Poster | Thread |
BrianK
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3 Posted on 7-May-2013 0:48:39
| | [ #461 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 30-Sep-2003 Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA | | |
|
| @Lou
Quote:
Nope, no problems at all...
| You include cutesy pictures but don't talk about evidence. Cosmologists have considered a Plasma Universe. The amount of energy needed to make a flat galaxy hasn't been found to exist. There's some missing plasma as well because the predicted levels of X-Rays and Gamma Rays are higher than the observed amount. The Big Bang predicted the Cosmic Background Radiation levels that we've observed. Had we observed higher numbers then Plasma might be an option. Or lower levels and both hypotheses would have been right out the window.
Fact is your cutesy picture does not reflect the reality state of your evidence. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Lou
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3 Posted on 8-May-2013 13:37:28
| | [ #462 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 2-Nov-2004 Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island | | |
|
| @BrianK
Quote:
BrianK wrote: @Lou
Quote:
Nope, no problems at all...
| You include cutesy pictures but don't talk about evidence. Cosmologists have considered a Plasma Universe. The amount of energy needed to make a flat galaxy hasn't been found to exist. There's some missing plasma as well because the predicted levels of X-Rays and Gamma Rays are higher than the observed amount. The Big Bang predicted the Cosmic Background Radiation levels that we've observed. Had we observed higher numbers then Plasma might be an option. Or lower levels and both hypotheses would have been right out the window.
Fact is your cutesy picture does not reflect the reality state of your evidence. |
There you go with your straw-troll's tactics again. There's a whole website of plasma science-based cosmology for you to review for your self but the straw-troll that you are wants ME to prove it to you.
Meanwhile you still haven't proven the theory of General Relativity is the Fact of General Relativity.
I'm calling copyright claims on the term "straw-troll", fyi. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
BrianK
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3 Posted on 8-May-2013 15:03:37
| | [ #463 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 30-Sep-2003 Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA | | |
|
| @Lou
Quote:
There you go with your straw-troll's tactics again. | Hey Lou's responding - first ad-hominem next the blame others tactic. Quote:
There's a whole website of plasma science-based cosmology for you to review for your self but the straw-troll that you are wants ME to prove it to you. | Yup there it is. It's clearly my fault that I wasn't able to read Lou's mind and really should be doing Lou's work for him. Next up how to misunderstand science. Quote:
Meanwhile you still haven't proven the theory of General Relativity is the Fact of General Relativity. | Again completely nonsensical request as this is not how science works. (Hint: Heliocentrism is also a Theory)Last edited by BrianK on 08-May-2013 at 04:05 PM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Nimrod
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3 Posted on 10-May-2013 19:11:26
| | [ #464 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 30-Jan-2010 Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom | | |
|
| @Lou
Quote:
There's a whole website of plasma science-based cosmology for you to review for your self | There is indeed, and this one is even written by somebody with a PhD, so it must be correct. Or is it?. Here are a couple that disagree, Link 1, Link 2. I agree that some of the effects claimed can be reproduced in small scale laboratory experiments, but only by using energy levels that do not tally with observational evidence of the real universe. The simple fact remains that while GR is not perfect, its predictions are more similar to the observable universe than any of the alternative viewpoints. GR has made a set of predictions that require certain levels of mass and energy to work. Many of its predictions are shown to be highly accurate however we have not as yet detected all of the mass and energy indicated to exist by following the theory. The alternatives are mostly so vague and wooly that they fail to make any valid prediction at all other than "it's all EM" without specifying how much the "All" is. The few that do include figures are quickly shown to be unable to support themselves due to the amount of internal inconsistencies and the even greater discrepancies in energy/matter levels than GR has._________________ When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Lou
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3 Posted on 14-May-2013 14:40:23
| | [ #465 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 2-Nov-2004 Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
BrianK
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3 Posted on 14-May-2013 17:43:06
| | [ #466 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 30-Sep-2003 Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA | | |
|
| @Lou
Quote:
You are trying to demonstrate to us that EM is the ONLY force. What we see here is an experiment that simulates the magnetic forces of a neutron star. What it doesn't say and you are falsely assuming is that this magnetic force accounts for all motion. Nor is there anything here indicating this simulates gravitation forces. Nor is there anything here indicating the forces are exactly the same from both magnetic and gravitational causes.
TL:DR? If you understand what's going on here, nothing here says gravity is really magnetism. Last edited by BrianK on 14-May-2013 at 05:45 PM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Lou
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3 Posted on 14-May-2013 18:44:51
| | [ #467 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 2-Nov-2004 Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island | | |
|
| @BrianK
Quote:
BrianK wrote: @Lou
Quote: You are trying to demonstrate to us that EM is the ONLY force. What we see here is an experiment that simulates the magnetic forces of a neutron star. What it doesn't say and you are falsely assuming is that this magnetic force accounts for all motion. Nor is there anything here indicating this simulates gravitation forces. Nor is there anything here indicating the forces are exactly the same from both magnetic and gravitational causes.
TL:DR? If you understand what's going on here, nothing here says gravity is really magnetism. |
Why must you keep putting words in my mouth? Oh yes, to justify your troll logic.
Everything is electro-magnetic in nature. You are in denial of this even though it's the most fundamental thing about physics (and nature).
Meanwhile you still haven't proven "the theory of general relativity"... |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
BrianK
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3 Posted on 14-May-2013 19:33:12
| | [ #468 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 30-Sep-2003 Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA | | |
|
| @Lou
Did Sol eat Nibiru? . My creative artistic license in a title, which probably gave Lou a chubby. The article is about how our solar system is fairly abnormal compared to our new knowledge. But, let's be fair we only know of about 1K other solar systems. There's ~1Billion stars per galaxy and we know of ~1Billion galaxies. So we are but dipping a teaspoon in the proverbial ocean. Last edited by BrianK on 14-May-2013 at 07:41 PM. Last edited by BrianK on 14-May-2013 at 07:41 PM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
BrianK
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3 Posted on 14-May-2013 19:40:12
| | [ #469 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 30-Sep-2003 Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA | | |
|
| @Lou
Quote:
Why must you keep putting words in my mouth? Oh yes, to justify your troll logic.
Everything is electro-magnetic in nature. You are in denial of this even though it's the most fundamental thing about physics (and nature).
| Your own statements bear out your lie and misplaced blame. What I said was you are trying to demonstrate 'EM is the ONLY force'. And actually you said it yourself here. 'Everything is EM in nature'. Same thing, different wording.
In order for me to be in denial of something you first must present something valid to be denial of. As you've not presented evidence demonstrating how gravity is EM there really is nothing for me to deny. Instead I continue to twiddle my thumbs waiting for you to come up with evidence to your claims. Until you do we can only consider them fanciful unproven religion, as they are.
The point here was the same. You posted an experiment that replicates magnetism. In no way did it replicate gravity. In no way did it prove that magnetism=gravity. It simply did not show what you claim 'Everything is EM in nature' to be true.
Quote:
Meanwhile you still haven't proven "the theory of general relativity"... | Until you understand what the difference is between fact and Scientifc Theory you won't understand how absurd your demand is. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Yo
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3 Posted on 14-May-2013 20:39:12
| | [ #470 ] |
|
|
|
Team Member |
Joined: 8-Oct-2004 Posts: 2043
From: France, on an ADSL line | | |
|
| @BrianK
Quote:
Until you understand what the difference is between fact and Scientific Theory you won't understand how absurd your demand is. |
And therein lies the reason this keeps going around in rather funny little circles..._________________ ¤¤ Official Hyperion Zealot ¤¤
(No, I didn't type that with a straight face.) |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Nimrod
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3 Posted on 14-May-2013 21:22:29
| | [ #471 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 30-Jan-2010 Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom | | |
|
| @Lou
Quote:
Everything is electro-magnetic in nature. You are in denial of this even though it's the most fundamental thing about physics (and nature). | Nobody is trying to pretend that EM forces do not exist, but they are not the only forces in existence. The nucleus of an atom comprises neutrons and protons. The neutrons are indifferent as to what charge their neighbours carry, however the protons are all positively charged, and like charges repel. In order to prevent the nucleus of an atom flying apart we need a force that will hold them together that is strong enough to overwhelm the EM force. For the sake of convenience we will refer to it as the strong force Fortunately for us the strong force only has a short range and in fact the range is short enough that nuclei above atomic number 82 (Lead) are less stable and have a tendency to fall apart.
Quote:
Meanwhile you still haven't proven "the theory of general relativity"... | The field equations were published in November 1915 by (Mrs?) Einstein, and were used as the basis for the equations of Karl Schwartzchild that Haramein so totally misrepresented that he "proved" that protons had a mass of 800,000 tonnes and consequently the strong force was actually gravity. This totally contradicts all of the stuff about radiation pressure and shielding that you keep prattling on about, but when did faith positions ever require consistency? As a result of his (her?) equations being better predictors than those of Newton, and better predictors than those of Maxwell, and better predictors than those of the Kaluza-Klein school, they were judged to be proved until such time as something better comes along, which is as good as it gets with science. Many of the predictions made using GR have been demonstrated to be accurate, and while there are a few discrepancies in the levels of mass and energy observed against the levels predicted, the GR equations are predicting where the missing amounts are, and the gaps are slowly being filled as more and more discoveries are made Despite your protestations of omniscience and omnipotence, all of your Clearly Ridiculous Asinine Postulates have been demonstrated to be not only unproved, but also unevidenced._________________ When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
BrianK
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3 Posted on 15-May-2013 14:19:21
| | [ #472 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 30-Sep-2003 Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA | | |
|
| @Yo
Quote:
Yo wrote: @BrianK
Quote:
Until you understand what the difference is between fact and Scientific Theory you won't understand how absurd your demand is. |
And therein lies the reason this keeps going around in rather funny little circles... |
Where's the site's LIKE Button? |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Lou
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3 Posted on 16-May-2013 15:52:57
| | [ #473 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 2-Nov-2004 Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island | | |
|
| @BrianK
Quote:
BrianK wrote: @Lou
Quote:
Meanwhile you still haven't proven "the theory of general relativity"... | Until you understand what the difference is between fact and Scientifc Theory you won't understand how absurd your demand is. |
Perhaps you should grasp your own words when you ask me for evidence.
Should I hit rewind now on the record player so we can have this dance again?
The difference between what you worship and the 'electric universe theory' is that in the 'electric universe theory' cosmological observations can be reproduced in the lab. However, the troll that you are will ignore the evidence so that you can continue to troll. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Lou
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3 Posted on 16-May-2013 17:20:30
| | [ #474 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 2-Nov-2004 Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island | | |
|
| @Nimrod
Quote:
Nimrod wrote: @Lou
Quote:
Everything is electro-magnetic in nature. You are in denial of this even though it's the most fundamental thing about physics (and nature). | Nobody is trying to pretend that EM forces do not exist, but they are not the only forces in existence. The nucleus of an atom comprises neutrons and protons. The neutrons are indifferent as to what charge their neighbours carry, however the protons are all positively charged, and like charges repel. In order to prevent the nucleus of an atom flying apart we need a force that will hold them together that is strong enough to overwhelm the EM force. For the sake of convenience we will refer to it as the strong force Fortunately for us the strong force only has a short range and in fact the range is short enough that nuclei above atomic number 82 (Lead) are less stable and have a tendency to fall apart.
Quote:
Meanwhile you still haven't proven "the theory of general relativity"... | The field equations were published in November 1915 by (Mrs?) Einstein, and were used as the basis for the equations of Karl Schwartzchild that Haramein so totally misrepresented that he "proved" that protons had a mass of 800,000 tonnes and consequently the strong force was actually gravity. This totally contradicts all of the stuff about radiation pressure and shielding that you keep prattling on about, but when did faith positions ever require consistency? As a result of his (her?) equations being better predictors than those of Newton, and better predictors than those of Maxwell, and better predictors than those of the Kaluza-Klein school, they were judged to be proved until such time as something better comes along, which is as good as it gets with science. Many of the predictions made using GR have been demonstrated to be accurate, and while there are a few discrepancies in the levels of mass and energy observed against the levels predicted, the GR equations are predicting where the missing amounts are, and the gaps are slowly being filled as more and more discoveries are made Despite your protestations of omniscience and omnipotence, all of your Clearly Ridiculous Asinine Postulates have been demonstrated to be not only unproved, but also unevidenced.
|
You have a child's view of physics. You should really just stop posting. If you think protons are merely a pure positive charge that can't possibly be held together in a nucleus - you have issues. They have dipoles. For reference: see how an MRI works.
It's funny how just spinning something can cause it to defy what your childish preconceptions would lead you to believe to happen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aRKAXD4dAg
The only thing un-evidenced is your credibility. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
BrianK
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3 Posted on 17-May-2013 16:04:32
| | [ #475 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 30-Sep-2003 Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA | | |
|
| @Lou
Quote:
Perhaps you should grasp your own words when you ask me for evidence.
Should I hit rewind now on the record player so we can have this dance again? | Hey feel free. We're talking about gravity so first post the hypothesis and postulates that gravity is really electricity. And then show us the confirming evidence. I'll twiddle thumbs in the meantime.
You continue to make these claims and continue to fail to support them. Next thing we know you'll tell us the evidence proves that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real because it's clear that planets and suns take the shape of his meatballs and his space pasta tentacles are really the strings of the underlying structure of the universe. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Nimrod
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3 Posted on 17-May-2013 16:53:24
| | [ #476 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 30-Jan-2010 Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom | | |
|
| @Lou
Quote:
in the 'electric universe theory' cosmological observations can be reproduced in the lab. | Actually, they cannot. What the EU proponents have done is that they have produced analogs of how they believe that the universe either may or "should" work, while very carefully and studiously ignoring any and all indications that do not fall into line with their preferred fantasy.
Quote:
However, the troll that you are will ignore the evidence so that you can continue to troll. | We are not ignoring your so called evidence, we are in studying it, and then giving it all of the credence that it deserves. The problem that you have is that we actually check the "evidence" rather than treating your proclamations as revelations of divine inspiration.
Quote:
If you think protons are merely a pure positive charge that can't possibly be held together in a nucleus - you have issues. | I posted a simplified analog of the current state ot knowledge to keep the post simple enough to enable you to follow the logic, however it appears that you would prefer to believe in the existence of Earth Air Fire and Water as the four elements. A proton consists of three quarks (No, not the bartender from Deep Space 9) Two Up quarks and a Down quark. The Up quarks have a 2/3 positive charge and the Down has a 1/3 negative charge, which means the overall charge of the proton is positive despite the existence of a 1/3 negative charge as 20% of the charge. As a consequence of this an MRI unit can indeed shake the proton about a little bit, however it lacks the ability to pull the proton out of the nucleus, just as it lacks the ability to pull the proton apart. And no, I am not ignoring the existence of Harameins black hole in the proton, because there is no black hole there for me to ignore, and the forces holding the proton together as well as the forces holding the proton in place in the nucleus are not EM in nature, and despite Harameins idiotic claims, they are not gravity.
_________________ When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Lou
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3 Posted on 17-May-2013 19:25:10
| | [ #477 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 2-Nov-2004 Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island | | |
|
| @BrianK & all...
Quote:
BrianK wrote: @Lou
Quote:
Perhaps you should grasp your own words when you ask me for evidence.
Should I hit rewind now on the record player so we can have this dance again? | Hey feel free. We're talking about gravity so first post the hypothesis and postulates that gravity is really electricity. And then show us the confirming evidence. I'll twiddle thumbs in the meantime.
You continue to make these claims and continue to fail to support them. Next thing we know you'll tell us the evidence proves that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real because it's clear that planets and suns take the shape of his meatballs and his space pasta tentacles are really the strings of the underlying structure of the universe.
|
Which is the facts/evidence?
1) EM waves observed and measured 2) "gravity" waves observed and measure
You can continue to believe in your "relativity is god" religion, or you can deal with facts.Last edited by Lou on 17-May-2013 at 07:26 PM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
BrianK
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3 Posted on 17-May-2013 20:56:08
| | [ #478 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 30-Sep-2003 Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA | | |
|
| @Lou
Quote:
You can continue to believe in your "relativity is god" religion, or you can deal with facts. | You still don't get it. You've yet to provide facts. You wanted to 'rewind the record player' go ahead. Show us where you posted a fact. Big Hint - Haramein (which you have finally rejected) and Brandenburg are conceptual and mathematical postulates. They are neither evidence nor facts. They are work to be evidenced.
Quote:
Which is the facts/evidence?
1) EM waves observed and measured 2) "gravity" waves observed and measure
| You need to update your knowledge because gravity waves were indirectly observed more than a decade ago.
