Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6071 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
» Home
» Features
» News
» Forums
» Classifieds
» Links
» Downloads
Extras
» OS4 Zone
» IRC Network
» AmigaWorld Radio
» Newsfeed
» Top Members
» Amiga Dealers
Information
» About Us
» FAQs
» Advertise
» Polls
» Terms of Service
» Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
10 crawler(s) on-line.
 131 guest(s) on-line.
 1 member(s) on-line.


 OlafS25

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 OlafS25:  24 secs ago
 outlawal2:  20 mins ago
 AndreasM:  23 mins ago
 sibbi:  32 mins ago
 saimo:  46 mins ago
 DiscreetFX:  47 mins ago
 vox:  59 mins ago
 kolla:  1 hr 9 mins ago
 Mr_DBUG:  1 hr 10 mins ago
 Gunnar:  1 hr 49 mins ago

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

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 Next Page )
PosterThread
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 4-Dec-2012 15:05:17
#21 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

@Lou

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

First of all, I didn't claim something just because you say I claimed something. It was clear from the beginning you didn't even grasp what I was saying and now you continue to defend your incompetence.

Quote:

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

You keep displaying your incompetence. When particles are at a velocity below the speed of light, e=mc*c is not the correct equation which was one way you determined a "mass". If you make these trivial mistakes, why am I supposed to accept anything else you attempt to debunk? You have discredited yourself.

Quote:
There's a big difference between an electrical engineer and a plasma physicist
And if the plasma physicist states that 2 x 2 = 5, is a six year old primary school child under qualified to correct the error? Your have linked to assertions by your pet PhD from 1988 onwards making the same assertion supporting the original assertion, but as yet I see no independent research, or corroboration from reputable sources. It has been over 24 years, and the only person calling this particular dogs breakfast "Grandis et Medianis" is Brandenburg himself
[/quote]
Sure and you of course have a link where he says 2x2=5, right? The phrase in question refers to the atomic particle scale to the universal scale. It's not Brandenburg's fault you aren't privy to academic lingo. In the end, your opinion still stinks and is worthless.

Quote:

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

Funny, you couldn't remember the US runs on 60Hz... I call shennanigans on you again.

Quote:

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

I didn't suggest a nimrod do any tests at all.
Now if you actually listened to the video interview ... and actually understood what was being said ... I know difficult for the typical nimrod ... you would have heard him stating that he could demonstrate gravity reduction like had been done by two other independent sets of scientists and wanted something that could be done by anyone (it being a conference in the US, the assumptions where that Americans were "listening") but it didn't show results with such consumer grade equipment.

Quote:

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

You're right, Brandenburg doesn't have to stop and disprove every crack-pot nimordic debunker. His paper is formally submitted BECAUSE THE MATH WORKS.
As for CERN, it's doing a wonderful job finding what they were expecting to find and an even better job ignoring everything else they found. As a mere consumer of nothing but headlines of science, I know this is too much for you to grasp.

Quote:

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

Again you display your noobishness. Where did I state GEM claimed gravity was a subset of EM? I said Brandenburg took GEM further with is theory and proved that HIS THEORY showed that gravity is a side-effect of EM. Look specifically as the "High Order Effects" section. GEM is a foundation for something Brandenburg expanded upon.

Quote:

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

...so clever...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 4-Dec-2012 15:16:13
#22 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou


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

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

So bascally you are admitting a flawed enviroment and would much rather just sit back at troll all attempts at improved theories...
Typical BrianK "what's good for the goose IS NOT good for the gander"...

Quote:

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

You claim - even though you bend over backwards to deny claiming anything always twisting logic that the burden of proof is on me while you sit back and troll - is that Brandenburg does not represent science. Yet, there in a physics forum is his lecture being discussed. Apparently, he is making a dent in science. Apparently, you continue to make a dent in your seat.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 4-Dec-2012 15:36:01
#23 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

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

??? Can you read? It says QED is not complete.

