@Lou

Quote:

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

Somehow you developed the mistaken impression that science is pure and perfect? Not so it uses one of the most biased pieces of equipment ever - PEOPLE! The plus of science over any other method is it never stops searching, never stops repeating, and keeps asking if we really know what we think we know. All systems are frauded in the same way from people. Science continues to check for, adjust for, and weeds out the biases equipment, what we call people. It's good and better science that identified the fraud.

The problem with the EM is God faith is it assumes to know the answer. If you use your system you end up unquestionably trusting the fraudster because they said EM. You'd discard the more accurate, more consistent, and better evidence that proved this to be a fraud. As bad as you perceive science to be, the fact is the results of your faith are even worse.



@Nimrod
Quote:

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?"

Making non-silica glass in space because pf the lower than earth gravity allows this was very interesting. I'm glad you liked it. And yes it reminded me of Transparent Aluminum

Last edited by BrianK on 23-May-2013 at 10:26 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

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

Did anybody claim that science was the domain of perfect and ethically pure individuals following a holy calling? If so they failed to understand why the concept of constructive scepticism creates such an advantage. Over a year ago T-J referred to the political shenanigans that took place in the old Soviet Union when "scientific research" was slewed to match the prejudices and beliefs of Uncle Joe and a few similarly semi-literate politburo members. This is part of the reason why we routinely ignore the name on the postulate, and the letters after the name, and concentrate on the evidence. Not just the selected evidence that supports the postulate while ignoring contraindications in your favoured manner, but ALL of the evidence.

Quote:

But the emperor (relativity) has no clothes and no one wants to tell him...

Despite your lies to the contrary, GR is the "emperor" because it is far better clothed than all of the wannabe contenders that you keep digging up. I accept that GR has not produced answers to all of the worlds problems, but the answers that it has produced are verifiable, and where a final answer is not forthcoming it provides an insight as to where the answers can be found. Where the emperors clothes are a bit threadbare, the scientific community do not ignore anything, and despite what you keep claiming scientists are looking for the missing fabric, and finding it in the places that the emperor tells them to search.

Quote:

I have a 5v source that I want to convert into a 3v source... What should I do?

Despite all of the possible responses that leap to the front of my mind, I will suggest that something like this may possibly fit the bill, depending on required power levels. Detail

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

@Lou

You seem to be convinced that GR is just crap. I have no problem with that opinion but if you want Nimrod and BrianK to listen you can't just quote weird theories from even weirder people.

Why not follow my example and try to work out an alternative theory yourself. I have been working on a theory for FTL (Faster than light travel) for over 20 years. I don't go yelling that Einstein was wrong because the current state of my equations has to many unknowns. So right now Einsteins theories are superior to mine.

@Lou

To help with the electrical problem, maybe you could define it a little better. Is it a voltage source or a signal source (as in a power supply or a stream of data)? What sort of current do you want on the 3V side? What sort of efficiency do you need?

If Nimrods assumption is valid and you need to convert a power supply line from 5V to 3V (wouldn't that typically be 3.3V?), then I also vote for his solution. A PWM regulator would in theory be more efficient, but if the input is 5V and the output is 3V then the an LDO at 60% efficiency (3/5) is ok, considering a practical PWM implementation won't take you much above 80% in any case. For medium high input to output ratios (3-7 times? figure taken off the top of my head from my own experience), you sometimes see claims of over 90% efficiency for a PWM regulator, but since you have 5 and not 12V in, that's a moot point.

Edit: Of course, if we're talking a lot of power, those 20% saved could mean a world of difference, first of all with cooling (which costs more than you would think).

Last edited by olegil on 24-May-2013 at 10:39 AM.

_________________
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

Basically, I took a 1991 Cadillac Allante (4.5L) intake and threw it on a 1992 Cadillac Deville 4.9L motor. I'm using the Deville's PCM code. My throttle position sensor is reporting a signal from 1.2v (closed) to 4.88v (WOT) and it needs to be stepped down to the .5v to 3v range. What's happening is my PCM is seeing a much larger throttle position % than is should and adding extra fuel to my engine. We'll ignore the fact that this engine is in a Fiero... I have confirmed a 5v input to the sensor...which is what the wiring diagrams call for.
I have replaced the sensor twice with the same results.

