that energy can be extracted from the zero point. Once again if you learn the basics (how to read) you will realise that the definition of zero point indicates that energy cannot be extracted from the zero point.

I agree that as power efficiencies of microelectronic devices improves we will soon have cheap led lighting and solar powered computers, however you will not be able to power an electric vehicle for a week at 100 mph on a single charge of an AAA battery. Not even the current third fastest electric car. (Fiero!)

Quote:

whoa is that more 'science-fiction becoming science-fact?'

Since piezo-electric effects were first used in 1880, and inverse piezo-electric effects in 1881, I think that you are possibly a bit behind the times, again. The problem with you is that your ideas of science are stuck in the 19th century, while some of us have passed all of the way through the 20th and into the 21st century. People have been buying and using piezo-electric transducers for almost one hundred years, so they are less science fiction and more ancient history.

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

@Lou,

Since you're playing with calling science faith let's look at the concept a bit and see why it's different than your faith.

Your faith is based on a definitive answer. In your view Haramein and Brandenburg are right. In response your system has no flexibility or ability to prove them wrong. You've selected a conclusion then find postulates and 'evidence' to support them. You then ignore that which does not support your conclusion. Aka your view is essentially the closed minded cherry picking of items that support your chosen conclusion.

Science (and my and Nimrod) are very different here. We don't have a conclusion. What we have is evidence. Our present best description is based off the best available evidence. And as that evidence changes our best description will change accordingly. It doesn't cherry pick reasons for the conclusion because no conclusion exists. In fact it can't there's nothing to cherry pick to. The 'conclusion' is always dependent upon the evidence. The answer is available from the best evidence we have. My 'faith' is that science will always strive to a deeper and more true understanding than what we had yesterday, or have today.

Importantly the scientific method has born this out many of times. In fact there's a term the major changes in 'conclusion' based on evidence - a Paradigm Shift. We can always talk the when/how/why/whats around Paradigm Shifts. It's a matter of fact they do always happen. There aren't any cases I can think of that we don't have better ability and capability in than our scientists in a different pre-Shift view had not. It's with this better evidence that science changes it's mind and selects the best solution, Lou's religion cannot change.

...
Let's use a bit of an example to reflect the differences in faith. Someone built the Mayan Pyramids. We don't know who.
* Lou's outlook is he finds a writer who says he 'translated' the language. That apparently no one else can translate. And that the language says Aliens. Lou accepts this postulate as a conclusion.

*BrianK (and science) finds a different set of people who have a different translation. That the language isn't about Alien visitors. Brian accepts this postulate as a question of which we need evidence to confirm or deny. So we send out a team of researchers.
1) They work to check the language and writings.
2) We excavate to look for clues.
a) Human remains are found
b) Quarries are found
c) Human tools are found at the quarries
3) We then take the evidence and check it. Does the availability of tools, type of rock, lead to possible types of solutions? Do the tools make the cuts? Yeah those lined up. Could people move the stones? Yeah they certainly could be moved by technology of the era.

So we have Lou's list of a postulated unknown - we don't know which aliens, or how, or why but Lou concludes they did it. Standing up against a group of postulated knowns - people existed, tools existed, tools match the cuts, technology could be worked. The state is the same for both we don't really "know" who did it. However, what we do evidence is that people cannot be discarded.

So our 'faiths' are different. Lou's was a writing that formed a conclusion. Brian's was a writing that formed the never ending cycling investigating and skepticism. The best available evidence points to - Humans! But that always includes fine print that says - based on the existing state of evidence and willing to change if and when that better evidence becomes available.

Richard Feyman says this quicker in a couple of lines and is worthy of a viewing.

....

What I see here is we have is Lou's inflexible faith that in shorthand reads that he knows the mind of God. Versus the flexible faith that says we don't know and will do our best to demonstrate what we can best show it to be, knowing well that a better version may possibly exist in the future. But, in Brian's faith we can't claim to know reality we can only demonstrate and use what we know.

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

@Nimrod

Don't know whether to laugh or to cry, really. The only source of free energy we know of that hasn't been tapped is people working out at the gym. But considering how much less energy for farming we would need if people ate a little less to begin with, I don't really see how that makes sense.

_________________
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.

@BrianK

....and the king of replying to sentences vs. paragraphs strikes again!

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: You keep using these words like 'your claiming' and subsoquently put words in my mouth No Lou you seem to be unable to follow your own posts. You made various claims that Haramein is right about his view of the universe and about the Schwarzschild Proton being a Black Hole. Mathematically Haramein handled this as a non-spinning Black Hole. (Remember you asked us to read this stuff and we did.) Also you did claim that reality spinning Black Holes. Here's your own words so you can remember that. Quote: This whole thought experiment it also talking about a simple black hole and not the spinning ones of reality, ... Clearly I did not make any claims that you had not. The main difference if I took your two different versions Black Holes you used to claim reality and made you critique the inconsistent and incongruent faith.

Clearly you are retarded.
You are criss-crossing 2 things because you are a retarded troll.
This started with an unrealistic thought experiment about fictional black holes.
You then related it to Nassim Haramein's paper. Why? Because you are a retarded troll.

Quote:

Quote: I call you out on it all the time. Stop lying. There's a difference between running around calling the sky is falling and proving the sky is falling. While you run around calling foul, you've never proved foul. Show me how I lost the context - what piece of the meaning was missed? I know Lou it's that whole tricky evidence thing again. Proclaiming postulates and failing to prove them is indeed a faith you hold dear.

You're a retarded troll who can't stay on topic.

Quote:

Quote: And you have a problem with reading and replying to paragraphs and instead reply to sentences. This is a threaded topic. One need not contain a whole paragraph to maintain the context. I contend that even keeping a full paragraph may lose context because there's a many paragraphed conversation. Many (if not most) read threads as an ongoing conversation not just 1 post out of the middle. We simply have different expectations and use of communication. I appreciate and respect yours as an individual. I ask that you do the same and realize you're not the boss of me or of Amigaworld.

This thread continues a naming convention. Clearly NIBIRU is not the only topic discussed, you troll, not that you stay on the NIBIRU topic, mr. walking hypocrit.

Quote:

Quote: faith has roughly 5 definitions, which one are you using? Let me requite what you quote. As you quoted the whole paragraph and lost that context. (hmm...) 'Faith is defined as believing without knowing. ' Quote: regardless, you have faith in GR even though it's wrong in 96% of the observable universe... Actually no. I have faith that science will get to a fuller explanation. And I have the knowledge that at present the best and most available evidence indicates that gravity is one of 4 Fundamental Forces. I also have the faith that I may have to change this in the future if better evidences become available. My 'faith' accepts there are that unknown 96%. It doesn't presume an answer that your EM_is_God excuse does. Quote: aka: you got nothing, gotcha. If you are really going to care about these details then you have to focus on them. You can't do the 'trick' you did with Gravity and not bother to read the evidence. Start with http://www.stichiniswrong.com to look at the linguistics and mistakes Stichin has made. It's a good site detailing why other linguists see that the untrained Stichin made some serious linguistic mistakes.

....and the king of replying to sentences vs. paragraphs strikes again!
Why does 1 man need to start a whole website dedicated to 'disproving' another man? If, as you claim, Sitchin's work is fiction, then what is the need for this?

You have faith in 4 forces...even though some have been unified. It's just faith mind you.

Read this article carefully: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130109162034.htm
So his origninal constant was a blunder and that's the one people continue to use. The *new constant* had/has a value of 10^60 which people thought was crazy, hence dark energy, etc..., was posulated by the science that you worship. Meanwhile you still worship the blunder. You trip on your own hipocrasy. You accept the blundered theory of general relativity like the physics noob I've always said you are.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith ... yes 5 definitions, perhaps I should start a website: www.BrianKIsWrong.com ...

Quote:

Quote: hey rocket scientist, do you know how these planets are found? There are various ways planets outside our solar system are discovered. Effects of gravity are one way - their local sun moving due to gravitational forces between the planets and sun. Another effect of gravity is microlensing - where a nearby star amplifies the planet image. There's direct imaging with a telescope. There's the transit method where a planet travelling between us and their local star blocks a bit of light (think eclipse). Easy to have a computer compute the % of light change and a moving dark spot. Similar to the transit method is when the planet blocks a Pulsar. ... There's a few off the top of my head from various readings.

Let me clarify what actually happens.
COMPUTER PROGRAMS analyze the data to look for lights fading then brightening. So when a planet orbits infront of a star, it looks fainter. The COMPUTERS identity patterns at individual stars when this brightening then fading patter repeats. IF NIBIRU exists, it will possbly hide a star but not in a repeatable pattern. Hence it would not be identified as a planet orbitting an individual star lightyears away. BUY A CLUE.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Yes, NIMROD, you can throw this in the "free energy" bucket if you wish, but this is science-fact and is how sonar works. If you went back to school and learned how to read you would be in a better position to learn other things. but of course you just never bother with the basics. The energy harvested in the various piezo electric systems does not miraculously appear from nowhere, it is a conversion of the mechanical energy applied into electrical energy. The simple fact remains that at best you can recover 1 watt of electrical energy for each watt of mechanical energy supplied. That is at best, however it is highly unlikely that any system will run at 100% efficiency, and this is what lets your fantasies down eleven times out of ten. You do not get the full one point eight one jiggerwatts output from the flux capacitor for a 1mW input from your Mr fusion flying DeLorean. The "Free energy" fantasy that you espouse is the attept to convince either yourself or others that energy can be extracted from the zero point. Once again if you learn the basics (how to read) you will realise that the definition of zero point indicates that energy cannot be extracted from the zero point. I agree that as power efficiencies of microelectronic devices improves we will soon have cheap led lighting and solar powered computers, however you will not be able to power an electric vehicle for a week at 100 mph on a single charge of an AAA battery. Not even the current third fastest electric car. (Fiero!) Quote: whoa is that more 'science-fiction becoming science-fact?' Since piezo-electric effects were first used in 1880, and inverse piezo-electric effects in 1881, I think that you are possibly a bit behind the times, again. The problem with you is that your ideas of science are stuck in the 19th century, while some of us have passed all of the way through the 20th and into the 21st century. People have been buying and using piezo-electric transducers for almost one hundred years, so they are less science fiction and more ancient history.

I put 'free energy' in quotes for a reason you oaf.
If I made the walls of my house contain this type of setup, after the installation cost, it could generate electricity for 'free'. In other words, a truck driving up the street could vibrate the walls to cause a voltage. Or the energy from the sound of my home stereo could be captured and harness. I'm going to use my stero regardless, so deriving energy from it is a net gain and again 'free'. When I walk from room to room, that energy could be captured and is also FREE since I haven't mastered leviation yet. Wind power is free energy. Solar power is free energy. I don't care about initial set up costs. Over time, energy can be generated for FREE.

@olegil

Quote:

The only source of free energy we know of that hasn't been tapped is people working out at the gym.

Some gyms are experimenting with this. A couple in California I've been too produce their own power on treadmills and bikes. It's not yet enough to fully cover all their power needs but I guess it makes a significant dent in the bills. And what's better charge people to produce your energy!

Quote:

But considering how much less energy for farming we would need if people ate a little less to begin with, I don't really see how that makes sense.

There was a report on the radio today citing across the world 50% of the food produced goes to waste. The reasons between the 1st world and 3rd world are different but it's fairly consistent none-the-less.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou, Since you're playing with calling science faith let's look at the concept a bit and see why it's different than your faith. Your faith is based on a definitive answer. In your view Haramein and Brandenburg are right. In response your system has no flexibility or ability to prove them wrong. You've selected a conclusion then find postulates and 'evidence' to support them. You then ignore that which does not support your conclusion. Aka your view is essentially the closed minded cherry picking of items that support your chosen conclusion. Science (and my and Nimrod) are very different here. We don't have a conclusion. What we have is evidence. Our present best description is based off the best available evidence. And as that evidence changes our best description will change accordingly. It doesn't cherry pick reasons for the conclusion because no conclusion exists. In fact it can't there's nothing to cherry pick to. The 'conclusion' is always dependent upon the evidence. The answer is available from the best evidence we have. My 'faith' is that science will always strive to a deeper and more true understanding than what we had yesterday, or have today. Importantly the scientific method has born this out many of times. In fact there's a term the major changes in 'conclusion' based on evidence - a Paradigm Shift. We can always talk the when/how/why/whats around Paradigm Shifts. It's a matter of fact they do always happen. There aren't any cases I can think of that we don't have better ability and capability in than our scientists in a different pre-Shift view had not. It's with this better evidence that science changes it's mind and selects the best solution, Lou's religion cannot change. ... Let's use a bit of an example to reflect the differences in faith. Someone built the Mayan Pyramids. We don't know who. * Lou's outlook is he finds a writer who says he 'translated' the language. That apparently no one else can translate. And that the language says Aliens. Lou accepts this postulate as a conclusion. *BrianK (and science) finds a different set of people who have a different translation. That the language isn't about Alien visitors. Brian accepts this postulate as a question of which we need evidence to confirm or deny. So we send out a team of researchers. 1) They work to check the language and writings. 2) We excavate to look for clues. a) Human remains are found b) Quarries are found c) Human tools are found at the quarries 3) We then take the evidence and check it. Does the availability of tools, type of rock, lead to possible types of solutions? Do the tools make the cuts? Yeah those lined up. Could people move the stones? Yeah they certainly could be moved by technology of the era. So we have Lou's list of a postulated unknown - we don't know which aliens, or how, or why but Lou concludes they did it. Standing up against a group of postulated knowns - people existed, tools existed, tools match the cuts, technology could be worked. The state is the same for both we don't really "know" who did it. However, what we do evidence is that people cannot be discarded. So our 'faiths' are different. Lou's was a writing that formed a conclusion. Brian's was a writing that formed the never ending cycling investigating and skepticism. The best available evidence points to - Humans! But that always includes fine print that says - based on the existing state of evidence and willing to change if and when that better evidence becomes available. Richard Feyman says this quicker in a couple of lines and is worthy of a viewing. .... What I see here is we have is Lou's inflexible faith that in shorthand reads that he knows the mind of God. Versus the flexible faith that says we don't know and will do our best to demonstrate what we can best show it to be, knowing well that a better version may possibly exist in the future. But, in Brian's faith we can't claim to know reality we can only demonstrate and use what we know.