If you ask me, the force holding those last 2 electrons in orbit in such an ionized titanium atom should be much greater than that of a helium atom. The article doesn't elaborate on the measured wavelength of the emitted photon being higher or lower than expected, just different.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 4-Dec-2012 15:38:14
#24 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote:
@BrianK

Mercury, not Mars.

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

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

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

"throw away"? You paint me as an extremist. The only thing that needs to be thrown away is "assumptions". Some noobs around here assume the science they learned many years ago is still the status quo. Things change and I am highlighting the changes to illustrate a point.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 4-Dec-2012 20:21:10
#25 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
First of all, I didn't claim something just because you say I claimed something
Among your ridiculous claims was the one that radiation pressure from distant sources did not dimish with increasing distance, unless you now wish to claim otherwise, in which case it can be mathematically demonstrated that a force which equates to 14 grammes on an asteroid at its closest approach to the sun will be completely negligible at a distance of 4 light years.

Quote:
Funny, you couldn't remember the US runs on 60Hz...
I am fully aware that the USA has 60Hz electrical supply. You were the one who said "results at 400hz but not at 60 hertz which could have been done in your home". I merely pointed out that my home does not have a 60Hz supply.

Quote:
Now if you actually listened to the video interview ... and actually understood what was being said ... I know difficult for the typical nimrod ... you would have heard him stating that he could demonstrate gravity reduction like had been done by two other independent sets of scientists
I did listen to the boastful but unsupported claims. You may remember that I am the one who investigates more deeply than you would, or maybe you forgot. His claims of independent scientific corroboration are as empty and meaningless as the claims made by the various cold fusion supporters. Too much hot air output from the salesman, not enough heat output from the generator.

Quote:
His paper is formally submitted BECAUSE THE MATH WORKS.
His paper has been SUBMITTED Submitted does not equate to proved. It will not be accepted until the assumptions can be demonstrated to be valid. I could easily submit a paper that had nice pretty equations and measurements to "prove" almost anything if I made erroneous assumptions and it is the errors made in his assumptions that let Brandenburgs ideas down.

Quote:
The only thing that needs to be thrown away is "assumptions".
At last, something that we can agree on, and lets start with the assumptions made by Brandenburg.

Quote:
Some noobs around here assume the science they learned many years ago is still the status quo
Well of course nothing has changed since I left school, which is why I am replying to your statements on my typewriter and sending to the world, using modern electronics. Seriously though, the science has changed, but the scientific method method hasn't.
An assertion is treated as false until demonstrated to be more valid than its predecessors, whereupon other assertions will attempt to displace it from its hallowed position.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 4-Dec-2012 21:23:23
#26 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
First of all, I didn't claim something just because you say I claimed something
Among your ridiculous claims was the one that radiation pressure from distant sources did not dimish with increasing distance, unless you now wish to claim otherwise, in which case it can be mathematically demonstrated that a force which equates to 14 grammes on an asteroid at its closest approach to the sun will be completely negligible at a distance of 4 light years.

You appear to be the new Mr. Twist. You keep claiming that I claimed something. Why don't you link where I made this claim of yours? It shows how you failed at comprehension when referring to the minimum amount of photons hitting an object at a distance.

Quote:

Quote:
Funny, you couldn't remember the US runs on 60Hz...
I am fully aware that the USA has 60Hz electrical supply. You were the one who said "results at 400hz but not at 60 hertz which could have been done in your home". I merely pointed out that my home does not have a 60Hz supply.

yea, sure you did....

Quote:

Quote:
Now if you actually listened to the video interview ... and actually understood what was being said ... I know difficult for the typical nimrod ... you would have heard him stating that he could demonstrate gravity reduction like had been done by two other independent sets of scientists
I did listen to the boastful but unsupported claims. You may remember that I am the one who investigates more deeply than you would, or maybe you forgot. His claims of independent scientific corroboration are as empty and meaningless as the claims made by the various cold fusion supporters. Too much hot air output from the salesman, not enough heat output from the generator.

