@Lou
Quote:

Lou wrote: @BrianK http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-gravity-in-an-electric-universe/ Go LOL yourself in a corner.

This guy seem to be more interested in proving the current "normal" theories wrong than proving his own theory right. Can that be because he can't prove it right? Also, I wonder what he has against Einstein. He seems to hate him on a deep level.

edit1-3: Auto-quoting does not work that well so I had to shorten the quote

Last edited by Niolator on 03-May-2013 at 02:30 PM.
Last edited by Niolator on 03-May-2013 at 02:30 PM.
Last edited by Niolator on 03-May-2013 at 02:29 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-gravity-in-an-electric-universe/ Go LOL yourself in a corner.

After hundreds of these types of post from you, again we receive someone's pontificating puffery posturing validity of their unproven postulates. Evidence learn it, use it!

Until you can do so when you post such amusement it's.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-gravity-in-an-electric-universe/ Go LOL yourself in a corner. After hundreds of these types of post from you, again we receive someone's pontificating puffery posturing validity of their unproven postulates. Evidence learn it, use it! Until you can do so when you post such amusement it's.

Learn to read.
Apparently you shouldn't have been let out of the corner yet.
All cosmological 'phenomenon' that can't be explained by the 'big bung theory' and 'magical relativity' is reproducible in the laboratory with plasma.

@Niolator

Quote:

Niolator wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: @BrianK http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-gravity-in-an-electric-universe/ Go LOL yourself in a corner. This guy seem to be more interested in proving the current "normal" theories wrong than proving his own theory right. Can that be because he can't prove it right? Also, I wonder what he has against Einstein. He seems to hate him on a deep level. edit1-3: Auto-quoting does not work that well so I had to shorten the quote

You should do more research on Einstein. Einstein rebuked GR later in life. It's worshippers of 'ancient Einstein' that dominate the world today, unfortunately.

I am just about done arguing with idiots. If I told you something 10 years ago and then today I told you I was wrong. Why would you still go believing what I said 10 years ago? This is the state of physics today. Worshippers of 'ancient Einstein' trolling all progress in physics.

I only check into this thread a couple of times a week now. That will continue to decline. I realized you can't argue with fools.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml

Spinning superconductors disrupt gravity. If gravity wasn't a side-effect of EM (pressure) then a superconductor also wouldn't affect the magic what worshippers of 'ancient Einstein' call 'gravity'.

I have been arguing with idiots.

Cue Brian" Mr. Twist" K to say "no evidence!"
Cue a nimrod to say "CRAP!"

Last edited by Lou on 03-May-2013 at 05:37 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 03-May-2013 at 05:36 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 03-May-2013 at 05:35 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 03-May-2013 at 05:31 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 03-May-2013 at 05:26 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Cue Brian" Mr. Twist" K to say "no evidence!" Cue a nimrod to say "CRAP!"

Cue Yo to say, "Can we try to be a bit more respectful of each other's divergent views, please?"

No one here is going to convince anyone of anything, can we simply accept that fact? We all have our own personal biases. We all have our own personally held beliefs and buy into our own personal 'spin' on things. Calling people 'names' doesn't and won't endear anyone to YOUR personal bias (aka: point of view.)

Thank you.

_________________
¤¤ Official Hyperion Zealot ¤¤

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

@Lou

Quote:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml

Congrats that's the most solid evidence you've provided to date. Do you have anything to show their conclusion has been independently confirmed or replicated? Seems there's more work to be done. Also, there's another layer here. Building that relationship and enhancing so we understand this to the point it can predict things. Clearly, we're still a far cry from there. Let alone this being a disproof of Relativity.

But congrats on your best evidence to date.

@Lou

Quote:

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/

I have read the article and its postulate for "electric gravity" makes no mention of the radiation pressure from distant galaxies, but instead attempts to reintroduce the concept of Aether that was shot down by the Michelson-Morley experiments, and remains undetected despuite the abundance of vastly more sensitive equipment that should have found something if there were anything there to find

Quote:

You should do more research on Einstein. Einstein rebuked GR later in life.

The scientific validity of GR was not dependent on the name Einstein but on its ability to make predictions more accurately than any other theory. We know that GR is not perfect because the increased precision and accuracy of the predictions showed up the discrepancies and opened the door to further research. Your response to this is to claim that since the answer is not "A" it absolutely has to be "Z" and any attempt to look for other answers is heresy that must not be permitted. We use GR because it is currently better than any other theory or postulate, not because of the name on the cover, and scientists from all over the world are striving to be the ones whose name gets put on the cover of the next big theory. Why should a scientist bother worshipping somebody else when they can be idolised themselves.

Quote:

If I told you something 10 years ago and then today I told you I was wrong. Why would you still go believing what I said 10 years ago?

If what you said 10 years ago was more accurate than anything everybody else was proposing at the time and it still was more accurate then I would continue to use the information until something better came along. We all know that GR is not as good as it could be, but it is still better than all of the alternatives. As it stands this is a worthless comparison as there is no evidence that anything that you have said is anything other than wrong

Quote:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml

The opening paragraph of this article is a clear , blatant, and deliberate lie. It claims that Quote:

the gravitomagnetic field has now been measured for the first time and to the scientists' astonishment, it proved to be no less than one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts.

when in fact the results from gravity probe b confirmed Einsteins predictions in early May 2011.

Quote:

Spinning superconductors disrupt gravity.

Do they really, or is this just another wild statement made up on the spot in a futile attempt to discredit science. Podkletnovs assertions have not been able to be confirmed, reproduced, or repeated, and there is no measured change in gravitys in the presence of spinning superconductors and the astronauts aboard the international space station float around in free fall rather than walking around like the actors in Star Trek, because there is no artificial gravity.

Quote:

Cue a nimrod to say "CRAP!"

Cue Lou to ignore evidence, disregard facts, and resort to personal abuse and ad hominems as his usual tactic when the flaws in his viewpoint are noted and exposed.

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

@Lou

Why the Unified Theory may be a pipe dream While you feel that EM_is_God is the Theory of Everything. This writing goes on to explain how we as humans have yet to discover ToE. There are some postulates out there that ToE, if it exists, is smaller than a Planck Length. Meaning we'll never be able to perceive it. If we can't observe it we'll never be able to prove or disprove it's existence. It's a good read.

And yes this is a postulate, one that could possibly be disproven, but never proven.

@Lou

Quote:

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

From your Clearly Ridiculous Ancient Prattle about the electric universe I have drawn the following quotes to comment on.

Quote:

“..what is really wanted for a truly Natural Philosophy is a supplement to Newtonian mechanics, expressed in terms of the medium which he suspected and sought after but could not attain, and introducing the additional facts, chiefly electrical—especially the fact of variable inertia—discovered since his time…

Although Newtons theories were excellent, especially considering the starting point, they were far from perfect. The failure Newtonian equations to explain the orbit of Mercury was what led Einstein to seek a better set of equations, leading to General Relativity.
When Newton had reached the limits of his ability he egotistically stated that the laws were as complete as they would ever be, and that only god could go further. Einstein, on the other hand stated that his work was incomplete and that more work was required. It was not the lack of knowledge of electricity that caused Newton’s theories to fail, but his failure to take time into account, which was the realisation that led Einstein to succeed where many had failed.

Quote:

Einstein in his special theory of relativity postulated there was no medium, called the ‘aether.’ But Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism requires it. And Sir Oliver Lodge saw the aether as crucial to our understanding. So Einstein, at a stroke, removed any possibility that he, or his followers, would find a link between electromagnetism and gravity.

Indeed Maxwell’s theory requires the existence of a luminiferous ether, so the fact that there is no detectable ether strongly implies that Maxwells theory, regardless of how elegant it is is wrong. Also it was Fresnel’s equation that demonstrated that in the event of Maxwell being correct, there would have to be a separate aether for each of the infinitely many frequencies of light, unless the Aether were stationary. This led to the Michelson Morley experiment to determine the shift in the fringing pattern of a reconstituted split beam that would be detectable as the Earth moved relative to the fixed Aether. Aether theory would require a fringe shift of about 4 x 10^-1, however using modern methodology and equipment there is no detectable fringe shift down to 1 x 10^-17. This directly contradicts the claim of the author that Dayton Miller successfully measured aether drift at Mt Wilson in 1925-1926.

