@Lou

Quote:

For instance, over the course of the last several pages, resident troll BrianK, keeps proclaiming as fact that 'nibiru' still has not been found. It's a bold faced lie as it was found in 1983 and refound in 2011: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/15/scientists-telescope-hunt-massive-hidden-object-in-space

A good example of how you fail to understand the nature of science. Stichin made various claims about Nibiru. Such as alien beings came from there, a 3600 cycle coming close to the sun. What your 'evidence' is a theoretical object thought to be a Brown Dwarf. There is 0 proof that aliens live in the Brown Dwarf. There is 0 proof that the postulated Brown Dwarf comes inside our solar system, or has a 3600 year periodic orbit. In short, we do not know if this object complies with Stichins claims, heck I'd argue we don't know what this object is, if it is anything. So yeah it's completely true we have not proven Nibiru to exist and this work, at best, adds a place we might look. Your claim really goes to show how little you understand about scientific empiricism.

Quote:

hese resident trolls sit here and defend both General Relativity and the Standard Model when both are incomplete and somewhat at odds with each other and they defend them not as fact, but as 'good enough to act as fact' as their only counter to math that actually works from papers that I have linked with nothing better to offer only to sit here and deny more complete solutions that their trollish brains can't understand because these trolls believe in 'particles' that don't exist. These colliders are measuring ENERGY/EM WAVES. Then the nooblet people who analyze this data are placing it within a model that fits their paradigm. Data that doesn't is left out. For instance 3-5 'higgs-like *particles* (term used loosely) were found but "THE HIGGS" was announced.

You've dropped the math from Haramein, which is great his work is nothing but science fiction. As for Brandenburg's math we know he builds upon a foundation of Kaluza-Klein Theory which has ZERO empirical evidence for the last 100 years. So weight 0 is far, far less than what GR or SM have shown to be working with their postulates. And yes we know they're not 'The Theory of Everything' (as science calls it) That's why our search continues.


Quote:

They are not even remotely close which is why these trolls can't understand Nassim Haramein's paper.

Excuse me but we told you Haramein is bunk and at best a poor science fiction writer. It just took you a few hundred posts before you admitted his paper isn't reality.

Quote:

BrianK, resident troll 1st class says I "claim" all black holes spin and that I have no proof. I say, show me one that doesn't spin, he shows nothing

You clearly don't get how empiricism works. You made a claim about reality, we don't accept it as true until shown to be false. Instead we accept it as false until shown as true. You are acting as if you're some unquestionable diety supporting your version of God, EM that is. Sorry but no. It's your claim of knowledge it's your responsibility to support it.

I claimed you don't know and can't know this. I gave my reasons why. I'll repeat them as you either didn't understand or lied. Not sure which as you didn't clearly spell out what I did say. First, we must know of every Black Hole in the universe. We don't. Second, we must have examined every Black Hole checking for spin. Which we haven't. It's very clear we do not have the empirical basis to embrace your claim of reality. It's very clear it's a question to be answered.

Quote:

I said all actually observed black holes spin, referring to super-massive black holes at the center of every galaxy which everyone has been shown to spin, he the claims I provided no evidence because apparently, common knowledge of which thousands of links can be provided is not *evidence

What links are you talking about? You provided none. Also remember that you said every Black Hole spins. Showing 1 spins is not a demonstration that they all do.

Quote:

Ban me, lock the thread, I don't care. I'm sick of these trolls regurgitating ancient popular science inspite of newer evidence to the contrary.

Banning you in no way demonstrates anything other than your lack of ability to have a civil conversation. In your previous suspensions it was your unacceptable behavior that you choose to use which got you banished.

As for 'new evidence' You cited Haramein, which I'm glad you finally discarded his stuff for the lack of reality it is. And as for Brandenburg it's not evidenced it's postulates. You've managed to demonstrate time and again you do not get the difference of these two concepts.