Investigate this, genius: http://libra.msra.cn/Publication/49667580/experimental-and-theoretical-progress-on-the-gem-theory

For a so-called charlton by nimrods alike, he's actually done something with his career: http://www.patents.com/us-6838831.html

Quote:

Quote:
His paper is formally submitted BECAUSE THE MATH WORKS.
His paper has been SUBMITTED Submitted does not equate to proved. It will not be accepted until the assumptions can be demonstrated to be valid. I could easily submit a paper that had nice pretty equations and measurements to "prove" almost anything if I made erroneous assumptions and it is the errors made in his assumptions that let Brandenburgs ideas down.

The math works and he's done experimentation. If you keep repeating that he hasn't, it doesn't make what you say true.

Quote:

Quote:
The only thing that needs to be thrown away is "assumptions".
At last, something that we can agree on, and lets start with the assumptions made by Brandenburg.

/yawn see above how you are always assuming and always wrong

Quote:

Quote:
Some noobs around here assume the science they learned many years ago is still the status quo
Well of course nothing has changed since I left school, which is why I am replying to your statements on my typewriter and sending to the world, using modern electronics. Seriously though, the science has changed, but the scientific method method hasn't.
An assertion is treated as false until demonstrated to be more valid than its predecessors, whereupon other assertions will attempt to displace it from its hallowed position.

If your field is traditional electronics, you should stick with it and not pretend to be a physicist...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 4-Dec-2012 21:47:48
#27 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

As promised on last year's Coast To Coast show, Dr. John Brandenburg is now attempting unifying all the forces: GEMS

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=19025142

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 5-Dec-2012 12:25:11
#28 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
So bascally you are admitting a flawed enviroment
I'm not sure what you mean by environment. Do you mean science is a flawed environment? Or do you mean the greater reality is a flawed environment? Or something else? Thanks, in advance, for explaining in a different way to help foster communication and ensure clarity of meaning.

Quote:
would much rather just sit back at troll all attempts at improved theories
Your inclusion of the word 'attempt' is important here. What that asserts is it's a trial. One attempts to take sweet jumps with their bike. One attempts to beat an opponent. What you have here is an attempt to create something that existed before. In science what happens with attempts is they get analyzed against repeatable verifiable evidence. Science contends it's through this review that we can choose an increasingly accurate reflection of reality. This is what has been done. Don't forget you told others to take a deep look at this stuff. I have and it is weak on physically repeatible evidence. They're postulates. Which again I'm open to being improvements but they need to demonstrate that.

Quote:
the burden of proof is on me
You contended that Gravity doesn't exist and everything is EM. You asked others to take a look at it. So, yes when you contend something to be true you accept the burden of proof to demonstrate you are true. Not accepting responsibility is a fallacy. Burden of Proof fallacy

Quote:
Yet, there in a physics forum is his lecture being discussed
Giving a lecture is not validation. Nor is people talking about the lecture validation. It's presentation. How the postulates overlay withactual repeatable validated evidence of reality is validation.

As for your repeated trolling claims. Demonstrate them. Again you have the burden of proof. Not saying perhaps sometimes I didn't do this.

You definitely have trolled. As I must accept the burden of proof let me give examples. Quite often you throw out names - noobs and nimrods for example - instead of using our choosen identifiers for the site. You felt asking for clarification was nit-picking so you did it back. Then admitted that you do so because you were wronged. Clearly violating the definition of troll by the Amigaworld AUP . And lastly I'll say that not only I have seen this but so have others, which reported you to the BoardMasters who in turn suspended you from activity, at least twice from what I recall.)