Now I, and science, will be the first to the table to say indirect observation is but a small step. Direct observation is always better. In order to directly observe such an event we need equipment that's highly sensitive. That stuff isn't born it's built. Our engineering skills and financing for such a project has advanced and we're about 5 years out from having such equipment.
So what does science say? It says that due to sufficient quantities and qualities of indirect observation of gravity waves we should invest in equipment that will give us better resolution. And we expect that equipment will provide us better information than what we have available today. Though we never know what that equipment says. So, what can be seen here is Lou completely misconstruing and falsely assigning my religion as 'relativity is god'. My 'religion' is 'evidence is god'. (And I used quotes there because it's not a religion as it doesn't depend upon a faith proposition.) What this 'faith' says is that testing with increasing resolution will give us better evidence and therefore make a better conclusion than any other method. (Psst this is called scientific progress.)
The difficulty with your EM=God religion comes in here is you've concluded the answer with a lack of evidence. You are relying instruments which don't exist, to draw a conclusion. You falsely assume that non-existent evidence is evidence of a non-existent condition.
Going back to your Brandenburg statements I mentioned above. You have said 'EM is God' (my shorthand mind you). We asked you to provide the evidence to this effect. You throw us a mathematical postulate from Brandenburg. You have yet to provide evidence. Instead you continually demonstrate an operational lack of knowledge in definitional terms.Last edited by BrianK on 17-May-2013 at 08:59 PM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
BrianK
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3 Posted on 18-May-2013 3:30:45
| | [ #479 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 30-Sep-2003 Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
Nimrod
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3 Posted on 18-May-2013 9:34:54
| | [ #480 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 30-Jan-2010 Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom | | |
|
| @Lou
Quote:
Which is the facts/evidence? 1) EM waves observed and measured 2) "gravity" waves observed and measure | The answer tio this has to be "Yes and Yes" We know and accept that EM exists, and we also know its scope, range, abilities, and magnitude We know that gravity exists and we are in the process of finding out all sorts of interesting things that we didn't know back when I was still at school. In fact we have found out new things about gravity since this thread started and somebody claimed that since gravity equations proved that Nibiru was not inside the orbit of Jupiter, gravity couldn't exist.
When Newton postulated his equations for gravity, science was very much in its infancy and was opposed by people who made unsupported proclamations from the pulpit. At this point his observations were fully accurate to the limits of the accuracy of available measurement. Also at this point there was no observation or measurement of EM, so should the likes of Faraday, Watt, Volta etc. have not bothered, and accepted the claim that "God is EM" rather than your own belief that "EM is God". The reason EM was unlocked first is that it is easier to perform experiments on small samples held close enough to be directly obseved, and it was not until we were able to deploy satellites that we were able to accurately measure the gravity well of the gas giants for example. The easy problems were solved first which led to the development of more accurate systems of measurement to enable us to solve the harder problems.
As recently as 2003 Fermilab (I believe that some of the staff have PhD's) stated that Quote:
However, physicists haven't yet observed a gravitational force carrier at the quantum level, and chances are they won't do any time soon. It takes very sophisticated experiments - much more sensitive and with much better resolution than we can build so far - to detect such a phenomenon. Nevertheless, scientists expect that a force-transmitting particle - the graviton - exists. Theorists, however, are still struggling to formulate a consistent gravitational quantum theory that incorporates a graviton and that correctly describes all well-known gravitational phenomena, including Einstein's theory of general relativity. | Since then there has been the discovery of the Higgs boson which imparts mass to matter, and they are now looking for the Wang particle which is the current best contender to be the graviton, so popular in sci-fi.
So far, most of the precise predictions made by the Standard Model have been able to be confirmed by independent experimentation and observation, and where there are discrepancies it has mostly been because of the inability of our current technology to detect to the required levels, yet. Compare this record with the total lack of accurate predictions made by the postulates of the lunatic fringe, that consequently cannot be used to confirm the validity of their postulates. The sloppy assumption that if you make no predictions in your claim then you cannot be proved wrong entirely ignores the fact that you are also unable to prove your pet brainfart to be more right than anybody elses idea.
Of course a religious viewpoint will assume that all of the boxes have been ticked, everything that is knowable is now known and there is no need for any further research, nothing to see here so go home and read the gospels of St Zechariah. Meanwhile science looks beyond the current status quo to see what else is there to discover_________________ When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|