Quote:

Electromagnetic waves are far too slow to be the only means of signalling in an immense universe. Gravity requires the near-instantaneous character of the electric force to form stable systems like our solar system and spiral galaxies. Gravitationally, the Earth ‘sees’ the Sun where it is this instant, not where it was more than 8 minutes ago. Newton’s famous law of gravity does not refer to time.

Rather than admit the possibility that Gravity and electromagnetism are two entirely separate forces, the proponents of the “Electric Universe” now propose a form of EM that propagates at insane multiples of the speed of light. Has it not occurred to you that these people are seeking to wind the clock back three hundred years and pretend that Newton was right. Not in what he said about Gravity, or in his failure to account for time as a fundamental part of the universe, but in claiming that there were things beyond the abilities of humans to understand because they were the reserved property of some airy fairy, fictional, invisible skybeard. Newton’s egomaniacal placing of himself as the pinnacle of all possible human achievement was his greatest betrayal of science and the scientific principle. He admitted that he stood on the shoulders of giants, but refused to allow that others would someday stand on his own shoulders.

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

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @Niolator You should do more research on Einstein. Einstein rebuked GR later in life. It's worshippers of 'ancient Einstein' that dominate the world today, unfortunately.

I was not aware of that Einstein rebuked general relativity. If he did, what was the alternative theory that was so much better? If he rebuked it he must have found something better to replace it with otherwise I see little point in rebuking it or maybe I don't understand the word "rebuke" correct? It is a word I haven't encountered that often (English is not my native language) but a translation made by Google translate makes it a stronger version of "revise". Everyone has the right to revise a theory. If that is what Einstein did I see nothing strange with it.

@Niolator

Not revise, but criticize. So it's a sharp form of criticism. And noone believes GR gives all the answers, which is why we're even bothering to read any new postulates at all. But a postulate without evidence is (again) not worth a whole lot. So until some new theory comes by that actually does BETTER than GR we'll continue to base our math on GR. So far that hasn't given us much problems

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @Niolator Not revise, but criticize. So it's a sharp form of criticism. And noone believes GR gives all the answers, which is why we're even bothering to read any new postulates at all. But a postulate without evidence is (again) not worth a whole lot. So until some new theory comes by that actually does BETTER than GR we'll continue to base our math on GR. So far that hasn't given us much problems

Nope, no problems at all...



The state of spoon-fed science today:

@Niolator

Quote:

Niolator wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: @Niolator You should do more research on Einstein. Einstein rebuked GR later in life. It's worshippers of 'ancient Einstein' that dominate the world today, unfortunately. I was not aware of that Einstein rebuked general relativity. If he did, what was the alternative theory that was so much better? If he rebuked it he must have found something better to replace it with otherwise I see little point in rebuking it or maybe I don't understand the word "rebuke" correct? It is a word I haven't encountered that often (English is not my native language) but a translation made by Google translate makes it a stronger version of "revise". Everyone has the right to revise a theory. If that is what Einstein did I see nothing strange with it.

He pursued unification of the forces because he knew GR wasn't the answer to everything. GR is just a rough estimation with constants that aren't constant that allows you to vary the parameters to match the observation.

No one knows what 'mass' is. So you estimate it based on observations with the assumption that G in this solar system is the same as G across the universe even though it's been anything but constant here.

I mean don't you find it ironic that the bigger a planet is the less dense it is? This is because the math for gravity treats 'mass' as a volume, essentially, and in reality gravity increases at the rate of the radius of the planet, not it's volume so when the 'gravity' is lower than expected for large planets, they dub them less-dense 'gas giants'. Mass is a guess. A joke. It's the most unscientific thing in science. GR only works to binary systems. It doesn't make sense for a solar system with 8, 9 or 10 planets. The orbits of the planets are barely perturbed by the other planets. Why is zero gravity achieved merely miles above the earth in orbit? Why is it that multiple objects/satellites of different sizes/weights/masses can orbit the earth in the same orbit it?

You can keep being spoon fed science from media announcements or you can do the truly scientific thing and ask more questions.

Noobs and nimrods are content with defending the scientific 'status quo'.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-gravity-in-an-electric-universe/ From your Clearly Ridiculous Ancient Prattle about the electric universe I have drawn the following quotes to comment on. Quote: “..what is really wanted for a truly Natural Philosophy is a supplement to Newtonian mechanics, expressed in terms of the medium which he suspected and sought after but could not attain, and introducing the additional facts, chiefly electrical—especially the fact of variable inertia—discovered since his time… Although Newtons theories were excellent, especially considering the starting point, they were far from perfect. The failure Newtonian equations to explain the orbit of Mercury was what led Einstein to seek a better set of equations, leading to General Relativity. When Newton had reached the limits of his ability he egotistically stated that the laws were as complete as they would ever be, and that only god could go further. Einstein, on the other hand stated that his work was incomplete and that more work was required. It was not the lack of knowledge of electricity that caused Newton’s theories to fail, but his failure to take time into account, which was the realisation that led Einstein to succeed where many had failed. Quote: Einstein in his special theory of relativity postulated there was no medium, called the ‘aether.’ But Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism requires it. And Sir Oliver Lodge saw the aether as crucial to our understanding. So Einstein, at a stroke, removed any possibility that he, or his followers, would find a link between electromagnetism and gravity. Indeed Maxwell’s theory requires the existence of a luminiferous ether, so the fact that there is no detectable ether strongly implies that Maxwells theory, regardless of how elegant it is is wrong. Also it was Fresnel’s equation that demonstrated that in the event of Maxwell being correct, there would have to be a separate aether for each of the infinitely many frequencies of light, unless the Aether were stationary. This led to the Michelson Morley experiment to determine the shift in the fringing pattern of a reconstituted split beam that would be detectable as the Earth moved relative to the fixed Aether. Aether theory would require a fringe shift of about 4 x 10^-1, however using modern methodology and equipment there is no detectable fringe shift down to 1 x 10^-17. This directly contradicts the claim of the author that Dayton Miller successfully measured aether drift at Mt Wilson in 1925-1926. Quote: Electromagnetic waves are far too slow to be the only means of signalling in an immense universe. Gravity requires the near-instantaneous character of the electric force to form stable systems like our solar system and spiral galaxies. Gravitationally, the Earth ‘sees’ the Sun where it is this instant, not where it was more than 8 minutes ago. Newton’s famous law of gravity does not refer to time. Rather than admit the possibility that Gravity and electromagnetism are two entirely separate forces, the proponents of the “Electric Universe” now propose a form of EM that propagates at insane multiples of the speed of light. Has it not occurred to you that these people are seeking to wind the clock back three hundred years and pretend that Newton was right. Not in what he said about Gravity, or in his failure to account for time as a fundamental part of the universe, but in claiming that there were things beyond the abilities of humans to understand because they were the reserved property of some airy fairy, fictional, invisible skybeard. Newton’s egomaniacal placing of himself as the pinnacle of all possible human achievement was his greatest betrayal of science and the scientific principle. He admitted that he stood on the shoulders of giants, but refused to allow that others would someday stand on his own shoulders.

You are a laughing stalk of your own society.
Plasma cosmology falls within IEEE. If you are an electrical engineer as you claim then so do you. You are essentially calling your peers liars.

@Lou

Quote:

You are a laughing stalk of your own society. Plasma cosmology falls within IEEE. If you are an electrical engineer as you claim then so do you. You are essentially calling your peers liars.

The only laughing stock around here is Lou.
For the benefit of the uninformed the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers is an organisation based in USA whose constitution defines the purposes of the organization as "scientific and educational, directed toward the advancement of the theory and practice of Electrical, Electronics, Communications and Computer Engineering, as well as Computer Science, the allied branches of engineering and the related arts and sciences. In pursuing these goals, the IEEE serves as a major publisher of scientific journals and organizer of conferences, workshops, and symposia (many of which have associated published proceedings). It is also a leading standards development organization for the development of industrial standards (having developed over 900 active industry technical standards) in a broad range of disciplines, including electric power and energy, biomedical technology and healthcare, information technology, information assurance, telecommunications, consumer electronics, transportation, aerospace, and nanotechnology. Nowhere in this list of aims is the statement that the religious duty of any person, whether a member or not has to promote the superiority of EM over all other forces, or be condemned forever as a heretic. While it specifies what wire goes where in an ethernet connector, the IEEE does not specify that gravity is a side effect of magnetism, and therefore despite your idiotic assertion, I am not calling any of my peers a liar.

It is not the remit of the IEEE to place limits on what science can and cannot investigate, instead it is the duty of engineers to make the correct use of the best knowledge available provided by the research of those scientists. It was engineeres following IEEE standards that built the large hadron collider at CERN and the gravity probe B, both of which have shown your junk science for what it truly is. At the moment "best knowledge" status is held by the theories that you actively despise, and I agree that there are flaws in GR. What is not yet known is whether these flaws are the result of a fundamental misreading of the relationships or simply because we have insufficient data about where all of the matter and energy are in the universe. Once a better set of equations comes along, or we find the missing quantites of matter and energy, then the better figures will be used.
Until such time as something better comes along there is no reason to use unsupported or plain wrong guesses in place of a science that has been able to determine how much mass and energy is required to make up the universe. Just exactly how many accurate predictions has your junk science and woo been able to produce and support? Please be kind enough to explain how Miller could have detected Aether drift when modern equipment that is 100,000,000,000,000,000 times more sensitive than that used by Miller has found nothing. Is every scientist, teacher and engineer part of a conspiracy of lies or was Miller wrong? And where is your evidence for a transmission that is some insane multiple of the speed of light? IEEE makes no mention of this hyperlight transmission medium, so maybe, just maybe, it doesn't exist

Last edited by Nimrod on 10-May-2013 at 01:15 PM.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: You are a laughing stalk of your own society. Plasma cosmology falls within IEEE. If you are an electrical engineer as you claim then so do you. You are essentially calling your peers liars. The only laughing stock around here is Lou. For the benefit of the uninformed the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers is an organisation based in USA whose constitution defines the purposes of the organization as "scientific and educational, directed toward the advancement of the theory and practice of Electrical, Electronics, Communications and Computer Engineering, as well as Computer Science, the allied branches of engineering and the related arts and sciences. In pursuing these goals, the IEEE serves as a major publisher of scientific journals and organizer of conferences, workshops, and symposia (many of which have associated published proceedings). It is also a leading standards development organization for the development of industrial standards (having developed over 900 active industry technical standards) in a broad range of disciplines, including electric power and energy, biomedical technology and healthcare, information technology, information assurance, telecommunications, consumer electronics, transportation, aerospace, and nanotechnology. Nowhere in this list of aims is the statement that the religious duty of any person, whether a member or not has to promote the superiority of EM over all other forces, or be condemned forever as a heretic. While it specifies what wire goes where in an ethernet connector, the IEEE does not specify that gravity is a side effect of magnetism, and therefore despite your idiotic assertion, I am not calling any of my peers a liar. It is not the remit of the IEEE to place limits on what science can and cannot investigate, instead it is the duty of engineers to make the correct use of the best knowledge available provided by the research of those scientists. It was engineeres following IEEE standards that built the large hadron collider at CERN and the gravity probe B, both of which have shown your junk science for what it truly is. At the moment "best knowledge" status is held by the theories that you actively despise, and I agree that there are flaws in GR. What is not yet known is whether these flaws are the result of a fundamental misreading of the relationships or simply because we have insufficient data about where all of the matter and energy are in the universe. Once a better set of equations comes along, or we find the missing quantites of matter and energy, then the better figures will be used. Until such time as something better comes along there is no reason to use unsupported or plain wrong guesses in place of a science that has been able to determine how much mass and energy is required to make up the universe. Just exactly how many accurate predictions has your junk science and woo been able to produce and support? Please be kind enough to explain how Miller could have detected Aether drift when modern equipment that is 100,000,000,000,000,000 times more sensitive than that used by Miller has found nothing. Is every scientist, teacher and engineer part of a conspiracy of lies or was Miller wrong? And where is your evidence for a transmission that is some insane multiple of the speed of light? IEEE makes no mention of this hyperlight transmission medium, so maybe, just maybe, [/b]it doesn't exist[/b]

So like I said, people with more authority that you. You are a self-proclaimed Nimrod pretending to be an authority.

double

Last edited by Lou on 06-May-2013 at 07:31 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

So like I said, people with more authority that you. You are a self-proclaimed Nimrod pretending to be an authority.

Once again you demonstrate your ignorance while trying to accuse me of using the "Argument from authority" logical fallacy. The only person who attempt to argue from authority is the one who claims that Brandenburg is right because he has a PhD.
I have never claimed that what I am saying is correct simply because it is me saying it. What I have consistently done is pointed out "here is a flaw in the argument" and then listed the flaw, regardless of whether it was somebody reverse engineering Plancks constant while slipping in a claim that 1.049x10^6 = 2.99 x 10^8 or any of the mathematical and arithmetical errors perpetrated by Haramein.
One of the reasons that you are still not aware of what, if any, qualifications or credentials I have is that I prefer to argue from the evidence, something that still eludes you.
Science is not some glorified game of top trumps, if it were we would have given the Nobel prize for showing the structure of DNA to Linus Pauling despite the fact that it is not the triple helix that Pauling thought.

Permit me to reiterate my oft stated position that I am not a scientist, merely an engineer who uses the best tools to do the job. The tools that you keep citing couldn't predict whether Newtons famous apple would fall toward or away from the ground.

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

@Lou

Quote:

Mass is a guess. A joke. It's the most unscientific thing in science.

Unless of course you include the C. R. A. P. That Lou keeps coming up with, although I for one would class Lou's inventions as unscientific.

Quote:

GR only works to binary systems. It doesn't make sense for a solar system with 8, 9 or 10 planets.

Do you have any EVIDENCE for this claim, or are you once again making up your "facts" as you go along. The solar system that we have the most direct tangible observational evidence is this one, in which scientists found GR to be the current best fit. It is not a binary system since there is only one star in it, unless you have actual coordinates for a partner and it also has 8 planets (Mickeys dog has been kenneled)

Quote:

Why is zero gravity achieved merely miles above the earth in orbit? Why is it that multiple objects/satellites of different sizes/weights/masses can orbit the earth in the same orbit it?

Did you ever hear of something called "Orbital velocity? No? I thought not because it is a concept understood by engineers and scientists and is therefore too mundane to be believed in the Lou school of pseudoscientific technobabble. Your questions do not demonstrate the limited ability of science to produce answers, merely your own limited ability to understand those answers.

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

@Niolator,

Quote:

@Lou I mean don't you find it ironic that the bigger a planet is the less dense it is? This is because the math for gravity treats 'mass' as a volume, essentially, and in reality gravity increases at the rate of the radius of the planet, not it's volume so when the 'gravity' is lower than expected for large planets, they dub them less-dense 'gas giants'

The difficulty Lou is having here is the method he cites to type planets isn't actually in use. Here's a List of Planet Types As you can see planets are typed on a variety of properties. As for Gas planets they are called gas planets due to their high Hydrogen and Helium content. Not density as Lou claimed. Examples of these are Saturn and Jupiter. If density was used the next types would be Liquid and Solid. Look at the link I provided they are missing. It's because density isn't used. It's composition. The next area is called an Icy Planet. One with a lower % of Hydrogen/Helium and higher composition of volatile chemicals. Ices are solids themselves or gas trapped in a clathrate. We're not on a solid planet, as density would indicate. We're on a rock planet. It's called so because we're mostly heavy materials and very little Hydrogen/Helium, in comparison. Again go back and read the List of Planet types and you'll see density is not used in the way Lou wants us to believe.

Quote:

GR only works to binary systems. It doesn't make sense for a solar system with 8, 9 or 10 planets.

Proof against this is our own solar system. We don't have a binary system. And we have a system of 8 planets. If Lou was right then GR wouldn't work here. As Lou says, look at the evidence and you'll find that with our experiments we've shown that GR does work here.

Quote:

Why is zero gravity achieved merely miles above the earth in orbit?

Zero gravity is not achieved merely above the earth. Scientists do calculations on trajectories of satellite to account for Gravity's effects and Radiation Pressure's effects (which is a minute amount of adjustment). If there was zero gravity moving satellites would fly away from earth, especially since they have an acceleration attached to them. If there was Zero Gravity the moon wouldn't be tied to the earth. Again, look at the evidence.

Last edited by BrianK on 07-May-2013 at 05:46 PM.