Quote:
As promised on last year's Coast To Coast show, Dr. John Brandenburg is now attempting unifying all the forces: GEMS
It appears to me for hundreds of posts you claim this is true without such as postulate existing. The Theory of Everything is certainly a holy grail of science. But, we have to go back to the evidence to demonstrate this as true is insufficent at this time. Until that work is done science will not accept this as true. There's lots more work to do. Lots of people have created versions of ToE and todate none have proved themselves worthy.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 5-Dec-2012 16:50:00
#29 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
So bascally you are admitting a flawed enviroment
I'm not sure what you mean by environment. Do you mean science is a flawed environment? Or do you mean the greater reality is a flawed environment? Or something else? Thanks, in advance, for explaining in a different way to help foster communication and ensure clarity of meaning.

In your typical troll-tactic, you take a sentence out of context so that it loses its meaning. Why don't you quote the section of yours I quoted and read the reply paragraph as a whole? Or do you have ADD?

Quote:

Quote:
would much rather just sit back at troll all attempts at improved theories
Your inclusion of the word 'attempt' is important here. What that asserts is it's a trial. One attempts to take sweet jumps with their bike. One attempts to beat an opponent. What you have here is an attempt to create something that existed before. In science what happens with attempts is they get analyzed against repeatable verifiable evidence. Science contends it's through this review that we can choose an increasingly accurate reflection of reality. This is what has been done. Don't forget you told others to take a deep look at this stuff. I have and it is weak on physically repeatible evidence. They're postulates. Which again I'm open to being improvements but they need to demonstrate that.

You display an uncanny ability to only process sentences. Perhaps if I started replying to you in one long run-on sentence then you might actually learn something...
Yes, others take a deep look at this stuff. They are something the people in this thread are not: scientists. So being rejected by anyone in this thread is simply laughable. One scientist is not intrinsically aware of what every other scientist on the planet has researched (let alone past scientists). This 'science' that you champion is merely a matter/gauge of awareness. You treat it like an idealistic entity...and it's not. I have of course made this argument before, but you do like to spin your wheels.

Quote:

Quote:
the burden of proof is on me
You contended that Gravity doesn't exist and everything is EM. You asked others to take a look at it. So, yes when you contend something to be true you accept the burden of proof to demonstrate you are true. Not accepting responsibility is a fallacy. Burden of Proof fallacy

The troll and strawman always likes to point the finger.

Quote:

Quote:
Yet, there in a physics forum is his lecture being discussed
Giving a lecture is not validation. Nor is people talking about the lecture validation. It's presentation. How the postulates overlay withactual repeatable validated evidence of reality is validation.

Again, the typical "out-of-context" sentence that you choose to critque. Nimrods, noobs and trolls claim that Brandenburg isn't a real scientist, but a charleton. I have shown he is in the scientific community. Mind you - this was just a typical FACTLESS statement made and assumed by nimrods, noobs and trolls without any displayed facts behind it - but as is the typical nimrod-noob-troll-debunker defense: always shift the burden of proof onto me.

Quote:
As for your repeated trolling claims. Demonstrate them. Again you have the burden of proof. Not saying perhaps sometimes I didn't do this.

I call a spade a spade without hitting the AR button. I can't help it if cowards try to hide behind it.

Quote:
You definitely have trolled. As I must accept the burden of proof let me give examples. Quite often you throw out names - noobs and nimrods for example - instead of using our choosen identifiers for the site. You felt asking for clarification was nit-picking so you did it back. Then admitted that you do so because you were wronged. Clearly violating the definition of troll by the Amigaworld AUP . And lastly I'll say that not only I have seen this but so have others, which reported you to the BoardMasters who in turn suspended you from activity, at least twice from what I recall.)

I typically fight fire with fire unless that fire is a display of cowardice, as in reporting someone. So I really don't care how many times I'm reported. It reflects more on the weak character of the person hitting the button than myself. If I've gone overboard is because unlike some subtle comments made to me to insult me, I am very matter of fact.

