@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @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.

Dude, you have faith in the blundered version of general relativity and then point the finger at me when talking about BLIND FAITH. I don't have to dis-prove, GR, it already has been and you still worship it.

You consistently claim absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
You're just here to troll.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @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.

You do a fine job of putting yourself down. You are relating a thought experiment involving no math or form of reality to a paper heavily based on math. SMARTEN THE F UP! Your statements are ludicrous. You are just trolling.

Quote:

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.

That website is 1 man's opinion in which you put your faith in. Come back with hard evidence rather than a he-said/she-said website.

Quote:

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.

...and you're a person devoted to trolling, it doesn't make you right....

Quote:

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.

Yes, thanks for admitting your faith is on things 'thought to have existed'.

Quote:

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.

That's right troll, keep the conversation going on tangents.

Quote:

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.

I think your brain is stuck. Do you think they pay peopel to stare at numbers all day? No - they use computers to show LIKELY matches based on pattens. BUY A CLUE.

@Lou

Quote:

Dude, you have faith in the blundered version of general relativity and then point the finger at me when talking about BLIND FAITH.

Not true. The reason why is improved qualitative and quantiative evidence comes along my 'faith' will switch to the version that has demonstrated itself to be more correct. My true 'faith' is that humans will be able to evidence more accurately tomorrow than we can today. The best we can always say depends on the current state of the evidence.

Quote:

I don't have to dis-prove, GR

Nope you don't. You are pushing EM is the answer for everything. You have to prove that! To date you've been unable to provide qualtative or quantiative evidence for your proclaimed faith.

@Lou

Quote:

You are relating a thought experiment involving no math or form of reality to a paper heavily based on math.

Actually not true at all. I related a statement you made (in short - only spinning Black Holes exist) to another statement you made (in short - Haramein is right about non-spinning Black Holes.) It's true you made the first statement in relation to a thought experiment. However, your contention here that I related a thought experiment to Haramein's paper is a false statement on your part. ...( BTW, you're wrong about 'no math' too. The thought experiment was heavily involved in math - it discussed the differences of how Einstein's Theory and Quantum Mechanics mathematically understand a Black Hole.)

Quote:

That website is 1 man's opinion in which you put your faith in. Come back with hard evidence rather than a he-said/she-said website.

Like I figured you were ' don't care if details are off'. This is not unlike what you did about Gravity. You decided to just not read the items when presented to you. You are quite the unfair sport. ( I didn't read all you wrote. But For example, I read and learned enough about Haramein to understand his Black Hole formulas were of the non-spinning variety so at least gave your items the review you requested. Something you appeared to not have understood. )

Quote:

Yes, thanks for admitting your faith is on things 'thought to have existed'.

Demonstrated beyond a postulate to exist. A not so subtle difference.

Quote:

I think your brain is stuck. Do you think they pay peopel to stare at numbers all day? No - they use computers to show LIKELY matches based on pattens. BUY A CLUE.

Now I know how you spent your time calling Nimrod and I stupid. But, if you read post #151 you will see that I explictedly stated the use of computers. Here's the string incase you want to go back and do a Search -- 'Easy to have a computer compute the % of light change'. ... And I know how you spend your time trying to stress anything less than a full paragraph loses context for the reader. But, it appears you lose meanings even when you quote full paragraphs. See your post #155. Hit next as you're searching you can confirm you quoted me quoting the use of computers. ... The reason you ended up lying and if this was an accidental lie or purposeful lie is only one you can determine. No need for us to know. But feel free to retact the clearly false assertion you made.

My response hasn't changed by your lie. To rephrase while keeping the same meaning - Using the transit method to detect planets is 1 of many ways a planet can be discovered. While you claim Nibiru can't be found in this way we don't know if that's true or not. The only way we can know is that is true is to first find the fictional Nibiru. And once found we can go back and discuss all the potential methods that could have been used to find the planet.

@Lou

Quote:

Dude, you have faith in the blundered version of general relativity and then point the finger at me when talking about BLIND FAITH

Whatever gives you the idea that anybody here considers general relativity as some kind of perfect solution to all of the questions of life, the universe, and everything. It obviously isn't, because thew answer to the universal question of life , the universe, and everything is 42!
What general relativity is accepted for being, is the best available explanation. as soon as something better comes along, GR will be shelved and the better answer will be used. Of course I am not pretending to be so clever as to be able to predict what that better solution will be, but I am confident that it will not be any of the brainfarts that you have posted from the likes of Haramein, N. K. Shah, or Omerbashich, or any other moron with a sticky caps lock key.

Quote:

You consistently claim absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

In this, you are totally, completely, and absolutely wrong. Sometimes absence of evidence can be taken as indication of absence, for example there is a distinct lack of evidence for the presence of an adult bull elephant sitting on my lap at the moment. It can therefore be safely assumed therefore that I do not have an adult bull elephant sitting on my lap. (Lucky for me!) In other claims that you have attempted to support far from claiming a lack of supporting evidence, we have produced evidence that destroys the foundations of your claims. As an example I will reiterate the weaknesses in Harameins claims for "protons = black holes". A black hole with its event horizon matching the diameter of a proton would have a mass of hundreds of tonnes, and a black hole with the equivalent mass of a proton would have an event horizon less than a billionth of the planck length. Add to this that micro black holes are "hotter" and evaporate rapidly giving off Hawking radiation until they cease to exist.

Quote:

That website is 1 man's opinion in which you put your faith in.

In this, you are again totally, completely, and absolutely wrong. Heiser does not blindly state his opinion, he cites other experienced competent linguists, he indicates the presence of reference works, some of which were authored by people who could actually speak and write ancient sumerian because they were the conquerors of ancient Sumer. Heiser also takes whole texts to translate, not merely short phrases, or even single words. As a result he translates the bit before the bit where Sitchin says "They built a spaceship". The bit where it describes how they mixed straw and mud together to make bricks. Mud and straw bricks being a variation on the theme of wattle and daub, in answer to your question in post #142.

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

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Dude, you have faith in the blundered version of general relativity and then point the finger at me when talking about BLIND FAITH. Not true. The reason why is improved qualitative and quantiative evidence comes along my 'faith' will switch to the version that has demonstrated itself to be more correct. My true 'faith' is that humans will be able to evidence more accurately tomorrow than we can today. The best we can always say depends on the current state of the evidence.

Yes and that faith was answered by John Brandenburg. An amusing tidbit that, because you choose to remain uneducated about Brandenburg's theory, you wouldn't understand is that the author of the article that I linked regarding the newer constant and disproving dark energy is that the author went about it the same way as Brandenburg. Brandenburg's findings come from studying the mass ratio of the proton to the electron.

Quote:

Quote: I don't have to dis-prove, GR Nope you don't. You are pushing EM is the answer for everything. You have to prove that! To date you've been unable to provide qualtative or quantiative evidence for your proclaimed faith.

It's not my theory to prove, I accept Brandenburg's and you have failed to convince me otherwise or come up with a better one, instead you stand behind the blundered theory of GR and cling to 4 forces when there aren't 4.

@Lou

Quote:

Yes and that faith was answered by John Brandenburg.

Note that the faith in science is based upon evidence. What Brandenburg is provided is another postulate. Lots of others have postulates too on how GR is wrong. But, again which one to pick depends on the quality and quantity of evidence. I'm open to Brandenburg being right, but we gots to have the demonstration he is right. I go back to I'll be the first in line to buy his anti-gravity flying cars. (Depending on price of course.)


Quote:

It's not my theory to prove

If you want to champion a theory as the truth you need to provide the proof. Sure you don't have to do it yourself but you should know where the quality and quantity of evidence exists. You can't provide more postulates. That's not evidence. That's just you listing more things to demonstrate.

Quote:

I accept Brandenburg's and you have failed to convince me otherwise or come up with a better one

The failure here I have to lay on you. You made excuses why you shouldn't have to read work other than what you provide. I gave you various GR work which you didn't bother to pick up. I can lead a horse to water (eg provide you the work) but making the horse drink is up to the horse (eg you need to take responsibility and read it).

Even on that level we can look at the world around us. What devices or uses do we see with Einstein? What item of knowledge did Brandenburg add that wasn't there before? See in science the better postulate will demonstrate itself with greater predictability and greater accuracy. If you are championing this you need to show us where it's happening.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Brandenburg didn't do anything. He clearly has. He simply hasn't done anything with his EM Theories that hadn't been accomplished using previous theories. When his EM Theories are demonstrated to be a more accurate predictor OR are demonstrated to give us new useful knowledge that the other methods could not, THEN we have something to get excited about. For society and for science his work, at best, is in a pile of interesting ideas which need evidencing.

And to go back to you complaining about how we're attacking your faith. That's exactly right. We want to KNOW while you instead accept without that knowledge.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Dude, you have faith in the blundered version of general relativity and then point the finger at me when talking about BLIND FAITH Whatever gives you the idea that anybody here considers general relativity as some kind of perfect solution to all of the questions of life, the universe, and everything. It obviously isn't, because thew answer to the universal question of life , the universe, and everything is 42! What general relativity is accepted for being, is the best available explanation. as soon as something better comes along, GR will be shelved and the better answer will be used. Of course I am not pretending to be so clever as to be able to predict what that better solution will be, but I am confident that it will not be any of the brainfarts that you have posted from the likes of Haramein, N. K. Shah, or Omerbashich, or any other moron with a sticky caps lock key.

Something better has come along. What cracks me up is that the blundered theory is still what is taught.

Quote:

Quote: You consistently claim absence of evidence is evidence of absence. In this, you are totally, completely, and absolutely wrong. Sometimes absence of evidence can be taken as indication of absence, for example there is a distinct lack of evidence for the presence of an adult bull elephant sitting on my lap at the moment. It can therefore be safely assumed therefore that I do not have an adult bull elephant sitting on my lap. (Lucky for me!) In other claims that you have attempted to support far from claiming a lack of supporting evidence, we have produced evidence that destroys the foundations of your claims. As an example I will reiterate the weaknesses in Harameins claims for "protons = black holes". A black hole with its event horizon matching the diameter of a proton would have a mass of hundreds of tonnes, and a black hole with the equivalent mass of a proton would have an event horizon less than a billionth of the planck length. Add to this that micro black holes are "hotter" and evaporate rapidly giving off Hawking radiation until they cease to exist.

You are debating what mass is and don't realize it. Mass is simply a ratio. When vacuum energy is measured at the QED and SED value people like you choose to ignore, then it doesn't seem so far fetched. What happens is you are relating the 'mass' used by one school of physics to another. You are mixing and matching principles which is why you blind yourself to where Haramein answered all the questions.

Perhaps you should listen to this discussion over his paper: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVRgSvsQnE0
and more importantly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XG4T3cUXL8

Quote:

Quote: That website is 1 man's opinion in which you put your faith in. In this, you are again totally, completely, and absolutely wrong. Heiser does not blindly state his opinion, he cites other experienced competent linguists, he indicates the presence of reference works, some of which were authored by people who could actually speak and write ancient sumerian because they were the conquerors of ancient Sumer. Heiser also takes whole texts to translate, not merely short phrases, or even single words. As a result he translates the bit before the bit where Sitchin says "They built a spaceship". The bit where it describes how they mixed straw and mud together to make bricks. Mud and straw bricks being a variation on the theme of wattle and daub, in answer to your question in post #142.

Unless he was born in 4000BC, your source is no better than Sitchin. When you look at Sitchin's solar system creation transaltion, Sitchin continues to look more and more valid.

Last edited by Lou on 11-Jan-2013 at 03:38 PM.

Que the indian jones music:

http://www.morningstarap.com/downloads/GEMS%20Higgs%20Boson%20Particle.pdf

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: Que the indian jones music: http://www.morningstarap.com/downloads/GEMS%20Higgs%20Boson%20Particle.pdf

Que - is that queue or cue? I'm assuming you mean cue?
Indian Jones? - Never heard of him? Dot or feather?
..>hee hee<

Back to some serious business. Read over this paper, or what we more formally call a postulate. Interesting. One piece I can comment on is the Kaluza-Klein Theory. Brandenburg uses that work as a foundation for this postulate.

Here's my 2 second quick summary of Kaluza-Klein Theory. I don't recall when this was created but it was roughly the same time as General Relativity. So this is nearly 100 years old. To date there has been no empirical confirming evidence of KKT. Now my 'faith' says it's a possibility that it's right but it's unconfirmed to be right. Because Brandenburg assumes this to be right and it's not proven by extension Brandenburg is also unproven. What I can say at this point is another interesting postulate that needs more work if we're to know (not just make your leap of faith) that this is indeed reality.

KKT depends upon the existence of higher dimensions. (5th and I believe 6ths, again going by recall when I dealt with this more directly.) The LHC actually does provide us some data concerning these higher dimensions, and thus by extension KKT. Unfortunately for Brandenburg and KKT the data doesn't look good. When the LHC ramps up to service they will look into multiple dimensions again, probably in the 2015ish area. So there is actually a schedule to look deeper into the foundations of what Brandenburg is expanding upon. If the LHC were to come back with a positive result of multiple dimensions that would help us ankle towards KKT, and thus Brandenburg.

Last edited by BrianK on 11-Jan-2013 at 05:56 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Something better has come along. What cracks me up is that the blundered theory is still what is taught.

Has it really, then please enlighten us all as to what this so called better answer is, and cite the e v i d e n c e that supports your claim. Please note that the request is for e v i d e n c e, and not a circular progression of postulates supporting other postulates until eventually leading back to the original ridiculous brainfart that you started with.

Quote:

You are debating what mass is and don't realize it. Mass is simply a ratio... Insert verbal diahorroea here followed by ... which is why you blind yourself to where Haramein answered all the questions.

Haramein answered nothing. Haramein engaged in his usual pattern of lies and distortions to pull the wool over the eyes of the willingly gullible. Despite the lies perpetuated by Haramein the fact remains that a black hole small enought to qualify for the name "Schwarzchild proton" would be so hot in terms of Hawking radiation, it would glow in the dark. Harameins mathematics is wrong, as is his arithmetic. I am not debating the redefinition of mass to lend a semblance of validity to your fantasy, I am listing examples of how totally off the mark Haramein really is. He is as inept and incompetent as a mathematician as he is dishonest in his "Egyptology".

Quote:

Unless he was born in 4000BC, your source is no better than Sitchin.

Can I just ask if you have ever learned to read? the reason that I am asking you this very basic question is that I clearly stated that the authors of the C. A. D. that Heiser and all other competent scholars use as the standard reference was written by the bureaucrats of the conquering power so that they could refer back to the records of the subject state of Sumer.

Another approach that will demonstrate the incorrect nature of the "translations" touted by Sitchin is to treat the texts as an exercise in cryptograpy. On a short message you can insert whichever stupid values you choose, to produce whatever decoded message that you want, but as you use this decryption matrix to "translate" other documents the matrix used by Sitchin produces reams of gibberish where real linguists produce sensible and verifiable documents.

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

Einstein postulated that space is smooth . In the quantum postulates space is more like foam. All sorts of particles spring into and out of existence. If so then photons would be deflected during their journey and a straight path would be unlikely. They'd smack against those virtual particles. (Think of a universe sized Pachinko Machine with a non-static set of pins.) Turns out in this experiment that the deflection of photons is insignificant. The experimental results comply in line with Einstein and no where near quantum foam theory. Now like most science this is but the first of many experiments. Future experiments will help confirm or deny and likely have better resolution.

@BrianK

Quote:

One piece I can comment on is the Kaluza-Klein Theory. Brandenburg uses that work as a foundation for this postulate.

From my own hazy memories of Kaluza-Klein I recall that while it was possible to postulate a unification between forces using this theory, the unification relied heavily on supersymmetry which unfortunately took a bit of a kicking recently from the experimental findings of the LHC.
The original reason that Kaluza-Klein was sidelined by (Mrs?) Einsteins theory was that GR more closely matched the observable universe, and nothing that Brandenburg has postulated alters this fact.

Last edited by Nimrod on 13-Jan-2013 at 01:02 PM.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Quote: One piece I can comment on is the Kaluza-Klein Theory. Brandenburg uses that work as a foundation for this postulate. From my own hazy memories of Kaluza-Klein I recall that while it was possible to postulate a unification between forces using this theory, the unification relied heavily on supersymmetry which unfortunately took a bit of a kicking recently from the experimental findings of the LHC. The original reason that Kaluza-Klein was sidelined by (Mrs?) Einsteins theory was that GR more closely matched the observable universe, and nothing that Brandenburg has postulated alters this fact.

You are correct sir. Indeed KKT relies on a specific type of Supersymmetry. Which, as you said, in recent LHC experiments is looking quite sick.

And yes why Einstein's postulates took the lead is because there exists better empirical evidence of their predictability and operability.

Relying on the best evidence we have to date, at present it appears neither Kaluza-Klein Theory nor the work that expands upon it, aka Brandenburg, appears to apply to reality within our universe. There simply is a severe lack, basically no, empirical evidence supporting KKT.

Stitching indicated Nibiru won't be here in 2012. According to Nassim Haramein thelanet predicted by the Mayans has come and gone a few years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjD5aayptXk

Yeah, a funny thing about SUSY:
http://koppernigk.net/2012/11/12/susy-is-dead-no-shes-not/

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Something better has come along. What cracks me up is that the blundered theory is still what is taught. Has it really, then please enlighten us all as to what this so called better answer is, and cite the e v i d e n c e that supports your claim. Please note that the request is for e v i d e n c e, and not a circular progression of postulates supporting other postulates until eventually leading back to the original ridiculous brainfart that you started with. Quote: You are debating what mass is and don't realize it. Mass is simply a ratio... Insert verbal diahorroea here followed by ... which is why you blind yourself to where Haramein answered all the questions. Haramein answered nothing. Haramein engaged in his usual pattern of lies and distortions to pull the wool over the eyes of the willingly gullible. Despite the lies perpetuated by Haramein the fact remains that a black hole small enought to qualify for the name "Schwarzchild proton" would be so hot in terms of Hawking radiation, it would glow in the dark. Harameins mathematics is wrong, as is his arithmetic. I am not debating the redefinition of mass to lend a semblance of validity to your fantasy, I am listing examples of how totally off the mark Haramein really is. He is as inept and incompetent as a mathematician as he is dishonest in his "Egyptology".

All I read here is more of your rhetoric. Better scientists than you have marvelled at his final version of the paper. Meanwhile you are still doing the chest-pounding while chanting 'charleton'...


Quote:

Quote: Unless he was born in 4000BC, your source is no better than Sitchin. Can I just ask if you have ever learned to read? the reason that I am asking you this very basic question is that I clearly stated that the authors of the C. A. D. that Heiser and all other competent scholars use as the standard reference was written by the bureaucrats of the conquering power so that they could refer back to the records of the subject state of Sumer. Another approach that will demonstrate the incorrect nature of the "translations" touted by Sitchin is to treat the texts as an exercise in cryptograpy. On a short message you can insert whichever stupid values you choose, to produce whatever decoded message that you want, but as you use this decryption matrix to "translate" other documents the matrix used by Sitchin produces reams of gibberish where real linguists produce sensible and verifiable documents.

Can you process thought? These 'experts' are going by a standard that they think is right. That doesn't make it actually right.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: Yeah, a funny thing about SUSY: http://koppernigk.net/2012/11/12/susy-is-dead-no-shes-not/

While Supersymmetry doesn't have the proof to define it to be real it did have that item. 2014ish will look there deeper. Unfortunately if that piece is shown true then Supersymmetry is tightly constrained. So yeah SS isn't dead but it does need an ambulance ride.

For a fairly good summary to help your understanding. Http://news.discovery.com/space/latest-lhc-results-further-constrain-supersymmetry-121119.html

http://www.space.com/19227-biggest-structure-universe-explained-infographic.html

So much for one of Einstein's "principles"...

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: http://www.space.com/19227-biggest-structure-universe-explained-infographic.html So much for one of Einstein's "principles"...

Cool! It's always exciting to see a hypothesis get evidenced. No matter the outcome we always learn a bit more about the universe. Not sure why you need quotes around principles as they are by definition and unproven assumption. (No need to answer that I assume it's your styling.)

Another related experiment came back too. I posted earlier if the universe is smooth, Einstein, or bubbly, Quantum, in it's construct. This experiment showed the universe to be smooth, at least at any resolution above a Planck Length. If you want to know more you can flip back and read that item. See #172 above.

Last edited by BrianK on 14-Jan-2013 at 07:05 PM.