@Nimrod

Quote:

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 ... there has been the discovery of the Higgs boson which imparts mass to matter

This point makes for a good illustration of how the two different 'religions' work.

The first religion is that of Lou, EM=God. He claimed that the LHC was a waste of money and Higgs would not be discovered. Putting the cart before the horse he assumed the Higgs would not exist because it might upset his conclusion

The second 'religion' is that of Nimrod and BrianK, evidence=God. Both of us were open and accepting to the conduct of the experiment and the results. The reason why is we had never researched that area in that manner. We pushed that experiments must be done prior to drawing a conclusion. The experiments were done, evidence was built, and we followed the bread crumbs. Since we don't have a conclusive answer we're on that journey wherever the winds of evidence may blow our boats.

Lou took the role of faith - assumed his conclusion was true and argued something wouldn't exist. He was proved wrong. Nimrod and BrianK have the open and accepting empirical system all comers are welcome. All comers must bring the same 'offering' evidence.

The truth is like all religions Lou's provides us no validity but only assumed correctness. If he's right it's dumb luck as it's neither enlightened or demonstrable. Instead progress and understanding is made through the openness and equality of empiricism.

Good statement Nimrod and I hope you don't mind I drew a strong example out of the difference between the two 'religions' at work.

Last edited by BrianK on 18-May-2013 at 08:21 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 18-May-2013 at 02:54 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 18-May-2013 at 02:53 PM.

First planet identified due to the Relativistic description of Gravity

"First proposed in 2003 by Avi Loeb and Scott Gaudi, the new technique relies on the gravitational pull the planet exerts on the star as it orbits it. This pull causes three observable effects...
...
The algorithm used to identify Kepler-76b was developed by Professor Tsevi Mazeh and his student, Simchon Faigler, at Tel Aviv University, and is called the BEER (relativistic BEaming, Ellipsoidal, and Reflection/emission modulations) algorithm.

Once identified, the new planet was confirmed by team member David Latham of the CfA using radial velocity observations gathered by the TRES spectrograph at Whipple Observatory in Arizona, and by Lev Tal-Or (Tel Aviv University) using the SOPHIE spectrograph at the Haute-Provence Observatory in France
...
Kepler-76b, which the team has dubbed “Einstein’s planet"

Last edited by BrianK on 20-May-2013 at 03:27 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @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.

No, you don't get it. You've still yet to provide facts that gravity is a separate and unique force all it's own instead of the result of the net result of known forces such as radiation pressure.

I have provided as much 'evidence' as you have. You in your utterly un-educated opinion choose to reject it. That is not my issue - that is your issue.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @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

So in other words, you can't "prove gravity" but you "believe in gravity".
So logical...
In fact it's the same logic "I can't prove god exists but I believe in god."

Last edited by Lou on 20-May-2013 at 06:03 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

You've still yet to provide facts that gravity is a separate and unique force all it's own

In this statement you expose your dishonesty. Evidence has been provided in these threads and also has been demonstrated for ove two hundred years before peer review panels. Various theories have been demonstrated to be the best available fit since Newtons day and none of them have been related to your "EM is God fantasy. These are the facts that you deliberately choose to ignore simply because they demonstrate that your fantasies about Sitchins delusions of adequacy have no basis in fact.

Quote:

instead of the result of the net result of known forces such as radiation pressure.

You are correct in stating that radiation pressure is a known force. It is because it is a known force that its magnitude is known to be insufficient to achieve what you claim. This can be, and has been demonstrated mathematically and my first assumption was that you were incapable of following the mathematics however it now appears that what you lack is not the ability but the honesty to follow the evidence.

Quote:

I have provided as much 'evidence' as you have.

Once again I will ask the simple question "When and where?" All you have done is post links to assertions, assumptions, and postulates. Your "evidence" for these statements of opinion is simply more of the same. None of your postulates make predictions that can be verified by accurate observations. I have pointed out circumstances that demonstrate that your EM view of the universe is untenable, but you have ignored the evidence and resorted to childish ad-hominem insults, and are still unable to answer the simple question about the EM levels needed to lift one kilo of granite against the gravity of the Earth using radiation pressure.
You claim that the universe is dark objects in a bright box yet the last time I looked, interstellar space was dark and the sun was bright, meaning that we should be pushed away from the sun rather than held in orbit.