Quote:

Quote:
As promised on last year's Coast To Coast show, Dr. John Brandenburg is now attempting unifying all the forces: GEMS
It appears to me for hundreds of posts you claim this is true without such as postulate existing. The Theory of Everything is certainly a holy grail of science. But, we have to go back to the evidence to demonstrate this as true is insufficent at this time. Until that work is done science will not accept this as true. There's lots more work to do. Lots of people have created versions of ToE and todate none have proved themselves worthy.

Yep, keep hiding behind the flag of 'science'. I guess typing on a keyboard is something you enjoy greatly because 'counter-evidence' is not in your repertoire.

Last edited by Lou on 05-Dec-2012 at 04:55 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 6-Dec-2012 15:13:13
#30 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
In your typical troll-tactic, you take a sentence out of context so that it loses its meaning
I contend there is nothing out of context when I ask to be clarified on what you mean. You somehow take this as a personal attack and get defensive. Part of conversation is understanding each other. It's important time is taken for requests to clarify. You misinterpreted a request to clarify for something more than it is.

Quote:
Yes, others take a deep look at this stuff. They are something the people in this thread are not: scientists. So being rejected by anyone in this thread is simply laughable
Again you are making a fallacious appeal to authority. Scientists are not unquestionable authorities. Just because someone with a PhD says so does not make it true. It's highly important that these postulates must be overlaid against reality.

If you do note I didn't reject EM is everything. I've been requesting valid evidence which you haven't provided. Until you can do that I can't accept it as true. Instead it's in the proverbial 'In Box' on my desk as a future task.

Another note on your thoughts that if someone isn't a scientist they can't be believed - I hope you embrace that and apply the same principle to yourself. Afterall what's good for the goose is good for the gander.


Quote:
This 'science' that you champion is merely a matter/gauge of awareness. You treat it like an idealistic entity...and it's not. I have of course made this argument before, but you do like to spin your wheels.
If Science is unavailable to judge an idea against reality then what do you assert to replace it with? In the past all I got was ??? from you. If we can't use science to demonstrate Brandenburg correct then what system are you using in it's stead? If science doesn't have the evidence then how are you avoiding a leap of a faith?

Quote:
The troll and strawman always likes to point the finger.
I want to be sure I understand you here. I contended that you are failing to take on the burden of proof and requesting we do the work of disproof. You contend that is a strawman? Okay then please demonstrate your contention - show me where you've provided validated evidence that Brandenburg is right. For example, we have NASA proving Einstein's ideas about Frame Dragging. What other scientists have actual evidence like that about Brandenburg.

Quote:
Nimrods, noobs and trolls claim that Brandenburg isn't a real scientist, but a charleton. I have shown he is in the scientific community.
You seem to want to treat the scientific community as an idealistic entity. The state of being a scientist doesn't mean you're right. I think you wrongly contending the caring of a scientific person to me. I simply don't care if he's a scientist or not. What matters to science is how the postulates are predictive and accurate in reflection to reality.

Quote:
I call a spade a spade without hitting the AR button. I can't help it if cowards try to hide behind it.
You try to justify your trolling as only in retaliation. The fact is it's not. Continually you insult people by name calling and other tactics.

I'd argue it's not cowardice that others decide to allow an external judge. It's called being and adult. In today's world governments, businesses, and people often defer to a 3rd party as a judge and executioner. Retaliation is considered grade school cowardice. The fact is you feel like you were being trolled in the post I'm responding to. I get that from your repeatedly use of troll. The fact is I feel that all my responses were sincere. I think it's a safe assumption that neither one of us is omniscient. Thus, that's where a 3rd party comes in. Who is wrong? Perhaps it's both to some degree. Again that's what the adult treatment of having and external entity view the situation comes in.