Trolls: it's not a conversation when I present ideas and your answer is: it's not currently accepted "popular science" no matter how incorrect "popular science" blantantly is.

You can't present better ideas. You're just trolling for the sake of trolling. There's no such thing as an adult conversation with a troll. It's no different than arguing with idiots, eventually you get brought down.




And as far as Sitchin, yeah it's all just a series of coincidences about what he translated about how the solar system as we know it came to be....yeah sure. I'm sure he was called crazy in 1976. Today his translation is now VERY PLAUSIBLE. Science is catching up to Sitchin. Tyche/Nibiru, the only reason it's not confirmed is because it matches EXACTLY what Sitchin said and that would make people like you who live on fantasy island and practice blundered physics freak out. It explains the inclined path of the comets just like Sitchin said...and he didn't need an infra-red telescope. Eat it.

Last edited by Lou on 22-Jan-2013 at 01:54 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 22-Jan-2013 at 01:53 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 22-Jan-2013 at 01:53 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 22-Jan-2013 at 01:48 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

it's not a conversation when I present ideas and your answer is: it's not currently accepted "popular science" no matter how incorrect "popular science" blantantly is.

I'd agree it's certainly not a conversation when you claim truth of your ideas and are unable to demonstrate evidence supporting the validity of the ideas. No faith is proven valid, else it'd no longer be faith. "Popular Science" is a system design to continually test and ascertain the validity of ideas. It is and continues to do it's job well. Any ideas, even yours, are welcome. But, all ideas, even yours, must be evidenced before we accept them as the truth.

Quote:

You can't present better ideas. You're just trolling for the sake of trolling.

No Lou you can't get it through your grey matter that we have presented better ideas.
*Haramein - total crap when it comes to reality. The current state of evidence about the universe has proven him wrong. You might want to claim he's an awesome Sci-Fi writer. I have my own favorites if you want to stack up authors who enjoy creative writing. I'd be glad to converse there. Clearly the Standard model is the better idea as it's made successful predictions on the underlying foundations of atomic structures.
* Brandenburg - is based on a 100 year old postulate which has not been evidenced. Even if his math is valid we still lack any sort of evidence to confirm he's right about our universe. Math is a postulate of reality. If it's true it must make correct predictions about our universe. Brandenburg has yet to be confirmed. It's interesting and science should investigate more. However, to date GR is a better idea. For example, we used it to get outside of our solar system.

Quote:

Sitchin, yeah it's all just a series of coincidences about what he translated about how the solar system as we know it came to be

I don't know if it's a coincidence. Afterall, science was postulating most every one of Stichin's ideas on how the galaxy came to be prior to Stichin doing it. A quick review of some reports is all the guy would need.

Quote:

Science is catching up to Sitchin. Tyche/Nibiru, the only reason it's not confirmed is because it matches EXACTLY what Sitchin said and that would make people like you who live on fantasy island and practice blundered physics freak out.

Sorry Lou there's no conspiracy here. National scientific competition pressures ensure that Russia or China would want to beat the USA on any sort of discovery and vice versa. Let alone the throes of amateur astronomers which are not beholding to any nation.

We simply do not know why it's not yet confirmed. Heck we don't even know it's real. Once better confirmation exists, if it ever does, then we can talk about what was going on. Until then it's simply wild ass guessing about an unknown.

Quote:

It explains the inclined path of the comets just like Sitchin said

Stichin also said it comes near to us every 3,600 years and LGM live on it. Neither postulate is proven to be true. In order to prove Stichin correct, or anyone, you need to demonstrate the details of their postulates as valid. There may be a big ass planet out there. We cannot confirm Stichin correct until we demonstrate the attributes of the supposed planet match the claimed attributes from Stichin.

@trolls

http://www.science20.com/welcome_my_moon_base/mystery_solved_how_very_massive_stars_form_despite_force_light

Funny how radiation pressure is starting to rear its head in science today...

Keep on trolling...

In other news, a star implodes when it doesn't have enough radiation pressure...but they'll figure that out eventually too ... someday ... only to be denied by trolls until that day comes...

http://www.science20.com/chemical_education/blog/fusing_modern_physics_dated_curriculum-101344

Oh look, it seems someone else is saying what I've been saying about REAL and MODERN physics vs. the physics taught in textbooks to noobs and trolls...

/sigh

But apparently I have no clue what I'm talking about. I mean, when you are spoon-fed physics from press announcements, clearly you must be smarted than me...

@Lou

Quote:

Funny how radiation pressure is starting to rear its head in science today... Keep on trolling...

You are the one trolling. No one here said radiation pressure doesn't exist or couldn't be useful. Also, showing 1 of the 4 fundamental forces work doesn't disprove the other forces. The reason I assign you the trolling instead is you're the one asserting false claims and inserting faulty logic.

Quote:

it seems someone else is saying what I've been saying about REAL and MODERN physics vs. the physics taught in textbooks

A big DUH! Again a false statement from you. No one disagreed that textbooks and science are out of alignment. They always are as Textbooks are used for a few years while science always marches on. Though do note nothing whatsoever about this proves EM_is_God is right nor disproves Gravity.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Funny how radiation pressure is starting to rear its head in science today... Keep on trolling... You are the one trolling. No one here said radiation pressure doesn't exist or couldn't be useful. Also, showing 1 of the 4 fundamental forces work doesn't disprove the other forces. The reason I assign you the trolling instead is you're the one asserting false claims and inserting faulty logic. Quote: it seems someone else is saying what I've been saying about REAL and MODERN physics vs. the physics taught in textbooks A big DUH! Again a false statement from you. No one disagreed that textbooks and science are out of alignment. They always are as Textbooks are used for a few years while science always marches on. Though do note nothing whatsoever about this proves EM_is_God is right nor disproves Gravity.

Actually you did deny textbooks were outdated any by how much...stop lying...but that is to be expected from a troll.

My mantra is EM is everything. But you will continue to twist that like the troll that you are. ...but alas no point in arguing with a troll...

And for the record, unless you have something to say that doesn't amount to "I don't accept this because I'm a troll." then PLEASE don't reply to my posts.

Last edited by Lou on 22-Jan-2013 at 04:42 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Actually you did deny textbooks were outdated any by how much...stop lying...but that is to be expected from a troll.

We'd need to see your evidence. Do you have a post referring to this so we can revisit the conversation? What I suspect happened is your 'outdated' was a request to chuck out ideas that are, at present, the best evidence available. Afterall, that's what you've spent this thread doing.

Quote:

My mantra is EM is everything. But you will continue to twist that like the troll that you are

I'd argue I haven't twisted this. You claimed this was your faith we were attacking. And you have indeed claimed it's all EM. Now I'll agree I've summarized it as EM_is_God. That's not twisting the shorthand actually embraces your faith that EM is everything.

Quote:

And for the record, unless you have something to say that doesn't amount to "I don't accept this because I'm a troll." then PLEASE don't reply to my posts.

I have had something to say. Here's the short hand version so someone doesn't have to read a few thousands posts - Not Lou, nor anyone, gets to declare reality based upon their faith. Believing something to be true and demonstrating it to be true are two very different things. Lou, you don't understand, that a pretty math formula can work because because it adheres to the rules of mathematics but this in no way guarantees it adheres to the rules of the universe. For that important test of reality one needs to evidence against reality. Time and again you've failed to evidence.

(For example, you made claims that all Black Holes rotate and failed to provide even a single piece of evidence that a single Black Hole rotates. You missed the whole first step of the ladder, old chap. Instead you blamed me for pointing out that you proclaimed reality and lacked demonstration.)

Since you believe everyone here to be trolls perhaps you might be better moving onto another site. Don't bother visiting any scientific sites. Your faith will meet the same demands for empirical demonstrable evidence. You might try here

Last edited by BrianK on 22-Jan-2013 at 06:29 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Actually you did deny textbooks were outdated any by how much...stop lying...but that is to be expected from a troll. We'd need to see your evidence. Do you have a post referring to this so we can revisit the conversation? What I suspect happened is your 'outdated' was a request to chuck out ideas that are, at present, the best evidence available. Afterall, that's what you've spent this thread doing. Quote: My mantra is EM is everything. But you will continue to twist that like the troll that you are I'd argue I haven't twisted this. You claimed this was your faith we were attacking. And you have indeed claimed it's all EM. Now I'll agree I've summarized it as EM_is_God. That's not twisting the shorthand actually embraces your faith that EM is everything. Quote: And for the record, unless you have something to say that doesn't amount to "I don't accept this because I'm a troll." then PLEASE don't reply to my posts. I have had something to say. Here's the short hand version so someone doesn't have to read a few thousands posts - Not Lou, nor anyone, gets to declare reality based upon their faith. Believing something to be true and demonstrating it to be true are two very different things. Lou, you don't understand, that a pretty math formula can work because because it adheres to the rules of mathematics but this in no way guarantees it adheres to the rules of the universe. For that important test of reality one needs to evidence against reality. Time and again you've failed to evidence. (For example, you made claims that all Black Holes rotate and failed to provide even a single piece of evidence that a single Black Hole rotates. You missed the whole first step of the ladder, old chap. Instead you blamed me for pointing out that you proclaimed reality and lacked demonstration.) Since you believe everyone here to be trolls perhaps you might be better moving onto another site. Don't bother visiting any scientific sites. Your faith will meet the same demands for empirical demonstrable evidence. You might try here

And the troll says "I troll therefore I reply."

Higgs-ether
"The Higgs Field is also know as Higgs ether."

A certain nimrodic troll here laughed at me when I linked a paper that mention ether.

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3995

"Einstein changed his mind about ether, it is just some of his followers
that have not gone with Einstein's change of mind and are firm in their belief that ether does not
exist."

"Of course the Einstein followers would not accept the mess they have made. From my discussions
with them, they form personal beliefs specific to themselves as to Einstein's relativity; when it is
pointed out to them that what they are saying in contrary to what other Einstein followers are
saying, they then just choose to believe the other Einstein followers are wrong. What they really
should be realising is that Einstein's relativity is contradictory and leads people to believe different
things because Einstein's relativity has not been properly defined with Einstein persistently
changing his mind making ambiguity. But that kind of reasoning is beyond them."

A troll is a troll is a troll is a follower of ancient Einstein. Newer Einstein accepts either and persued unification.

Yes, this is another boot to blundered General Relativity...as if it needs any more...but the trolls will continue to swear by it...

Another troll ASSUMES, like trolls do, that SUSY is not valid...
http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/higgs_discovery_rehabilitating_despised_einstein_ether-85497
"Those who work on SUSY claim that the Higgs discovery indicates SUSY to be also true. Those who wish for alternatives, well they point out that the light mass of the Higgs makes SUSY unlikely. On the other hand, a light Higgs could mean that the universe is unstable because it may allow the decay of the “False Vacuum”. (More on this doomsday scenario and why a stable universe is actually not necessary here.) SUSY may be a way to prevent the universe from blowing up."

But trolls who only read associate press posts for science will always remain ignorant...

These same trolls will disregard and scientific papers that assume SUSY, but these trolls are fools and who cares about them anyway...

@Lou

Quote:

For instance, over the course of the last several pages, resident troll BrianK, keeps proclaiming as fact that 'nibiru' still has not been found. It's a bold faced lie as it was found in 1983 and refound in 2011: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/15/scientists-telescope-hunt-massive-hidden-object-in-space/

So where is the evidence that wise found nibiru. Prior to the loss of its main coolant 33,500 new asteroids and comets were discovered, and over 154,000 solar system objects were observed by WISE by October 2010.
The wise telescope was able to detect objects as cold as 70 to 100 degrees Kelvin, which meant that small Kuiper belt objects, but larger objects are warmer. An object the size of Jupiter would have been detectable at a range of up to one light year, and an object on a 3600 year orbit would be a lot closer than one light year away. You claim nibiru to be either orbiting a brown dwarf, or to be the brown dwarf but if it were the temperature would be far greater than that of Jupiter and although it would not be visible to the naked eye, even very basic IR detectors would be able to find it with no difficulty, and the detectors on wise are not exactly primitive meaning that it was able to detect 200 new brown dwarf stars, none of them matching Sitchins nibiru fantasy

Quote:

You can't present better ideas.

You are the one who insists on presenting new ideas. All that we ask is that one of them be better than the current state of development. So far you have been an abject failure.

Quote:

Funny how radiation pressure is starting to rear its head in science today...

And your point is? I suppose that because the radiation pressure inside the star maintains a larger than otherwise anticipated diameter, you will claim that the same pressure pushes stuff around at a range of billions of light years. This is another Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Postulated idea. If I have £500, and decide to spend it all on a new laptop, I cannot then go out and spend the same £500 on a new set of golf clubs, and then spend it again on some "go faster bits" for my car. And no I have not previously denied the existence of radiation pressure, I simply know how much pressure is exerted.

Quote:

In other news, a star implodes when it doesn't have enough radiation pressure...

Wrong again. It does not implode, it reduces its diameter, in the same way that a party balloon will shrink if you inflate it in a warm room, knot it closed and then put it in the fridge.

Quote:

http://www.science20.com/chemical_education/blog/fusing_modern_physics_dated_curriculum-101344 Oh look, it seems someone else is saying what I've been saying about REAL and MODERN physics vs. the physics taught in textbooks to noobs and trolls...

Did you actually [b]read[/b[ the article you linked to, or did you just make assumptions based on the title of the article. The main complaint expressed was that many students were unable to grasp many of the concepts used in the more up to date models of physics because they have not grasped the basics. Stuff like Algebra and Calculus are not exactly new ideas, but until you can follow the mathematics correctly all else is supposition and guesswork. And once you have done the mathematics it has to produce results which match observational evidence. Or does your version of "new physics" allow 1+1=263.54236548. It certainly required that 300,000,000 = 1049000.

Quote:

And for the record, unless you have something to say that doesn't amount to ...

What you are trying to demand here is that the entire universe should either recite the mantra "There is no god but Sitchin, and Lou is the messenger of Sitchin" or be subject to a fatwa. That attitude leads to ignorance and stagnation, as questioning the decreed wisdom becomes defined as heresy. If you choose to attempt to pass of some idiotic fantasy in the name of science I for one feel obliged to assist you in the endeavour of making yourself look foolish.

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

@Lou

Quote:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3995

This is more of a philosophical commentary than an actual workings. And certainly science has accepted Einstein to be incomplete, and perhaps even wrong, which is why the search continues. (Continual skepticism is good science! Remember that.)

However, what this paper doesn't show is your view that it's all EM is the next best answer. You need to be evidencing that stuff. (I say you because you stated it as the truth. But, you could find evidence that others have done which shows the predictive strength of Brandenburg.) Again not saying you're wrong (well except for Haramein whose you admitted to being incorrect with respective to reality) but what you have is an unproven claim to truth. Many 'faithful' have tried this through eons. The best predictor of truth is workable productions and usability. Something Brandenburg doesn't provide us today.

Quote:

Newer Einstein accepts either and persued unification.

Science doesn't assign workability because Einstein said it or because he had a fancy degree. Science has no inerrant Priesthood. Workability is assigned only through by evidence. So if there's some 'scientist' claiming this is true because of his faith in Einstein that guy is being a really, really bad scientist. A true scientist understands items to be true because of their evidence.

Quote:

Another troll ASSUMES, like trolls do, that SUSY is not valid

Here's another of your continued Strawman attacks. You make a point no one here said. Then attack it and act like you had some sort of victory. Beating yourself doesn't count nor is something any of us want to watch. We want an honest discussion about the evidence we have which validates the postulates.

Quote:

These same trolls will disregard and scientific papers that assume SUSY,

Any and all paper that are ASSUMING something to be true should be disregarded! That assumption means the paper would be a weak unproven work of faith. Now give me something which EVIDENCES it to be true and now we're talking!

You appear to be unable to comprehend the items that have insufficient evidence and therefore we need to say 'we don't know'. That's not at all an uncommon problem. It's one people have to deal with a lot. I would argue that's why people invented God, Budda, and all faiths. To give a answer to those things in our life that are, at present, unanswerable. Inserting faith is the wrong answer. Faith gives us conclusions and then we stop being skeptical and looking into the very, very important details and workability. It's through scientific inquiry and skepticism that man has risen above the animals and has shot us out of the Solar system. It's through faith that things like 9/11 happen. Faith is trolls pissing about that their imaginary truth must be accepted for it's lack of evidence. EM_is_God is currently at that State. That's why we see you taking the low road to insult others when no one is insulting you. That's why you make up fallacies when others are asking for validation. If you really truly have reality at your fingertips as you claim you do, you should be able to demonstrate that reality. It's sad you cannot. Instead it's through demeaning behavior which you hope to cover up your belief for it's true lack of knowledge.

@Nimrod

Quote:

@LouQuote: Funny how radiation pressure is starting to rear its head in science today... And your point is? I suppose that because the radiation pressure inside the star maintains a larger than otherwise anticipated diameter, you will claim that the same pressure pushes stuff around at a range of billions of light years. This is another Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Postulated idea. If I have £500, and decide to spend it all on a new laptop, I cannot then go out and spend the same £500 on a new set of golf clubs, and then spend it again on some "go faster bits" for my car. And no I have not previously denied the existence of radiation pressure, I simply know how much pressure is exerted.

This one is a head scratcher for me. We have a type of postulate in play here. It describes the object one would expect to find under the conditions of Radiation Pressure and GRAVITY. Nothing here said Gravity didn't exist. The work commented on the interplay of the 2 forces and how things can indeed exist. Indeed Lou's thought is a strange one that doesn't follow from this presented 'evidence'.

@Lou

You've been warned before and you also know talking about moderation in public is not permitted.

If you think someone is trolling use the report function and/or PM a mod with your thoughts.

@All,

Lou is for the time being unable to reply. Keep that in mind and do try to keep it civil again.

Last edited by Seer on 23-Jan-2013 at 12:02 PM.

_________________
~
Everything you say will be misquoted and used against you..
~

New postulates on Dark Matter Now this article has some bad writing as it claims scientists 'know' Dark Matter .... and are still searching for it. Huh?! But, what's important is the scientific paper it's talking about. It postulates a SuperSymmetric particle to the graviton called the gravitos. If SuSy for Gravity is true they won't be able to get to the heart of the Dark matter (hee,hee) until The Theory of Everything is complete. Now I know Lou conceives that EM is everything. But, if this postulate is proven to be true it would indicate that Gravity is everything.

3D Mapping the Universe

Need to calculate LOTS of numbers such as Climate or a Universe simulation? 1.5Million Core Processing

Wow!

"The truth of a theory can never be proven, for one never knows if future experience will contradict its conclusions." -Albert Einstein

...
Albert is spot on here. There is no end to science. Accepted Science doesn't really exist. Science must always face skeptical inquisition. That 'faith' in Science is it's never ending struggle to find the best answer for what's available today. It does it again tomorrow as society progressively adds to that pile of evidence.

That being said a Theory can be disproven. When it doesn't fit the observational evidences, no matter how clever (Haramein for example), it can be safely discarded.

@Lou

To assume the answer without the evidence leads you nowhere:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33YTGrElA0c