@Niolator

Quote:

Niolator wrote: @Lou You seem to be convinced that GR is just crap. I have no problem with that opinion but if you want Nimrod and BrianK to listen you can't just quote weird theories from even weirder people. Why not follow my example and try to work out an alternative theory yourself. I have been working on a theory for FTL (Faster than light travel) for over 20 years. I don't go yelling that Einstein was wrong because the current state of my equations has to many unknowns. So right now Einsteins theories are superior to mine.

Actually, I agree with Einstein in that it's 'good enough' for local space but not the answer to the universe. GR uses local 'constants' and local observations were used to derive those constants. The fact that 'dark energy' had to be slapped onto it to explain the scale greater than the solar system is a big clue.

The people here demand math to 'prove' something when in reality math is simply used to simulate something. Math is nothing. Reality is everything.

General Relativity is a dumbing down of the radiation pressure model. The radiation pressure model explains things that GR calls 'anomalies'. When you realize that spinning magnet fields cause other objects with magnetic fields to spin you start getting answers to why planets rotate. This is electrical phenomenon. When you combine the electric universe theory with the radiation pressure model for gravity, the universe runs as observed without any imaginary energy thrown in to match observation. If GR was right, we wouldn't need dark energy. To claim GR + dark energy is right is to claim that a Band-Aid fixes a cut.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions.htm
EU Theory predicted many things 'big bangers' and 'GR worshippers' did not expect.

It's not my job to hold a class. I have pointed these sheep in the right direction. A horse cannot be made to drink water when it prefers the Kool-Aid of spoon-fed science that is based in religion. The big bang theory came from a priest. The universe is all we've seen so far. It doesn't mean it is all there is. If the galaxies we have thus far observed orbit a universal center, does that mean that no other galaxies in 'existence' orbit a different center point? Would that make them a different 'universe'?

I am the one with the open mind. It is they who have the closed minds. It is they who some time ago prosecuted people for believing the earth orbited the sun - not me.

Einstein pursued unification for a reason. GR is not the answer to the universe.

Last edited by Lou on 24-May-2013 at 07:18 PM.

@Lou

Ok, so 1.2 V needs to become 0.5 while 5 needs to become 3?

IFF there's a linear relationship we can use the formula AX+B for this, so A*1.2+B = 0.5 while A*5+B = 3

B in the second equation equates to 3 - 5A, putting this in for B in the first one gets us 1.2 A - 5A + 3 = 0.5, also known as -3.8A = -2.5, A = 0.65789473684

B = 3-5A = -0.28947368421

So you're looking at deducting about 0.29V (a Schottky diode will be in the right ballpark for this). But first you'll want to reduce by a factor 0.66, and for this I'll point you to the most awesome website in the whole universe (GR or not):
http://jansson.us/resistors.html

Wanted ratio of 0.65789473684 gives us a few options. E12 series, 0.03% error: 39k from source, 56k and 3.3k in series to ground, a Schottky to the output. 4 components, 3 minutes construction time, 2 dollars cost.

_________________
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

This is of course ignoring source and load impedances, which could necessitate an active solution using an op-amp. Or two.

_________________
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.

@Lou

Quote:

The people here demand math to 'prove' something when in reality math is simply used to simulate something. Math is nothing. Reality is everything.

Actually no we demand evidence to 'prove' something. What you provided was Brandenburg's math. This problem you want to blame others on is actually one you've repeated ad naseum.

Quote:

General Relativity is a dumbing down of the radiation pressure model.

So you've claimed but not shown. As the math you provided was often wrong logically, and wrong when compared to reality. Neither did you provide evidence of reality nor how these items map. hat

Quote:

It's not my job to hold a class.