Quote:
Yep, keep hiding behind the flag of 'science'. I guess typing on a keyboard is something you enjoy greatly because 'counter-evidence' is not in your repertoire.
I can note many times where I provided counter evidence. For example, I noted where Haramein is wrong against reality. Then I posted the materials and data of what science understands in that area. Another example is you asked for Gravity's evidence. I posted a number of scientific experiments. I also posted some instructions to help you get more. And after you requested this stuff you argued that you shouldn't have to to read any and argued it not worth your time. So there are several good areas of counter evidence that have been presented. If you don't read them you must fairly contend you didn't read them. Instead you falsely contend they were never presented.

You should produce counter-evidence too. For example, you proclaimed Brandenburgh right and Nimrod wrong because you know Brandenburgh has a PhD. That's not counter evidence that's appeal to authority. Now if you demonstrated where Nimrod made his mathematic error or assumption. That's counter evidence.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 6-Dec-2012 17:41:03
#31 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

It appears NASA is really stupid. They are using two chasing satellites to map the earth based off gravitational field. LINK When instead we could half the cost with 1 satellite and measure EM field differences instead. Science is clearly not using that EM_is_God. Else they could have greatly reduced launch costs (less rockets, less fuel, etc.) , halved satellite costs, and likely reduced complexity of the software and analysis.

Last edited by BrianK on 06-Dec-2012 at 05:41 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 6-Dec-2012 20:20:47
#32 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

Does the moon orbit the sun or the earth? No surprise here that the physics says Both

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 6-Dec-2012 21:27:10
#33 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
Quote:
Among your ridiculous claims was the one that radiation pressure from distant sources did not dimish with increasing distance, unless you now wish to claim otherwise, in which case it can be mathematically demonstrated that a force which equates to 14 grammes on an asteroid at its closest approach to the sun will be completely negligible at a distance of 4 light years.
You appear to be the new Mr. Twist. You keep claiming that I claimed something. Why don't you link where I made this claim of yours? It shows how you failed at comprehension when referring to the minimum amount of photons hitting an object at a distance.
Do you remember this? Or did you forget the line "So with distance, gravity approaches ZERO however the # of photons cannot approach ZERO as long as the source is constantly emitting." from this post? Do you by any chance understand that the term radiate means "To send or spread out from, or as if from a centre" The simple fact is that light from a source diminishes as the reciprocal of the distance squared.

Quote:
Investigate this, genius: http://libra.msra.cn/Publication/49667580/experimental-and-theoretical-progress-on-the-gem-theory
Once again Brandenburg is extending his claims while claiming the earlier work is accepted despite the fact that there is no evidence to support either his original claims, the assertin that they are true, or the new claims built on the original flawed assumptions. From one of his "papers" Quote:
We will assume that at the Planck scale all particles and fields are unified and identical.
He then goes on to "prove" that all fields are unified.
And if we assume that the sky is pink with purple polka dots, we can prove that the sky is pink with purple polka dots.

Quotes from one of his documents claiming to have squared the circle.
"We assume that the masses of the proton and electron can be derived near the Planck scale from the most primitive of symmetries"
" We assume real masses appear because of an imaginary splitting angle φo"
"Let us therefore assume a model of a broken vacuum, where a new out of plane imaginary angle exists that changes the U(1) symmetry from complex to real valued:" (sic)
"Let us further assume this deployed length is much larger than the Planck length so that it changes the physics of a Planckian vacuum"
"We also assume that near the Planck scale the electron charge approaches the Planck charge"
And all of these assumptions are premised on the assumption that his previous collection of assumptions was correct in all details, when there is no evidence that even one of his assumptions was demonstrable as fact.

Quote:
For a so-called charlton by nimrods alike, he's actually done something with his career
the term that you are illiterately and ineptly groping towards is charlatan, but all you are doing is setting up yet another straw man. I am not claiming that Brandenburg does not have a PhD qualification, and neither am I claiming that he does not have skills as a plasma engineer. What I am trying to get through your hero worship is the fact that he is no more infallible than Einstein was, or Pauling. Pauling had two unshared Nobel prizes in separate disciplines, yet he still got the number of helical strands in DNA wrong. Just as the evidence proved Pauling wrong, so the evidence demonstrates that Brandenburg has not got this one right.