Quote:

You in your utterly un-educated opinion choose to reject it.

It is not that we choose to reject your CRAP, it is that there is no supporting evidence that allows your CRAP to become acceptable.

Quote:

So in other words, you can't "prove gravity" but you "believe in gravity".

Newtons laws of gravity were demonstrated to be the best explanation and were accepted as "proved" until improved accuracy of measurement showed the existence of error. Newtons laws were still used as the best available until something better came along. Einsteins GR was then accepted as "proved" because it made predictions that matched the best level of accuracy of measurement. Most observations made confirm Einsteins GR, and the ones that don't, seem to indicate that we have not got the tech to detect all of the matter and energy that there is rather than that GR is definitely wrong.

Quote:

In fact it's the same logic "I can't prove god exists but I believe in god."

I am aware that you live your life based on belief despite the fact that I keep telling you that

belief is irrelevant

I do not believe in your deity. An electric motor turns because of known laws of ElectroMagnetism, not because of my beliefs.

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

@Lou

Quote:

No, you don't get it. You've still yet to provide facts that gravity is a separate and unique force all it's own instead of the result of the net result of known forces such as radiation pressure. I have provided as much 'evidence' as you have. You in your utterly un-educated opinion choose to reject it. That is not my issue - that is your issue.

You've given us hypotheses claimed them to be evidence, and they have not been. You even threaten to rewind. We invited you to go ahead and do that - make your citation of where you have evidence. But no you can't cite them either.

I've given you satellite trajectory calculations (an iota of RP), and the small couple degree readjustments due to unaccounted for force (RP). I've given you about a dozen experiments to review. I've given you how you can review about 150+years of other experiments right there at your local MIT library. It was you that utterly failed by claiming you don't have to do the work to review anything other than your own faith. ... Hint, you ignoring review should indicate how faithful you are. You reject without review.

Whereas, I, and Nimrod, gave your claims actual review. The result was your 'evidence' were postulates and so didn't fit reality that as a result you attacked characters instead of arguments. Which was readily shown by Amigaworld banning you for multiple days on multiple occasions. I'll also mention your attempts at subterfuge by citing Haramein then claiming you didn't seriously think he right. That was more then a bit dishonest. If you have facts bring those. To date you've only provided folly.

Last edited by BrianK on 20-May-2013 at 07:55 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 20-May-2013 at 07:54 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 20-May-2013 at 07:44 PM.

@Lou,

As I said before the Math can be pretty and highly accurate. But be completely invalid when demonstrating reality. There are a few more examples of that truism for you to chew on.

Last edited by BrianK on 21-May-2013 at 03:03 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou, As I said before the Math can be pretty and highly accurate. But be completely invalid when demonstrating reality. There are a few more examples of that truism for you to chew on.

Keep on chewing...

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: You've still yet to provide facts that gravity is a separate and unique force all it's own In this statement you expose your dishonesty. Evidence has been provided in these threads and also has been demonstrated for ove two hundred years before peer review panels. Various theories have been demonstrated to be the best available fit since Newtons day and none of them have been related to your "EM is God fantasy. These are the facts that you deliberately choose to ignore simply because they demonstrate that your fantasies about Sitchins delusions of adequacy have no basis in fact. Quote: instead of the result of the net result of known forces such as radiation pressure. You are correct in stating that radiation pressure is a known force. It is because it is a known force that its magnitude is known to be insufficient to achieve what you claim. This can be, and has been demonstrated mathematically and my first assumption was that you were incapable of following the mathematics however it now appears that what you lack is not the ability but the honesty to follow the evidence. Quote: I have provided as much 'evidence' as you have. Once again I will ask the simple question "When and where?" All you have done is post links to assertions, assumptions, and postulates. Your "evidence" for these statements of opinion is simply more of the same. None of your postulates make predictions that can be verified by accurate observations. I have pointed out circumstances that demonstrate that your EM view of the universe is untenable, but you have ignored the evidence and resorted to childish ad-hominem insults, and are still unable to answer the simple question about the EM levels needed to lift one kilo of granite against the gravity of the Earth using radiation pressure. You claim that the universe is dark objects in a bright box yet the last time I looked, interstellar space was dark and the sun was bright, meaning that we should be pushed away from the sun rather than held in orbit. Quote: You in your utterly un-educated opinion choose to reject it. It is not that we choose to reject your CRAP, it is that there is no supporting evidence that allows your CRAP to become acceptable. Quote: So in other words, you can't "prove gravity" but you "believe in gravity". Newtons laws of gravity were demonstrated to be the best explanation and were accepted as "proved" until improved accuracy of measurement showed the existence of error. Newtons laws were still used as the best available until something better came along. Einsteins GR was then accepted as "proved" because it made predictions that matched the best level of accuracy of measurement. Most observations made confirm Einsteins GR, and the ones that don't, seem to indicate that we have not got the tech to detect all of the matter and energy that there is rather than that GR is definitely wrong. Quote: In fact it's the same logic "I can't prove god exists but I believe in god." I am aware that you live your life based on belief despite the fact that I keep telling you that belief is irrelevant I do not believe in your deity. An electric motor turns because of known laws of ElectroMagnetism, not because of my beliefs.

Yes, belief is irrelevant and you've proven nothing about gravity, you simply believe in it.

As a self-proclaimed electrical engineer you of all nimrods should be championing EU Theory.

The story of this thread:

@Lou

Quote:

Yes, belief is irrelevant and you've proven nothing about gravity, you simply believe in it

Regardless your opinion about gravity, I have shown clear proof that your compting and mutually contradictory fantasies about alternatives to GR are completely false. And once again I do not rely on my so called belief in gravity to keep my feet firmly on the ground. It is not me that has made proofs of gravity but the many people who have put satellites into orbit and those responsible for sending the voyager probe to the edge of interstellar space without referring to EM or RP. Admittedly the lack of attention to RP meant that the probe was not quite where it was anticipated to be but the margin of error was smaller than the error introduced in one iteration of an equation by one of your heroes.

Quote:

As a self-proclaimed electrical engineer you of all nimrods should be championing EU Theory.

Why should I champion a crackpot postulate when my knowledge of electrical and electronic engineering is sufficient to tell me that the "Electric Universe" is a fools fantasy. As an electrical engineer I follow all sorts of laws from Ohms law onward, however none of these laws specifies that I have to follow some kind of religious creed. This statement by you is even more ridiculous and irrelevant than your previous claim that I am supposed to toe the party line because IEEE says so. To explain by analogy, I know that these produce electricity, but I am also aware that you cannot run a 100kW, 3 phase electric motor at full load for 24 hours on the output of a single D cell. You seem to have forgotten about the words "orders of magnitude"

Referring back to your claim that there was no evidence that gravity was a separate force rather than a subset of EM are you aware that gravity probe b was designed to measure gravitic frame dragging and was specifically designed by engineers to exclude EM influences. Likewise the measurements of gravity waves by LIGO did not require faith or belief, and remains a fact regardless of whether it is believed or not because belief is irrelevant.

Last edited by Nimrod on 22-May-2013 at 01:41 PM.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Yes, belief is irrelevant and you've proven nothing about gravity, you simply believe in it Regardless your opinion about gravity, I have shown clear proof that your compting and mutually contradictory fantasies about alternatives to GR are completely false. And once again I do not rely on my so called belief in gravity to keep my feet firmly on the ground. It is not me that has made proofs of gravity but the many people who have put satellites into orbit and those responsible for sending the voyager probe to the edge of interstellar space without referring to EM or RP. Admittedly the lack of attention to RP meant that the probe was not quite where it was anticipated to be but the margin of error was smaller than the error introduced in one iteration of an equation by one of your heroes. Quote: As a self-proclaimed electrical engineer you of all nimrods should be championing EU Theory. Why should I champion a crackpot postulate when my knowledge of electrical and electronic engineering is sufficient to tell me that the "Electric Universe" is a fools fantasy. As an electrical engineer I follow all sorts of laws from Ohms law onward, however none of these laws specifies that I have to follow some kind of religious creed. This statement by you is even more ridiculous and irrelevant than your previous claim that I am supposed to toe the party line because IEEE says so. To explain by analogy, I know that these produce electricity, but I am also aware that you cannot run a 100kW, 3 phase electric motor at full load for 24 hours on the output of a single D cell. You seem to have forgotten about the words "orders of magnitude" Referring back to your claim that there was no evidence that gravity was a separate force rather than a subset of EM are you aware that gravity probe b was designed to measure gravitic frame dragging and was specifically designed by engineers to exclude EM influences. Likewise the measurements of gravity waves by LIGO did not require faith or belief, and remains a fact regardless of whether it is believed or not because belief is irrelevant.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130520185524.htm