You are right it's not your job. You made the bold claim and certainly no one is forcing you to support it. Though while you continue to fail and flail you shouldn't be surprised you get called out for acting like the posturing priest. (BTW, this is a discussion board we can't see you so you don't get by on your good looks. You actually have to bring something to the table.)

As for Holoscience it might as well be called Hollow-Science. The guy tells us what he believes science to claim. However, he provides no references for us to check. Then reviewing his 'predictions' on Deep Impact most of them start with 'may'. His work is shoddy. His conclusions wishy-washy. I think Lou lets him get away with this because Lou hasn't taken the time to focus on science and understand the rigor and formulation of strong and clear hypotheses. It may is no better than 'I feel. I bet HollowScience-Man has lunch with Sylvia Brown.

Last edited by BrianK on 25-May-2013 at 12:37 AM.
Last edited by BrianK on 24-May-2013 at 10:05 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 24-May-2013 at 10:01 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Actually, I agree with Einstein in that it's 'good enough' for local space but not the answer to the universe. GR uses local 'constants' and local observations were used to derive those constants. The fact that 'dark energy' had to be slapped onto it to explain the scale greater than the solar system is a big clue.

GR was not only "good enough" to correct the orbital characteristics of the planet Mercury, or to recalculate the mass of Neptune based on the acceleration of the Voyager probe, but it was accurate enough to show the disparity between the predicted movement of a galaxy far far away and its actual movement. This is something that none of the "Electric Universe" C.R.A.P has been able to do. Other aspects of GR have been demonstrated to be accurate which begs the question of whether the predictions of GR are wrong or our current understanding of how much matter and energy exists in the universe is wrong. Your unchanging religious view is that since it is called the standard model, it must be wrong, however science likes to check all options and interestingly enough when we look for the excess mass and matter it starts to show up!

Quote:

The people here demand math to 'prove' something when in reality math is simply used to simulate something. Math is nothing. Reality is everything.

When you finally showed Harameins mathematics, I noted his arithmetical errors. When you showed the mathematics behind Znidarsics postulates I discovered that he was working on the assumption that C = 1.046 e^6 rather than the actual figure of 2.99 e^8. An examination of Brandenburgs mathematics showed that he also made assumptions that do not tally with real life observations. As you correctly state, the mathematics shows a model that is being worked on, but by examining the model and comparing it to real observations is how the model is tested and proved (or disproved) So far none of your postulates have produced mathematical models that withstood the rigours of this process as applied by either BrianK or myself, let alone a scientific review.

Quote:

The radiation pressure model explains things that GR calls 'anomalies'.

No it doesn't. The power levels actually measured, using actual measuring equipment in the actual real world are not sufficient to achieve the results that you claim. Your radiation pressure model also assumes that the night sky is universally dazzlingly bright, while the Sun is a dark body. I do not need huge amounts of high tech scientific equipment to realise that this is a false assumption, but scanning with such equipment as WISE confirms my basic observations. The largest and most consistent source of radiation pressure to this planet is the Sun. It is pushing the Earth away from the Sun with a pressure measured in micropascals. One of the earlier refutations of your RP figures was that the equivalent mass effect of RP on a 68,000,000 tonne rock was 14g (That is 14 grammes, not 14 times the local gravitational acceleration)

Quote:

When you realize that spinning magnet fields cause other objects with magnetic fields to spin

This is something that I learned many years ago as an apprentice. It is how a squirrel cage motor works. In a squirrel cage motor the rotating magnetic field first induces a magnetic field in the non magnetised rotor. This magnetic field is aligned with the field that caused it but at the opposite polarity. If something knocks the magnetic fields out of alignment they are immediately re-aligned. Having been made aware of these simple basic facts please feel free to explain the anomalies of your "Spinning magnetic fields" CRAP to explain the anomalies known as Mercury, Venus, the Moon, Mars and it two moons, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. IF you are feeling adventurous you can even pretend that Pluto is a planet and explain its movements using its non-existent magnetism. Your spinning magnets CRAP may for a change have pretty mathematical equations attached, such as the one you posted for magnetic levitation within a gravity field, but as somebody once said "Reality is everything." and reality shows that it is not all about spinning magnetic fields.

Quote:

This is electrical phenomenon.

IF planetary rotation were an electrical phenomenon the planets would all have magnetic fields. These magnetic fields would all be aligned with the physical spin axis of the planet. In addition when the magnetic field of the planet reversed as has happened irregularly to the magnetic field of the Earth the spin of the planet would slow, stop, and then reverse itself. You will now claim that this is what happened leading to the stories of the sun standing still in the sky at the instigation of some priest or other, conveniently ignoring the fact that the last time the magnetic field reversed was 41,000 years ago and its geologically "instant" reversion to its current state meant that the entire process only took 440 years with the fully established magnetic field lasting a mere 250 years. Geologically this is less than the blink of an eye. but in human terms it is still several generations, not a few hours.

Quote:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions.htm EU Theory predicted many things 'big bangers' and 'GR worshippers' did not expect.

It is very easy to write about things after they happened and claim "I knew that was going to happen" what is needed is to see some of their "predictions pending" and see how well they turn out. As luck would have it there is a link to exactly such a list. This list of predictions has not apparently been updated recently and so contains claims that predictions from many years ago that are still "awaiting confirmation". Many of these have actually been demonstrated to be totally absolutely 100% wrong. Of course once the site is updated these predictions will quietly disappear or reverse themselves, to give the impression that EU has a 100% success rate of accurate predictions. This is called telling lies and it is something that religious cults do all of the time. The scientific method cannot prevent attempted fraud but it does eventually expose it and then rejects the fraudulent findings, or have you forgotten the fraud who worked with Einstein.

Quote:

If the galaxies we have thus far observed orbit a universal center, does that mean that no other galaxies in 'existence' orbit a different center point? Would that make them a different 'universe'?

What you are postulating here is the concept of two independent "Big Bangs". To the best of my limited knowledge there is nothing preventing this from being true, but as yet there is no evidence to support it as true. This is not to say that you must not look for evidence supporting the postulate, because scientific advancement does not only come from trying to explain observed discrepancies, but also "what if" questions. Now that you have asked "What if?" what you have to do is sift through the evidence to see if the fact that the Andromeda galaxy is blue shifted ( heading towards us) might be evidence that it is part of an intruding different source. If you track the movement of enough galaxies using whatever system you feel appropriate (GR or RP or magnetic spin) and if there are two demonstrable points of origin that can be confirmed by observation then your postulate will become a scientific fact that I for one will happily embrace. Just first produce the evidence.

Quote:

I am the one with the open mind. It is they who have the closed minds. It is they who some time ago prosecuted people for believing the earth orbited the sun - not me.

This is a classic case of something called projection. You are the one that routinely reverses the concept of assertion and evidence. You are the one who accepts the postulates of Brandenburg because he has a PhD while ignoring the fact that the author of this CRAP also has a PhD and he refuted your "Plasma Universe" for a totally different reason than I can accept. He rejects it because the universe was created 6000 years ago by his chosen deity. Please read this article, and when you understand the reasons why you reject his arguments against plasma cosmology you will begin to see why I reject your arguments in favour of the same subject. It was not science that prosecuted Galileo and others, and the organisation that did has had to accept that the evidence demonstrates that the early scientists were more correct than the prosecuting authorities were because the prosecuting authorities did not examine the evidence. Your complaint gainst me is that I do examine the evidence, rather than accept the fantasy that you refer to as the "big picture"

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

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @olegil This is of course ignoring source and load impedances, which could necessitate an active solution using an op-amp. Or two.