Last edited by Nimrod on 06-Dec-2012 at 09:28 PM.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 7-Dec-2012 12:46:40
#34 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Nimrod

Quote:
Quote:
Investigate this, genius: http://libra.msra.cn/Publication/49667580/experimental-and-theoretical-progress-on-the-gem-theory

Once again Brandenburg is extending his claims while claiming the earlier work is accepted despite the fact that there is no evidence to support either his original claims, the assertin that they are true, or the new claims built on the original flawed assumptions. From one of his "papers" Quote:
Quote:
We will assume that at the Planck scale all particles and fields are unified and identical.

He then goes on to "prove" that all fields are unified.
And if we assume that the sky is pink with purple polka dots, we can prove that the sky is pink with purple polka dots.

His title is even incorrect. He calls it Experimental and Theoretical Progress on the GEM Theory. Reading the paper there was no Experiments conducted to ensure he's right. Instead what we see is he postulates a reason for pre-existing experiments. Again what we see here is a good start a nice set of postulates that are unproven. It is important to note that Lou accepted this paper as truth prior to it being written. At least religious people have a book prior to believe in. Whereas Lou had a belief that an unwritten work was true.

Now, late 2012, that we have a group of postulates, experiments can be conducted and this stuff analyzed to see if it's right. It's clear no one, including the creater Brandenburg himself, has yet to do this work. Clearly it's too early to fairly conclude this as right. Simply because the preponderance, quality, and quantity of evidence is non-existent.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 7-Dec-2012 15:28:20
#35 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
[quote] You appear to be the new Mr. Twist. You keep claiming that I claimed something. Why don't you link where I made this claim of yours? It shows how you failed at comprehension when referring to the minimum amount of photons hitting an object at a distance.
Do you remember this? Or did you forget the line "So with distance, gravity approaches ZERO however the # of photons cannot approach ZERO as long as the source is constantly emitting." from this post? Do you by any chance understand that the term radiate means "To send or spread out from, or as if from a centre" The simple fact is that light from a source diminishes as the reciprocal of the distance squared.

Thank you for continuing to prove what a physics noob you are.

Quote:

Quote:
Investigate this, genius: http://libra.msra.cn/Publication/49667580/experimental-and-theoretical-progress-on-the-gem-theory
Once again Brandenburg is extending his claims while claiming the earlier work is accepted despite the fact that there is no evidence to support either his original claims, the assertin that they are true, or the new claims built on the original flawed assumptions. From one of his "papers" Quote:
We will assume that at the Planck scale all particles and fields are unified and identical.
He then goes on to "prove" that all fields are unified.
And if we assume that the sky is pink with purple polka dots, we can prove that the sky is pink with purple polka dots.

Thank you for once again proving that you are a physics noob.

Quote:
Quotes from one of his documents claiming to have squared the circle.
"We assume that the masses of the proton and electron can be derived near the Planck scale from the most primitive of symmetries"
" We assume real masses appear because of an imaginary splitting angle φo"
"Let us therefore assume a model of a broken vacuum, where a new out of plane imaginary angle exists that changes the U(1) symmetry from complex to real valued:" (sic)
"Let us further assume this deployed length is much larger than the Planck length so that it changes the physics of a Planckian vacuum"
"We also assume that near the Planck scale the electron charge approaches the Planck charge"
And all of these assumptions are premised on the assumption that his previous collection of assumptions was correct in all details, when there is no evidence that even one of his assumptions was demonstrable as fact.

Thank you for once again proving that you are a physics noob.

