@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @BrianK Quote: BrianK wrote: @Lou, A Perpetual Motion machine? An interesting theoretical idea. Nicely, the same scientist has the wherewithal to build an experiment to verify his work. He understands that while the mathematics on the paper look very pretty that until evidence is found in the real world we're unable to verify or deny the truthfulness of this mathematical construct. A great example for you to read and think about when talking about EM. You've provided those pretty papers from Brandenburg. What you're missing is evidence. In the above the scientist is building an experiment that will lead us to observing if the paper's conclusions are true, or not. Ah yes, ask for evidence while providing none of your own.

Alas another Lie from Lou. That's becoming a habit for you old friend.

Plenty of evidence has been provided. You argued you couldn't be bothered to review it.

Some of the first direct observation coming for anti-gravity.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130430113429.htm

Does Nibiru have the same properties as the rest of the universe? If it's an anti construct perhaps they can better control anti-gravity making the trip to earth as easy as driving your Chevy across town.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: @BrianK [quote] BrianK wrote: @Lou, A Perpetual Motion machine? An interesting theoretical idea. Nicely, the same scientist has the wherewithal to build an experiment to verify his work. He understands that while the mathematics on the paper look very pretty that until evidence is found in the real world we're unable to verify or deny the truthfulness of this mathematical construct. A great example for you to read and think about when talking about EM. You've provided those pretty papers from Brandenburg. What you're missing is evidence. In the above the scientist is building an experiment that will lead us to observing if the paper's conclusions are true, or not. Ah yes, ask for evidence while providing none of your own.

Alas another Lie from Lou. That's becoming a habit for you old friend.

Plenty of evidence has been provided. You argued you couldn't be bothered to review it.
[/quote]
Sure. Science by proclamation as usual. Last time I checked, it was still called "The THEORY of General Relativity". You have failed to prove anything.

@Lou

Apollo 15 Hammer and Feather drop on the Moon

If you can figure out how to get around the whole Law of Gravity thing, let me know, I have a GREAT idea for a revolutionary brassiere. We'd get RICH, man, off all those Cougars in Southern California and Florida. Total untapped market.

_________________
¤¤ Official Hyperion Zealot ¤¤

(No, I didn't type that with a straight face.)

@Lou

Quote:

Quote: From: Brian K: Plenty of evidence has been provided. You argued you couldn't be bothered to review it. From Lou: Sure. Science by proclamation as usual. Last time I checked, it was still called "The THEORY of General Relativity". You have failed to prove anything.

There is no science by proclamation - that's another lie. I provided you the experiments and facts around how science conceives of 4 forces today. Again you choose not to read them. Since you don't do that we can easily see how you're going to draw such a fictional conclusion.

Second - Theory within science such as the Theory of Gravity, Theory of Evolution, Theory of Heliocentric Solar System has a specific meaning. That scientific theory is the most encompassing explanations we have for the set of laws, and set of facts concerning the particular topic. You falsely use theory, a guess, in it's place. That's not what the word means. You have built yourself a false understanding of what's going on here.

Third - This harkens back to a recent demand that we build a this Theory into a Law. That's not how science works. Again you another false understanding.

While you are the only one that can tell us if your falsehoods are conscious or subconscious falsities in understand the fact remains they enable you to build a lie. A lie is an untruth. As we can see you have a series or untruthful statements and demands that you pile on together building a great big lie.

Let's go back and give you the benefit of doubt and assume you read the facts and evidence and that Gravity is all wrong. Great - what that does is open up to other avenues. EM is everything is but one of a myriad of alternative views. In order for EM to rise to the top you must demonstrate those with evidence, such as experimentation. To date you give us mathematical models which are unproven hypothesis, not evidence. So either if Gravity right or Gravity wrong the problem you have is EM is everything is at the same place. You still have the same problem - no evidence means no acceptance.

@Yo

Quote:

Yo wrote: @Lou Apollo 15 Hammer and Feather drop on the Moon If you can figure out how to get around the whole Law of Gravity thing, let me know, I have a GREAT idea for a revolutionary brassiere. We'd get RICH, man, off all those Cougars in Southern California and Florida. Total untapped market.

If we can make money tapping Cougars I'm in!

@Lou

I have thanks, and again it appears that I have a greater grasp of what the presenter is saying than yourself.

_________________
Live Long and keep Amigaing!

A1200, Power Tower, TF1260 128MB RAM, 68060 Rev 6, OS3.9 BB2, HD-Floppy, Mediator TX+ PCI, Voodoo 3 3000, Soundblaster 4.1, TV Card, Spider USB, 100MBit Ethernet, 16GB CF HD, 52xCDRom.

@Lou

It might be because I missed a post in this very long thread, but I dont see what you are getting at with the link to that article.

_________________
Live Long and keep Amigaing!

A1200, Power Tower, TF1260 128MB RAM, 68060 Rev 6, OS3.9 BB2, HD-Floppy, Mediator TX+ PCI, Voodoo 3 3000, Soundblaster 4.1, TV Card, Spider USB, 100MBit Ethernet, 16GB CF HD, 52xCDRom.

@Lou

Quote:

Many a nimrod can calculate the radiation pressure of 1 star. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130430105948.htm Keep going old boy, let me know when you're finished.

The radiation pressure from any source reduces as the distance from the source increases. This happens by the basic and well undersood ratio called the inverse square.
This planet is pushed away from the sun by a pressure of 4.6 µPa at a distance of 150,000,000kM (1AU). The nearest star to our own solar system is Proxima Centauri at a distance of 4.22 light years (266346AU). Proxima has a lower output than our own sun but even if its output matched the pressure would be divided by 70,940,268,423 as a result of the inverse square law, meaning that we recieve a pressure from Proxima Centauri of 64 aPa which is 0.64% of the pressure of interstellar space. As other stars are further away their contribution is attenuated even more. As an example NGC1 is a globular cluster of stars that is the closest non milky way formation. There are hundreds of thousands of stars which multiplies the recieved pressure by that amount, but the distance of 20 million light years reduces the pressure by a factor of 94,786,729,857,819 compared with proxima centauri. Allowing that the combined output of the stars in this closest cluster is 1 million times that of our own sun for quick calculation, that means the combined radiation pressure from NGC1 is 0.67 x 10^-24 Pascals. I am aware that there are a lot of stars out there, but unlike some, I am also aware that they are a long way away which reduces their effect even further.

Even if the preceding mathematics is too complicated for you to grasp, the actual measured energy at the current position of the Voyager probe is still predominantly from our own sun and not from external sources. It doesn't matter how many degrees Brandenburg has, if his "theory" disagrees with the observable facts, IT IS WRONG

If there were any possible truth to the fantasy that gravity is a byproduct of radiation pressure, planets would not orbit stars, certainly not as closely as Mercury does. Instead they would congregate at points equidistant from any source of radiation pressure.

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

@Yo

Quote:

Yo wrote: @Lou Apollo 15 Hammer and Feather drop on the Moon If you can figure out how to get around the whole Law of Gravity thing, let me know, I have a GREAT idea for a revolutionary brassiere. We'd get RICH, man, off all those Cougars in Southern California and Florida. Total untapped market.

Riddle me this.
If gravity is related to the product of the "two" (aka BOTH) masses, then the hammer (per F=Gm1m2/r^2) would have a force hundreds to thousands of times greater towards the moon than the feather? This is the stupid and obvious thing that nobody seems to realize.

If you look at the pressure model, it's easier to understand. Two objects in a river will flow downstream at the same rate because of the pressure from the river. The river is the vacuum. The vacuum is flowing in EM. Even a nimrod can makes sense of this....well perhaps not all nimrods...

Last edited by Lou on 02-May-2013 at 02:25 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 02-May-2013 at 02:24 PM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Many a nimrod can calculate the radiation pressure of 1 star. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130430105948.htm Keep going old boy, let me know when you're finished. The radiation pressure from any source reduces as the distance from the source increases. This happens by the basic and well undersood ratio called the inverse square. This planet is pushed away from the sun by a pressure of 4.6 µPa at a distance of 150,000,000kM (1AU). The nearest star to our own solar system is Proxima Centauri at a distance of 4.22 light years (266346AU). Proxima has a lower output than our own sun but even if its output matched the pressure would be divided by 70,940,268,423 as a result of the inverse square law, meaning that we recieve a pressure from Proxima Centauri of 64 aPa which is 0.64% of the pressure of interstellar space. As other stars are further away their contribution is attenuated even more. As an example NGC1 is a globular cluster of stars that is the closest non milky way formation. There are hundreds of thousands of stars which multiplies the recieved pressure by that amount, but the distance of 20 million light years reduces the pressure by a factor of 94,786,729,857,819 compared with proxima centauri. Allowing that the combined output of the stars in this closest cluster is 1 million times that of our own sun for quick calculation, that means the combined radiation pressure from NGC1 is 0.67 x 10^-24 Pascals. I am aware that there are a lot of stars out there, but unlike some, I am also aware that they are a long way away which reduces their effect even further. Even if the preceding mathematics is too complicated for you to grasp, the actual measured energy at the current position of the Voyager probe is still predominantly from our own sun and not from external sources. It doesn't matter how many degrees Brandenburg has, if his "theory" disagrees with the observable facts, IT IS WRONG If there were any possible truth to the fantasy that gravity is a byproduct of radiation pressure, planets would not orbit stars, certainly not as closely as Mercury does. Instead they would congregate at points equidistant from any source of radiation pressure.

All I did was show you even more sources. Your folly is you keep trying to identify individual sources. You're the one living the fantasy of spoon-fed science.

Relativity disagrees with observable facts. If I am 1000 times more massive that someone else, I should accelerate 1000 times faster towards any other massive object, be it the earth or the moon, yet I don't. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

Last edited by Lou on 02-May-2013 at 02:28 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

If gravity is related to the product of the "two" (aka BOTH) masses, then the hammer (per F=Gm1m2/r^2) would have a force hundreds to thousands of times greater towards the moon than the feather? This is the stupid and obvious thing that nobody seems to realize.

What you're trying to get at can be gotten from this experiment but not in the way you're trying to get it.

Rate of acceleration would be determined by attraction of the two masses. The feather weighs about .01gram and the hammer about 5 Kg. (My rough estimate). So indeed the difference between these is about 10 thousand times. What you are neglecting is their attraction is with an object that's about 10^22 more massive than the hammer, aka the moon. The mass of the moon clearly dominates the relationship. The result of the short 1meter drop with such small masses is to our naked eyes there is no discernible difference in acceleration. You are looking at the wrong place to detect force.

Force can be seen in this experiment, and measured. One way to measure the difference in force is to measure the depth and amount of soil displaced between the two objects. Another way would to be to put a scale under them and measure the corresponding weights at the point of collision. Since both are colliding with the moon any difference is due to that object itself. Doing that what you'll find is their weight from the force will indeed be thousands of times different. You'll get mass of feather * acceleration measured VS mass of hammer * acceleration measured. Then do one more measure - mass at rest of the objects. You'll see there a discernible force delta between the two objects.

Your whole pressure excuse is bunk.

Last edited by BrianK on 02-May-2013 at 05:22 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

All I did was show you even more sources. Your folly is you keep trying to identify individual sources

Yes Lou, I know that you were identifying other sources, but the fact that I was trying to get through your impenetrable skull was that they were even further away. The additional galaxies do contain hundreds of millions of stars, but since they are hundreds of million light years away the resulting multiples are countered by the division by distance squared Despite your claims that every star in the known and unknown universe is concentrating its entire output on this one insignificant planet, the recieved energy from stars and galaxies diminishes toward zero by the inverse of the distance squared, just as their gravitational attraction does. Note from the examples I cited that we recieve more energy from Proxima than we do from NGC1, and as an additional fact, we recieve more from the cluster NGC1 than we do the nearest entire galaxy (Andromeda) despite the fact that Andromeda has many times more stars than NGC1 has. The additional stars are added as an arithmetical progression, but their increased distance constitute a geometrical progression.

Quote:

If I am 1000 times more massive that someone else, I should accelerate 1000 times faster towards any other massive object, be it the earth or the moon, yet I don't.

You have oversimplified your statement. You will accelerate with 1000 times more force, which will accelerate the larger mass at about the same rate as the smaller mass. This is because the greater force has to accelerate a greater mass. If you drop a cat, a man, and an elephant from 10 metres, the cat will land on its feet and walk away, the man will probably have a few broken bones, the elephant however would simply splash. This is because the differing amounts of force are being negatively accelerated in about the same distance.

Quote:

If you look at the pressure model, it's easier to understand

If you look at the "pressure model" you will see that the planet Mercury should be forced away from the Sun by the very high radiation pressure coming from the Sun, especially since the radiation pressure from the Sun is still greater than the incoming pressure from all combined outside sources as far out as where the Voyager probe was at the beginning of this year. The so called "pressure model" would not permit planets to orbit stars and would instead force planets to a point equidistant from all stars.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: If you look at the pressure model, it's easier to understand If you look at the "pressure model" you will see that the planet Mercury should be forced away from the Sun by the very high radiation pressure coming from the Sun, especially since the radiation pressure from the Sun is still greater than the incoming pressure from all combined outside sources as far out as where the Voyager probe was at the beginning of this year. The so called "pressure model" would not permit planets to orbit stars and would instead force planets to a point equidistant from all stars.

You're 100% wrong here but that's par for the course with your misconceptions...

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: If gravity is related to the product of the "two" (aka BOTH) masses, then the hammer (per F=Gm1m2/r^2) would have a force hundreds to thousands of times greater towards the moon than the feather? This is the stupid and obvious thing that nobody seems to realize. What you're trying to get at can be gotten from this experiment but not in the way you're trying to get it. Rate of acceleration would be determined by attraction of the two masses. The feather weighs about .01gram and the hammer about 5 Kg. (My rough estimate). So indeed the difference between these is about 10 thousand times. What you are neglecting is their attraction is with an object that's about 10^22 more massive than the hammer, aka the moon. The mass of the moon clearly dominates the relationship. The result of the short 1meter drop with such small masses is to our naked eyes there is no discernible difference in acceleration. You are looking at the wrong place to detect force. Force can be seen in this experiment, and measured. One way to measure the difference in force is to measure the depth and amount of soil displaced between the two objects. Another way would to be to put a scale under them and measure the corresponding weights at the point of collision. Since both are colliding with the moon any difference is due to that object itself. Doing that what you'll find is their weight from the force will indeed be thousands of times different. You'll get mass of feather * acceleration measured VS mass of hammer * acceleration measured. Then do one more measure - mass at rest of the objects. You'll see there a discernible force delta between the two objects. Your whole pressure excuse is bunk.

The beauty of the pressure model is that it produces the same result as the 'magical gravity' model but with real mechanical sources rather than pure magic. Now you can begin to see why so many scientists are coming to this realization.

So you believe in 'bunk' theories involving magic where as I believe in a theory that identifies a mechanical force.

The tipping point of 20th century science:

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/sciences-looming-tipping-point/

After reading this, a few of you should look in the mirror.

@Lou

Quote:

The beauty of the pressure model is that it produces the same result as the 'magical gravity' model but with real mechanical sources rather than pure magic. Now you can begin to see why so many scientists are coming to this realization. So you believe in 'bunk' theories involving magic where as I believe in a theory that identifies a mechanical force.

@Lou

Quote:

You're 100% wrong here but that's par for the course with your misconceptions...

And the evidence that my interpretation of your C.R.A.P is wrong is... totally non existent as usual.

The only reason that you stick so fervently to your position without providing any corroboration is that you traded your belief in the infallibility of one papal authority figure for that of an azerbaijani accountant who tried to write second rate sci-fi. disguised as "translations" of ancient documents. Your sole reason for the persistent attempts to discredit the scientific principle, General Relativity, or even mathematics is that maths and science demonstrated that Sitchins Nibiru story was, and is, and always will be a crock of excrement.

Quote:

The beauty of the pressure model is that it produces the same result as the 'magical gravity' model but with real mechanical sources rather than pure magic. Now you can begin to see why so many scientists are coming to this realization.

You so called pressure model has no corroborating evidence or observations to support it. and produces no results. You keep referring back to the idea of dark objects in a bright box to demonstrate the idea behind the guess, however you seem to be unaware that the night sky is not bright, it is dark and the sun is not dark, it is bright, especially if you are as close as the planet Mercury is. At the distance the Voyager probe is it still recieves more energy from the Sun than all of the rest of the universe combined. If your C.R.A.P. had any level of scientific credibility at all, the planets would have been pushed away from the Sun billions of years ago.

Quote:

So you believe in 'bunk' theories involving magic where as I believe in a theory that identifies a mechanical force.

Just to reiterate, in science belief is irrelevant Aerodynamic theory does not require the airline passengers to believe that the aircraft will fly to avoid crashing into the ground. The mechanical force that your pathetic guess identifies as the cause of mass attraction is too weak, and too diffuse to achieve the result that you claim for it. The concept of radiation pressure pushing planets around is like floating a fully laden oil tanker on a cloud.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: You're 100% wrong here but that's par for the course with your misconceptions... And the evidence that my interpretation of your C.R.A.P is wrong is... totally non existent as usual. The only reason that you stick so fervently to your position without providing any corroboration is that you traded your belief in the infallibility of one papal authority figure for that of an azerbaijani accountant who tried to write second rate sci-fi. disguised as "translations" of ancient documents. Your sole reason for the persistent attempts to discredit the scientific principle, General Relativity, or even mathematics is that maths and science demonstrated that Sitchins Nibiru story was, and is, and always will be a crock of excrement. Quote: The beauty of the pressure model is that it produces the same result as the 'magical gravity' model but with real mechanical sources rather than pure magic. Now you can begin to see why so many scientists are coming to this realization. You so called pressure model has no corroborating evidence or observations to support it. and produces no results. You keep referring back to the idea of dark objects in a bright box to demonstrate the idea behind the guess, however you seem to be unaware that the night sky is not bright, it is dark and the sun is not dark, it is bright, especially if you are as close as the planet Mercury is. At the distance the Voyager probe is it still recieves more energy from the Sun than all of the rest of the universe combined. If your C.R.A.P. had any level of scientific credibility at all, the planets would have been pushed away from the Sun billions of years ago. Quote: So you believe in 'bunk' theories involving magic where as I believe in a theory that identifies a mechanical force. Just to reiterate, in science belief is irrelevant Aerodynamic theory does not require the airline passengers to believe that the aircraft will fly to avoid crashing into the ground. The mechanical force that your pathetic guess identifies as the cause of mass attraction is too weak, and too diffuse to achieve the result that you claim for it. The concept of radiation pressure pushing planets around is like floating a fully laden oil tanker on a cloud.

Look at the engineer pretending to be a scholar and accredited scientist...

FYI: Everything you ever wanted to know about the EM Universe is right here:
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-gravity-in-an-electric-universe/

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: The beauty of the pressure model is that it produces the same result as the 'magical gravity' model but with real mechanical sources rather than pure magic. Now you can begin to see why so many scientists are coming to this realization. So you believe in 'bunk' theories involving magic where as I believe in a theory that identifies a mechanical force.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-gravity-in-an-electric-universe/

Go LOL yourself in a corner.