Quote:

About 12,000 years before the Younger Dryas, Earth was at the Last Glacial Maximum -- the peak of the Ice Age. Millennia passed, and the climate began to warm. Then something happened that caused temperatures to suddenly reverse course, bringing about a century's worth of near-glacial climate that marked the start of the geologically brief Younger Dryas.

...snip...

Quote:

"We know something came close enough to Earth and it was hot enough that it melted rock -- that's what these carbon spherules are. In order to create this type of evidence that we see around the world, it was big,"

Now what was it that Sitchin translated again...? Funny how science continues to corroborate Sitchin...

How Einstein was trolled. Interesting enough through the use of fake EM experiments and fake EM data.

@Lou

Quote:

Now what was it that Sitchin translated again...? Funny how science continues to corroborate Sitchin...

One plus for your conspiracy belief is at least this time the dates are in better alignment than your other claims.

What I find interesting is this. The date of the first man wasn't as well established during Stichin's lifetime. It'd be difficult for Stichin to lift that from scientific works. And Stichin's writing is thousands of thousands of years out of alignment when it comes to comparing his predictions VS the science we know today. Whereas, when Stichin was writing his books Science had quite a bit of it's evidence built that the last ice age was 12K years ago. It'd be easy for Stichin to be 'accurate' on that date he could have easily have copied it from existing scientific work or with even less work from popular magazines of the day. So he should be fairly accurate with his year. (Yeah that one plus went out with the proverbial rug.)

If such an object exists we don't know the properties of such an object. If it's a 'brown dwarf' that beings live on is not evidenced in any sense. Let alone a return visit, is again not evidenced in any sense. We have writings of Stichin that claim to be from a culture that are for all practical purposes fictionalized and inconsistent.

Perhaps it's this -- During Stichin's lifetime the idea of 'Historical Fiction' was fairly popular. Laura Ingles Wilder anyone? As was science fiction. Perhaps Stichin's positive contribution to us could be best summarized 'Historical Science Fiction', a complete new reading genre. Thank you Lord Stichin, Amen!

Last edited by BrianK on 22-May-2013 at 06:14 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 22-May-2013 at 06:13 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130520185524.htm

Once again you transpose the concept of postulate and evidence. From the article you linked to comes the Quote:

Tankersley explains what he and a team of international researchers found may have caused this catastrophic event in Earth's history in their research . . . . . . . . This research might indicate that it wasn't the cosmic collision that extinguished the mammoths and other species, Tankersley says, but the drastic change to their environment.

Please feel free to notice the terms "may have caused" and "research might indicate" and then try to think what it is these terms actually mean. Add to that the fact that even if a large impact was the cause of climate change, there is still no evidence that the rock was aimed by any form of intelligence. When you consider the huge number of near misses there are, simple probability dictates that we have to sometimes get hit. But of course I keep forgetting, you don't believe in the laws of probability.

Also Quote:

Tankersley says the ones in his study could only have been formed from the combustion of rock.

Remind me to ask a geologist how combustion of rocks made of Silicon either release or form Carbon spherules? It may of course be a result of combustion of nearby organic materials at temperatures high enough to oxidise silicon but that is not quite the same thing.

Quote:

Now what was it that Sitchin translated again...?

Sitchin didn't translate anything.
1. Sitchin lacked the linguistic skills to translate ancient texts, he never even referred to the ancient mesopotamian dictionaries produced at the time that the Sumerians were subjugated.
2. Sitchin lacked the basic honesty to debate his so called translations with those who had actually done the work necessary to acquire the skills that he dishonestly claimed to have.
The materials that Sitchin claimed to be translating included a description of the construction of a ziggurat.

Quote:

Funny how science continues to corroborate Sitchin...

When NASA launches a brick built structure into space that uses mud and straw bricks and cow dung as a heatshield, I will think that science is catching up with Sitchin, until then I will class Sitchin as just another fraudster along the lines of VonDaniken, and LIEder. Sitchin kept his pseudoscientific technobabble as vague and wooly as the horoscope in your morning paper, for exactly the same reason. To appeal to the prejudices of the intellectually challenged who allow themselves to be decieved because rational thought is too much like hard work.

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

@Nimrod

Due to the low gravity in space they can make glass with chemicals other than silica.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/14apr_zeroglass/
...

So simple experiment - build a lead lined room, inside a Faraday's Cage here on earth. Measure the EM - which will be so small it's likely won't register on the meters. Measure the EM in space in the ISS, which is likely to be greater and probably enough to measure. Then see if you can make glass objects in similar ways. If it's all EM then we should have exactly the same results.

Who puts money on that experiment verification that EM is crap?

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: How Einstein was trolled. Interesting enough through the use of fake EM experiments and fake EM data.

This has been going in the 'perfect' and 'ethically pure' version of 'science' that you perceive exists for years...

http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/03/book-review-science-faces-fact-and-fraud/

But the emperor (relativity) has no clothes and no one wants to tell him...instead they turn the lights out and tell him there's dark light (energy) everywhere and that's why everything keeps running away from him instead of swarming towards him...after all, clearly they can't see him...

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130520185524.htm Once again you transpose the concept of postulate and evidence. From the article you linked to comes the Quote: Tankersley explains what he and a team of international researchers found may have caused this catastrophic event in Earth's history in their research . . . . . . . . This research might indicate that it wasn't the cosmic collision that extinguished the mammoths and other species, Tankersley says, but the drastic change to their environment. Please feel free to notice the terms "may have caused" and "research might indicate" and then try to think what it is these terms actually mean. Add to that the fact that even if a large impact was the cause of climate change, there is still no evidence that the rock was aimed by any form of intelligence. When you consider the huge number of near misses there are, simple probability dictates that we have to sometimes get hit. But of course I keep forgetting, you don't believe in the laws of probability. Also Quote: Tankersley says the ones in his study could only have been formed from the combustion of rock. Remind me to ask a geologist how combustion of rocks made of Silicon either release or form Carbon spherules? It may of course be a result of combustion of nearby organic materials at temperatures high enough to oxidise silicon but that is not quite the same thing. Quote: Now what was it that Sitchin translated again...? Sitchin didn't translate anything. 1. Sitchin lacked the linguistic skills to translate ancient texts, he never even referred to the ancient mesopotamian dictionaries produced at the time that the Sumerians were subjugated. 2. Sitchin lacked the basic honesty to debate his so called translations with those who had actually done the work necessary to acquire the skills that he dishonestly claimed to have. The materials that Sitchin claimed to be translating included a description of the construction of a ziggurat. Quote: Funny how science continues to corroborate Sitchin... When NASA launches a brick built structure into space that uses mud and straw bricks and cow dung as a heatshield, I will think that science is catching up with Sitchin, until then I will class Sitchin as just another fraudster along the lines of VonDaniken, and LIEder. Sitchin kept his pseudoscientific technobabble as vague and wooly as the horoscope in your morning paper, for exactly the same reason. To appeal to the prejudices of the intellectually challenged who allow themselves to be decieved because rational thought is too much like hard work.

You are the epitome of dichotomy. It's your engineering nature and why you'll never quite get it.

On another note, I have an electrical problem. Let's see if you can help me out.
I have a 5v source that I want to convert into a 3v source... What should I do?
I should note, that I need a small device that I can inline into a signal.

Last edited by Lou on 23-May-2013 at 08:58 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 23-May-2013 at 07:18 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 23-May-2013 at 07:15 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

Due to the low gravity in space they can make glass with chemicals other than silica. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/14apr_zeroglass/

Interesting and informative article, but for some reason as I was reading about the possibilities of metallic glass, all I could hear was Scotty asking McCoy "How do you know that this fella didnae invent transparent aluminum?"

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