What I see here is a troll being a troll. How many tangents can a troll go on? ...must stop feeding the trolls...

@Lou

Quote:

the king of replying to sentences

You can't change me your can only change yourself. We disagree on how to handle a threaded topic. So you can keep putting these. I think I've made my view clear, and I won't be changing that anytime soon.

Quote:

Clearly you are retarded. You are criss-crossing 2 things because you are a retarded troll. This started with an unrealistic thought experiment about fictional black holes. You then related it to Nassim Haramein's paper. Why? Because you are a retarded troll.

Personal insults doesn't help a conversation. Putting others down doesn't bring yourself up.

Why did I post this about Haramein's Paper? It's fairly a straight forward cross examination of your version of reality. You claimed Haramein's non-spinning Black Holes to be reality. You claimed only spinning Black Holes to be reality.

Quote:

Why does 1 man need to start a whole website dedicated to 'disproving' another man? If, as you claim, Sitchin's work is fiction, then what is the need for this?

You asked for disproof of Stichin's work then complain that disproof is needed. Maybe if you stayed with the topic you would realize why that was provided.

So to your question. Throws of people have faith in crazy stuff all the time. Faith is defined as believing without knowing. A site that is devoted to evidencing and knowing can help those people that wish to investigate their belief and see if there's actual evidence for or against their presupposed conclusive acceptance.

Quote:

You have faith in 4 forces...even though some have been unified. It's just faith mind you.

Err, yes and no. We have unified a force mathematically. However, it's not thought this unification operations in the existing universe. For example: Electroweak is the unification of EM + Weak forces. In order for this to exist the math says it happens at super hot conditions. The universe, at present, doesn't have these conditions. A sufficiently hot condition is thought to have existed a few millionths of a second after a Big Bang type of event.

But, again my 'faith' says the best we can say and do is based on the best evidence available to us. And the best evidence tomorrow may be something different. So 4 it's open to 4 force are changed. I accept that Electroweak Stars are supposed, but not yet evidenced. Also 5th and 6th Fundamental forces are supposed in String Theory, but not yet evidenced. But again I accept until they're evidenced we can't proclaim them a reality in our universe.

Quote:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith ... yes 5 definitions, perhaps I should start a website: www.BrianKIsWrong.com

Again we see you posting a Strawman and a personal attack. No surprises there. You're all butthurt again but let's look at what happened. You claimed there were 5 definitions of faith and asked me which one I was using. However, I already stated specifically which definition I was using and you quoted the full paragraph with that definition in there. ... You complain about losing context if the full paragraph isn't quoted. This example shows to me that even if you quote the full paragraph you might not bother to read and understand it. No wonder you have such difficulties with a progressive conversation and demand regression.

Quote:

hey rocket scientist, do you know how these planets are found? [quote] Again I posted several definitions including - the transit method where computers analyze the change in the light. [quote]COMPUTER PROGRAMS analyze the data to look for lights fading then brightening

Yes that is indeed one of the ways. I think your caps lock is stuck again or perhaps you didn't bother to read and understand my response so think I missed something when I had not.

Quote:

...IF NIBIRU exists, it will possbly hide a star but not in a repeatable pattern. Hence it would not be identified as a planet orbitting an individual star lightyears away.

Yes perhaps Nibiru could not be found by this 1 out of many different methods of discovery. IF Nibiru is ever discovered we can discuss what methods would be applicable. Perhaps you're right or perhaps you're wrong. We can't say until the mythical Nibiru is found to be a reality.

@Lou

Quote:

What I see here is a troll being a troll. How many tangents can a troll go on? ...must stop feeding the trolls

My post #153 was good. It detailed Lou's Faith and Faith in Science and explained the difference and incongruencies between the two. Clearly faith is not faith. The post did well explaining why that is the case.

Last edited by BrianK on 10-Jan-2013 at 04:30 PM.