If you build it, I will buy it.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Actually, I agree with Einstein in that it's 'good enough' for local space but not the answer to the universe. GR uses local 'constants' and local observations were used to derive those constants. The fact that 'dark energy' had to be slapped onto it to explain the scale greater than the solar system is a big clue. GR was not only "good enough" to correct the orbital characteristics of the planet Mercury, or to recalculate the mass of Neptune based on the acceleration of the Voyager probe, but it was accurate enough to show the disparity between the predicted movement of a galaxy far far away and its actual movement. This is something that none of the "Electric Universe" C.R.A.P has been able to do. Other aspects of GR have been demonstrated to be accurate which begs the question of whether the predictions of GR are wrong or our current understanding of how much matter and energy exists in the universe is wrong. Your unchanging religious view is that since it is called the standard model, it must be wrong, however science likes to check all options and interestingly enough when we look for the excess mass and matter it starts to show up! Quote: The people here demand math to 'prove' something when in reality math is simply used to simulate something. Math is nothing. Reality is everything. When you finally showed Harameins mathematics, I noted his arithmetical errors. When you showed the mathematics behind Znidarsics postulates I discovered that he was working on the assumption that C = 1.046 e^6 rather than the actual figure of 2.99 e^8. An examination of Brandenburgs mathematics showed that he also made assumptions that do not tally with real life observations. As you correctly state, the mathematics shows a model that is being worked on, but by examining the model and comparing it to real observations is how the model is tested and proved (or disproved) So far none of your postulates have produced mathematical models that withstood the rigours of this process as applied by either BrianK or myself, let alone a scientific review. Quote: The radiation pressure model explains things that GR calls 'anomalies'. No it doesn't. The power levels actually measured, using actual measuring equipment in the actual real world are not sufficient to achieve the results that you claim. Your radiation pressure model also assumes that the night sky is universally dazzlingly bright, while the Sun is a dark body. I do not need huge amounts of high tech scientific equipment to realise that this is a false assumption, but scanning with such equipment as WISE confirms my basic observations. The largest and most consistent source of radiation pressure to this planet is the Sun. It is pushing the Earth away from the Sun with a pressure measured in micropascals. One of the earlier refutations of your RP figures was that the equivalent mass effect of RP on a 68,000,000 tonne rock was 14g (That is 14 grammes, not 14 times the local gravitational acceleration) Quote: When you realize that spinning magnet fields cause other objects with magnetic fields to spin This is something that I learned many years ago as an apprentice. It is how a squirrel cage motor works. In a squirrel cage motor the rotating magnetic field first induces a magnetic field in the non magnetised rotor. This magnetic field is aligned with the field that caused it but at the opposite polarity. If something knocks the magnetic fields out of alignment they are immediately re-aligned. Having been made aware of these simple basic facts please feel free to explain the anomalies of your "Spinning magnetic fields" CRAP to explain the anomalies known as Mercury, Venus, the Moon, Mars and it two moons, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. IF you are feeling adventurous you can even pretend that Pluto is a planet and explain its movements using its non-existent magnetism. Your spinning magnets CRAP may for a change have pretty mathematical equations attached, such as the one you posted for magnetic levitation within a gravity field, but as somebody once said "Reality is everything." and reality shows that it is not all about spinning magnetic fields. Quote: This is electrical phenomenon. IF planetary rotation were an electrical phenomenon the planets would all have magnetic fields. These magnetic fields would all be aligned with the physical spin axis of the planet. In addition when the magnetic field of the planet reversed as has happened irregularly to the magnetic field of the Earth the spin of the planet would slow, stop, and then reverse itself. You will now claim that this is what happened leading to the stories of the sun standing still in the sky at the instigation of some priest or other, conveniently ignoring the fact that the last time the magnetic field reversed was 41,000 years ago and its geologically "instant" reversion to its current state meant that the entire process only took 440 years with the fully established magnetic field lasting a mere 250 years. Geologically this is less than the blink of an eye. but in human terms it is still several generations, not a few hours. Quote: http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions.htm EU Theory predicted many things 'big bangers' and 'GR worshippers' did not expect. It is very easy to write about things after they happened and claim "I knew that was going to happen" what is needed is to see some of their "predictions pending" and see how well they turn out. As luck would have it there is a link to exactly such a list. This list of predictions has not apparently been updated recently and so contains claims that predictions from many years ago that are still "awaiting confirmation". Many of these have actually been demonstrated to be totally absolutely 100% wrong. Of course once the site is updated these predictions will quietly disappear or reverse themselves, to give the impression that EU has a 100% success rate of accurate predictions. This is called telling lies and it is something that religious cults do all of the time. The scientific method cannot prevent attempted fraud but it does eventually expose it and then rejects the fraudulent findings, or have you forgotten the fraud who worked with Einstein. Quote: If the galaxies we have thus far observed orbit a universal center, does that mean that no other galaxies in 'existence' orbit a different center point? Would that make them a different 'universe'? What you are postulating here is the concept of two independent "Big Bangs". To the best of my limited knowledge there is nothing preventing this from being true, but as yet there is no evidence to support it as true. This is not to say that you must not look for evidence supporting the postulate, because scientific advancement does not only come from trying to explain observed discrepancies, but also "what if" questions. Now that you have asked "What if?" what you have to do is sift through the evidence to see if the fact that the Andromeda galaxy is blue shifted ( heading towards us) might be evidence that it is part of an intruding different source. If you track the movement of enough galaxies using whatever system you feel appropriate (GR or RP or magnetic spin) and if there are two demonstrable points of origin that can be confirmed by observation then your postulate will become a scientific fact that I for one will happily embrace. Just first produce the evidence. Quote: I am the one with the open mind. It is they who have the closed minds. It is they who some time ago prosecuted people for believing the earth orbited the sun - not me. This is a classic case of something called projection. You are the one that routinely reverses the concept of assertion and evidence. You are the one who accepts the postulates of Brandenburg because he has a PhD while ignoring the fact that the author of this CRAP also has a PhD and he refuted your "Plasma Universe" for a totally different reason than I can accept. He rejects it because the universe was created 6000 years ago by his chosen deity. Please read this article, and when you understand the reasons why you reject his arguments against plasma cosmology you will begin to see why I reject your arguments in favour of the same subject. It was not science that prosecuted Galileo and others, and the organisation that did has had to accept that the evidence demonstrates that the early scientists were more correct than the prosecuting authorities were because the prosecuting authorities did not examine the evidence. Your complaint gainst me is that I do examine the evidence, rather than accept the fantasy that you refer to as the "big picture"