Quote:
Quote:
For a so-called charlton by nimrods alike, he's actually done something with his career
the term that you are illiterately and ineptly groping towards is charlatan, but all you are doing is setting up yet another straw man. I am not claiming that Brandenburg does not have a PhD qualification, and neither am I claiming that he does not have skills as a plasma engineer. What I am trying to get through your hero worship is the fact that he is no more infallible than Einstein was, or Pauling. Pauling had two unshared Nobel prizes in separate disciplines, yet he still got the number of helical strands in DNA wrong. Just as the evidence proved Pauling wrong, so the evidence demonstrates that Brandenburg has not got this one right.

Thank you for posting your opinion. However, it's worth as much as the land in Florida I'd like to sell you.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 7-Dec-2012 15:31:07
#36 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
It appears NASA is really stupid. They are using two chasing satellites to map the earth based off gravitational field. LINK When instead we could half the cost with 1 satellite and measure EM field differences instead. Science is clearly not using that EM_is_God. Else they could have greatly reduced launch costs (less rockets, less fuel, etc.) , halved satellite costs, and likely reduced complexity of the software and analysis.

Hey rocket scientist,

They are measuring distance. Why is it that gravity is always measured INDIRECTLY?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 7-Dec-2012 15:44:41
#37 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
Does the moon orbit the sun or the earth? No surprise here that the physics says Both

A fine job of displaying what's wrong with physics noobs.
For instance, if you read the answer at the bottom, you'll get a clue.

Physics noobs will compute the mass of the moon based on 'the accepted mass of the earth'. So they will look at the moon's orbit around the earth and compute the moons THEORETICAL mass.

The real answer is that there is further interaction and this is why general relativity doesn't scale to the galactic scales and is merely 'good enough' for this solar system. Another assumption of GR is that reference frames are isolated. Nassim Haramein, did of course point this out when he showed that the mass of the proton was simply a ratio of 1 vs. the total amount of protons in the known universe...however, I can understand how this higher concept physics can get lost on the average physics noob, nimrod and troll.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 7-Dec-2012 16:09:19
#38 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/12/voyager-1-spots-new-region-at-the-edge-of-the-solar-system/

Suprise!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 7-Dec-2012 18:17:12
#39 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
Nassim Haramein, did of course point this out when he showed that the mass of the proton was simply a ratio of 1 vs. the total amount of protons in the known universe..
And just exactly how many protons are ther in the known universe? And what about the unknown universe? Also does he intend to recalculate everything when bits of the unknown universe get discovered and all of the newly discovered protons become part of the known universe.

As ever Haramein makes broad sweeping statements that are either so vague as to be useless, or clearly and demonstrably wrong. I fully agree that science has not solved all of the problems and answered all of the questions yet but at least its current answers are good enough, unlike the pseudoscience in support of pseudo-intellectual fakery from a fantasist that you keep citing. Please remember that Haramein trotted out this particular line to camouflage the fact that he had calculated that a proton has a mass in excess of 800 tonnes.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 7-Dec-2012 18:22:41
#40 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Nassim Haramein, did of course point this out when he showed that the mass of the proton was simply a ratio of 1 vs. the total amount of protons in the known universe..
And just exactly how many protons are ther in the known universe? And what about the unknown universe? Also does he intend to recalculate everything when bits of the unknown universe get discovered and all of the newly discovered protons become part of the known universe.

As ever Haramein makes broad sweeping statements that are either so vague as to be useless, or clearly and demonstrably wrong. I fully agree that science has not solved all of the problems and answered all of the questions yet but at least its current answers are good enough, unlike the pseudoscience in support of pseudo-intellectual fakery from a fantasist that you keep citing. Please remember that Haramein trotted out this particular line to camouflage the fact that he had calculated that a proton has a mass in excess of 800 tonnes.

As ever YOU make broad sweeping statements that are either so vague as to be useless, or clearly and demonstrably wrong.

Answer me this, oh worshipper of relativity: who gets to pick what clock slows down when two objects move away from each other?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle