http://news.yahoo.com/man-wiggles-rats-tail-using-only-thoughts-164813800.html

Yep, someday you will be able to teach an old dog a new trick.

@Lou

Quote:

...Just look at the Voyage data. "space" if filled with "stuff". Voyager has shown after the solar wind disappears that there are lots of protons and electrons in space. Why waste money and time on theory when data keeps streaming in? As for the change in magnetic field lines, Nassim Haramein (remember him?) describes is best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyqBnd3Xwck

But that isn't interstellar space, just the border between the solar system and interstellar space. Almost all protons and electrons you mention still comes from the sun. The Voyager probes has not yet reached an area unaffected by the stellar wind from the Sun, I look forward to when they do.

This is the latest update on Voyager 1's location (20th of March 2013): http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/voyager20130320.html

edit: typo

Last edited by Niolator on 10-Apr-2013 at 11:48 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

Well, now that you've all gone to hell and back. Chew on this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/08/roswell-ufo-cia-agent-chase-brandon_n_1657077.html

The short response - hearsay with the appeal to authority fallacies. What we have here is someone who is ex-CIA claims, but fails to demonstrates, they have secret knowledge of aliens. Coincidently he's promoting the recently published sci-fi book he wrote. Again we have nothing here but claims with lack of proof. You're putting your faith in this guy that he's telling the truth. Since we're unable to collaborate his story it can be neither rejected nor embraced. It goes in the work to be addressed pile.

Quote:

Just look at the Voyage data. "space" if filled with "stuff". Voyager has shown after the solar wind disappears that there are lots of protons and electrons in space. Why waste money and time on theory when data keeps streaming in?

SCALE. The amount of force from those protons and electrons are insufficient in quantity to induce the forces we're seeing on the satellites or planets. Again that's why Radiation Pressure is dealt with scientists who launch satellites. The adjustments are a tiny fraction of the entire forces for the journey and don't dominate the equations. It's not that RP doesn't exist. It's that 1 of 4 force and while bigger than weak or strong is still insufficient to account for all actions.

Quote:

As for the change in magnetic field lines, Nassim Haramein (remember him?)

Yeah I remember you finally fessed up and stated you weren't serious in his inclusion.

Quote:

http://news.yahoo.com/man-wiggles-rats-tail-using-only-thoughts-164813800.html Yep, someday you will be able to teach an old dog a new trick.

I find this interesting because it hadn't been done in this particular fashion.

However, I don't find this all that exciting. We've known for a long time that electricity transmission lines are neutral to the source of electricity. We've known this for nerves as well. In my second year at University Biology class we sent an electric current down a nerve and saw the muscle twitch. There's not much difference here except that the known electric sender, the brain, did this to a nerve of a different type of animal nerve.

Last edited by BrianK on 10-Apr-2013 at 03:31 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 10-Apr-2013 at 03:30 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

As for the change in magnetic field lines, Nassim Haramein (remember him?) describes is best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyqBnd3Xwck

This is another joke of a claim. The easy disproof is Haramein in this video describes how the weather patterns of earth go in a torrid from the north to the equator and back to the north. We know that's not true.

Take a look at a 10 day weather pattern The Northern hemisphere doesn't go North to South the weather is going from the west to the east across the USA. Look at South America we see some turning but again nothing indicating a South to North to the equator pattern. The equator is hits South America about 25% from the 'top'. We see weather patterns NOT turning around at that equator but going north into Mexico and Cuba. Look at your own State. Does Rhode Island's weather come from the South to the North or North to South or from the West to the East? Check out Weather.com weather maps. Right now in your future there's a storm coming from the West into Mass. That storm isn't predicted to go back North or run South.... Again another Haramein joke - good you discarded him in the past. You should keep that consistency.

@Lou

This might be good for you to watch Austin Atheist presentation Skepticism and Atheism What Matt does really well here is explain how Skepticism works. How the default position is not to accept truth until it can be demonstrated. There's some stuff in there too about Atheism, which doesn't really apply to the discussion in this thread. But, at least 1/2 should be interesting to you, so you can understand how skepticism operates.

@Lou

Here is another one for Lloyd Pye to tout to the world as an extraterrestrial. Too bad it is just another child suffering from a condition that is now treatable

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Here is another one for Lloyd Pye to tout to the world as an extraterrestrial. Too bad it is just another child suffering from a condition that is now treatable

Upon the question of UFOs and Aliens I think Richard Feynman said it well '..What I mean that with my knowledge of the world I think it much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are part of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence rather than the unknown rational efforts of extraterrestrial intelligence."

But, really aren't aliens big heads the result of the specialized brain matter dedicated to the fine art of anal probing.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Here is another one for Lloyd Pye to tout to the world as an extraterrestrial. Too bad it is just another child suffering from a condition that is now treatable

I love the general statements that you make without any facts.
What is the thickness of that skull?
What is the thickness of the 'starchild' skull?
Mr. Twist likes to use some lame 'appeal to authority' excuse for not believing a CIA agent and you are the epitome of someone pretending to be an authority with every statement you make. You have the credibility of a flea.

@Lou

Quote:

I love the general statements that you make without any facts. What is the thickness of that skull? What is the thickness of the 'starchild' skull?

There's a problem here. You assume that all hydrocephalus people must have the same thickness skull. You've done nothing to demonstrate that's true. Nor have you demonstrated that thickness is unique and different from normal humans. Now those things are possible to test because we could do some statistical sampling. The problem you have is we don't have any confirmed aliens to do the same sort of sampling on. So we can't include any solid data on aliens. Also, I assume that aliens can differ from other aliens so you may even have a deeper type problem within 'aliens'.

I'd think a safer test is likely to be DNA sampling. Such as was done on the Peru Alien skulls found in 2009 which found them to be human. Though again one problem we have is a DNA match can only be made against a know sample of DNA. We have no known samples of alien DNA to type against. So even if the skull's DNA doesn't match human we can't conclude it's alien either. We can only conclude we don't know.

Quote:

Mr. Twist likes to use some lame 'appeal to authority' excuse for not believing a CIA agent

To correct your understanding here. Faith, aka belief, is worthless. I demand proof. The CIA Agent has nothing but claims. He's provided no evidence. It's you that choose to have faith in the CIA Agent because of an appeal to authority.

@Lou

Quote:

Mr. Twist likes to use some lame 'appeal to authority' excuse for not believing a CIA agent and you are the epitome of someone pretending to be an authority with every statement you make.

Could you please show a qupote where I claimed to be an authority on exobiology or E.T. Species recognition. All I did was post an article containing a picture of a child whose physiology gave a much less convoluted, and more rational explanation of the so called "starchild" skull. One that does not involve an entire edifice of "I believe", "if", and "perhaps". An explanation for which there is something called evidencein the form of pictures of a named child, living in a specified community, which refutes your opening claim that I make statements that are devoid of factual content. In years to come somebody just like Pye could very easily be touting this little girls remains around claiming them to be irrefutable evidence of an extraterrestrial presence in the opening years of the 21st century.

I would also point out that BrianK is not the one appealing to authority here, he is weighing up the evidence that is presented (or not) rather than the source of the information.

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

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: I love the general statements that you make without any facts. What is the thickness of that skull? What is the thickness of the 'starchild' skull? There's a problem here. You assume that all hydrocephalus people must have the same thickness skull. You've done nothing to demonstrate that's true. Nor have you demonstrated that thickness is unique and different from normal humans. Now those things are possible to test because we could do some statistical sampling. The problem you have is we don't have any confirmed aliens to do the same sort of sampling on. So we can't include any solid data on aliens. Also, I assume that aliens can differ from other aliens so you may even have a deeper type problem within 'aliens'. I'd think a safer test is likely to be DNA sampling. Such as was done on the Peru Alien skulls found in 2009 which found them to be human. Though again one problem we have is a DNA match can only be made against a know sample of DNA. We have no known samples of alien DNA to type against. So even if the skull's DNA doesn't match human we can't conclude it's alien either. We can only conclude we don't know. Quote: Mr. Twist likes to use some lame 'appeal to authority' excuse for not believing a CIA agent To correct your understanding here. Faith, aka belief, is worthless. I demand proof. The CIA Agent has nothing but claims. He's provided no evidence. It's you that choose to have faith in the CIA Agent because of an appeal to authority.

http://www.starchildproject.com/DNA2011March.htm

It's easy to sit back and demand proof of truth rather than prove something as false. Your petty tactics are quite obvious.

@Lou

Quote:

http://www.starchildproject.com/DNA2011March.htm It's easy to sit back and demand proof of truth rather than prove something as false. Your petty tactics are quite obvious.

Yup I take the default position - prove your claims are true. It's you asserting this is really an alien. You don't get belief, you get the opportunity to prove you know what you claim to know.

Now in my example I discussed a 2009 Peru Skull find that was demonstrated as human via DNA. Here you provide a 2003 Skull find that's thought to not be human. They aren't one in the same. If you want your 2003 'evidence' to comment on the 2009 evidence you need to prove the correlation.

You don't appear to understand that your StarChild page neither proves it's aliens either. If you read up on DNA testing you always test against a control skull. I read your link it's in there! Read your own like even. What DNA testing does is compare the subject DNA against a control. It can detect differences and indicate that they aren't the same. However, what it can't do is conclude it's something else. In order to do that you need to test against a different control. To give you the evidence you falsely believe you have -> we'd need to replace the human control skull with an alien control skull.

All we 'know' about the StarChild, as this page indicates, is it's not aligning with controls. In fact your page does say this as it begs you to contribute money to them for further research. I say you should go pay them. But, you may want to ask them where they'll find their alien control skull with which to test against.


EDIT: I thought you may find this interesting. MtDNA Mutation rates . Statistically we see 18 mtDNA rates as expected after 300 generations. In addition, using real world samples we find mtDNA rate mutations higher than predicted. Including mutations that happen and are common in the aged.

Last edited by BrianK on 12-Apr-2013 at 07:18 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 12-Apr-2013 at 07:14 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 12-Apr-2013 at 06:58 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

http://www.starchildproject.com/DNA2011March.htm It's easy to sit back and demand proof of truth rather than prove something as false. Your petty tactics are quite obvious.

This is the basis of how scientific scepticism works. If it was the other way round, we would still be stopping every five minutes to disprove stuff like phlogiston chemistry or the doctrine of signatures. I do not know how the law works where you are but as far as I am aware, if I accused you of having committed a crime, it would be up to me to prove my claim to be TRUE as opposed to you having to prove my claim FALSE. This is not a "petty tactic" as you put it but the basis for all forms of enquiry intended to arrive at the best estimate of what it true.

From your link it is no surprise that there are differences in the DNA from the samples taken from the skull. Firstly the age of the skull will indicate that DNA will break down and decay. This is admitted in the article, along with the high probability of bacterial contamination. Secondly the samples were compared with healthy people as opposed to a child suffering from a congenital defect.
Feel free to consider the statement made in the article "At minimum, it presented a level of deformity and function previously thought impossible," then look at the picture of the skull and compare it to the picture of Roona Rahman and tell me that the deformity of the skull is something previously thought impossible. If you bothered to look at the ratio of eye spacing to overall width you would realise that the "starchild" is less deformed than the living human child.From this there are two possible conclusions. Either Pye is a totally incompetent "scientist", or he is deliberately misrepresenting the facts.

The bits of DNA that do not match standard human DNA are "unknown, not Klingon or Goa'uld and if he checks against DNA of a child with congenital deformities, some of the gaps may even be filled in. Of course if a Klingon could be persuaded to provide a DNA sample it would help, but the entire process is one of elimination and that needs a lot of samples and a lot of time. And until we get a definitive answer the best guess acheived by looking at all evidence is "defective human" and the accurate answer based on just a limited DNA test is "unknown"

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: http://www.starchildproject.com/DNA2011March.htm It's easy to sit back and demand proof of truth rather than prove something as false. Your petty tactics are quite obvious. This is the basis of how scientific scepticism works. If it was the other way round, we would still be stopping every five minutes to disprove stuff like phlogiston chemistry or the doctrine of signatures. I do not know how the law works where you are but as far as I am aware, if I accused you of having committed a crime, it would be up to me to prove my claim to be TRUE as opposed to you having to prove my claim FALSE. This is not a "petty tactic" as you put it but the basis for all forms of enquiry intended to arrive at the best estimate of what it true. From your link it is no surprise that there are differences in the DNA from the samples taken from the skull. Firstly the age of the skull will indicate that DNA will break down and decay. This is admitted in the article, along with the high probability of bacterial contamination. Secondly the samples were compared with healthy people as opposed to a child suffering from a congenital defect. Feel free to consider the statement made in the article "At minimum, it presented a level of deformity and function previously thought impossible," then look at the picture of the skull and compare it to the picture of Roona Rahman and tell me that the deformity of the skull is something previously thought impossible. If you bothered to look at the ratio of eye spacing to overall width you would realise that the "starchild" is less deformed than the living human child.From this there are two possible conclusions. Either Pye is a totally incompetent "scientist", or he is deliberately misrepresenting the facts. The bits of DNA that do not match standard human DNA are "unknown, not Klingon or Goa'uld and if he checks against DNA of a child with congenital deformities, some of the gaps may even be filled in. Of course if a Klingon could be persuaded to provide a DNA sample it would help, but the entire process is one of elimination and that needs a lot of samples and a lot of time. And until we get a definitive answer the best guess acheived by looking at all evidence is "defective human" and the accurate answer based on just a limited DNA test is "unknown"

Meanwhile we've practically mapped the entire genome of Neanderthals and the like which are thousands of years older vs. 900 years. Meanwhile the woman next to the 'starchild' skull's DNA was completely identifiable. Your logic is fail.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: http://www.starchildproject.com/DNA2011March.htm It's easy to sit back and demand proof of truth rather than prove something as false. Your petty tactics are quite obvious. Yup I take the default position - prove your claims are true. It's you asserting this is really an alien. You don't get belief, you get the opportunity to prove you know what you claim to know. Now in my example I discussed a 2009 Peru Skull find that was demonstrated as human via DNA. Here you provide a 2003 Skull find that's thought to not be human. They aren't one in the same. If you want your 2003 'evidence' to comment on the 2009 evidence you need to prove the correlation. You don't appear to understand that your StarChild page neither proves it's aliens either. If you read up on DNA testing you always test against a control skull. I read your link it's in there! Read your own like even. What DNA testing does is compare the subject DNA against a control. It can detect differences and indicate that they aren't the same. However, what it can't do is conclude it's something else. In order to do that you need to test against a different control. To give you the evidence you falsely believe you have -> we'd need to replace the human control skull with an alien control skull. All we 'know' about the StarChild, as this page indicates, is it's not aligning with controls. In fact your page does say this as it begs you to contribute money to them for further research. I say you should go pay them. But, you may want to ask them where they'll find their alien control skull with which to test against. EDIT: I thought you may find this interesting. MtDNA Mutation rates . Statistically we see 18 mtDNA rates as expected after 300 generations. In addition, using real world samples we find mtDNA rate mutations higher than predicted. Including mutations that happen and are common in the aged.

Great, I'll take the default position of asking you to prove to me that gravity is a fundamental force.

@Lou

Quote:

Great, I'll take the default position of asking you to prove to me that gravity is a fundamental force.

If you were serious you'd simply go back to the post where I gave you about 10 very solid experiments that demonstrated this, stop making excuses, and actually read them.

Dislike that Nimrod and I actually read and found some errors in your religion al you want. The one plus that Nimrod and I have is we actually stepped up and read what you provided. Whereas you've sat your butt on the lazy chair.

Go back read. We'll be waiting.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Great, I'll take the default position of asking you to prove to me that gravity is a fundamental force. If you were serious you'd simply go back to the post where I gave you about 10 very solid experiments that demonstrated this, stop making excuses, and actually read them. Dislike that Nimrod and I actually read and found some errors in your religion al you want. The one plus that Nimrod and I have is we actually stepped up and read what you provided. Whereas you've sat your butt on the lazy chair. Go back read. We'll be waiting.

Your 'experiments' don't prove its a fundamental force rather than the derivative that it actually is.

@Lou

Quote:

Your 'experiments' don't prove its a fundamental force rather than the derivative that it actually is.

And where is the EVIDENCE that supports this Clearly Ridiculous Absurd Postulate? You don't have any.
Just because the great high priest tells you that radiation pressure is pushing this planet toward the sun, and blithers on about dark ojects in a light box, the measured amounts of radiation pressure as far out as the Voyager probe demonstrate that his mathematics are faulty. It doesn't matter how many PhD's Brandenburg has to his name, or how long he has worked as a propulsion systems engineer, if his guess doesn't match the observable universe then it is wrong. I will accept that we do not know everything about what gravity is, but we do know lots of things that it is [b]definitely not[b]. Your protestations about the inaccuracy of current knowledge and your CRAP alternative is like saying that because pi to 10 significant figures being 3.1415926534 is not totally accurate, the true value of pi must be 42, beacuse Douglas Adams said so!

Just to remind you, both BrianK and myself know that radiation pressure exists, we are not trying to pretend otherwise, but unlike you, we know the limits of its power. Expecting the measured levels of pressure to achieve the results you claim is like attempting to float a fully laden oil tanker on the top of a cumulo nimbus.

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

@Lou,

More hints of Dark Matter : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22155222 at the 3 Sigma, aka 99.8% probability . That's right they detected Dark Matter at a higher probability than you'll survive the car ride between home and work.

Last edited by BrianK on 16-Apr-2013 at 09:18 PM.

@Nimrod

Einstein's Lecture Notes Interesting to review how he kept his work and presented his material.