blah blah blah blah blah

you are the definition of my post...

repeating the same things expecting different results is insanity. this defines your post

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: The people here demand math to 'prove' something when in reality math is simply used to simulate something. Math is nothing. Reality is everything. Actually no we demand evidence to 'prove' something. What you provided was Brandenburg's math. This problem you want to blame others on is actually one you've repeated ad naseum.

Meanwhile you have proven nothing.

Quote:

Quote: General Relativity is a dumbing down of the radiation pressure model. So you've claimed but not shown. As the math you provided was often wrong logically, and wrong when compared to reality. Neither did you provide evidence of reality nor how these items map. hat

Yes, I have DIRECTLY linked to websites that show this in the past. You put the troll-blinders on and pretend to not see them. Or simply say "I don't believe it".

Quote:

Quote: It's not my job to hold a class. You are right it's not your job. You made the bold claim and certainly no one is forcing you to support it. Though while you continue to fail and flail you shouldn't be surprised you get called out for acting like the posturing priest. (BTW, this is a discussion board we can't see you so you don't get by on your good looks. You actually have to bring something to the table.)

the table is the internet and you pretend my links don't exist since you have not argument against the material in them

Quote:

As for Holoscience it might as well be called Hollow-Science. The guy tells us what he believes science to claim. However, he provides no references for us to check. Then reviewing his 'predictions' on Deep Impact most of them start with 'may'. His work is shoddy. His conclusions wishy-washy. I think Lou lets him get away with this because Lou hasn't taken the time to focus on science and understand the rigor and formulation of strong and clear hypotheses. It may is no better than 'I feel. I bet HollowScience-Man has lunch with Sylvia Brown.

Oh how clever "hollow science" yep, attempt to discredit the source, that goes back to debunking 101 when you can't argue the science.

You fail on all counts here.

@Lou

Quote:

Yes, I have DIRECTLY linked to websites that show this in the past.

Lou you have DIRECTLY linked to websites that make the claim but at no point have you linked to anything that substantiates the claim. And then when I point out a simple fact that demonstrates that your postulate has no basis in fact you post the response "blah blah blah blah blah"

Quote:

the table is the internet and you pretend my links don't exist since you have not argument against the material in them

In that case can I suggest that you learn to read. When I post a list of reasons why the ridiculous postulates that you persistently link to have no basis in fact, you post the response "blah blah blah blah blah" as an indication that you have not read the post and looked at the information contained in it. Both BrianK and myself have followed your links, examined the contents, investigated the claims, and given evidenced responses. The only one that resorts to insult and ad hominem attacks is the one who has occasionally been invited to take posting holidays. You know that we investigate your poatulates, you have even complained about it in the past.

Quote:

yep, attempt to discredit the source

by indicating that the source must be insane for still asking for an answer that you have consistently failed to supply. If EM is the reason for planetary rotation, then how come the planets with discernible geomagnetic fields have the magnetic fields not aligned with the mechanical spin axis. (Actually it should be the other way of course, the spin axis should align itself with the magnetic field) The reason that I am still asking this is because it still demonstrates that there is a huge gap in your understanding of the limitations of EM in the universe. And in the unlikely event that you are able to successfully address this issue, I have lots of other questions that show the "Electric Universe" to be an untenable fantasy.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Yes, I have DIRECTLY linked to websites that show this in the past. Lou you have DIRECTLY linked to websites that make the claim but at no point have you linked to anything that substantiates the claim. And then when I point out a simple fact that demonstrates that your postulate has no basis in fact you post the response "blah blah blah blah blah" Quote: the table is the internet and you pretend my links don't exist since you have not argument against the material in them In that case can I suggest that you learn to read. When I post a list of reasons why the ridiculous postulates that you persistently link to have no basis in fact, you post the response "blah blah blah blah blah" as an indication that you have not read the post and looked at the information contained in it. Both BrianK and myself have followed your links, examined the contents, investigated the claims, and given evidenced responses. The only one that resorts to insult and ad hominem attacks is the one who has occasionally been invited to take posting holidays. You know that we investigate your poatulates, you have even complained about it in the past. Quote: yep, attempt to discredit the source by indicating that the source must be insane for still asking for an answer that you have consistently failed to supply. If EM is the reason for planetary rotation, then how come the planets with discernible geomagnetic fields have the magnetic fields not aligned with the mechanical spin axis. (Actually it should be the other way of course, the spin axis should align itself with the magnetic field) The reason that I am still asking this is because it still demonstrates that there is a huge gap in your understanding of the limitations of EM in the universe. And in the unlikely event that you are able to successfully address this issue, I have lots of other questions that show the "Electric Universe" to be an untenable fantasy.

You like Einstein, right?

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html

Also, if you looked up how MRI imaging works like I asked you to, you'd realize how wrong you are about magnetic fields aligning. Keep preaching "science" from the 1800's though...

Last edited by Lou on 28-May-2013 at 09:36 PM.

@Lou

In what way doe MRI disprove that spin axis is aligned with field? The whole point of MRI is that you align the spin axis, then turn off the field and measure the decay on the alignment.

_________________
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.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @olegil Quote: olegil wrote: @olegil This is of course ignoring source and load impedances, which could necessitate an active solution using an op-amp. Or two. If you build it, I will buy it.

In this case, you building it is easier than me shipping it, so get to it. Buy the resistors I mentioned and a board for soldering stuff on, then I'll help you get it connected correctly

This IS wildly OT, I hope you realise.

_________________
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.

@Lou

Quote:

Meanwhile you have proven nothing.

Slight correction there. We've proven your claim of 'evidence' is nothing.

Quote:

Yes, I have DIRECTLY linked to websites that show this in the past. You put the troll-blinders on and pretend to not see them. Or simply say "I don't believe it".

Again lying? It's really becoming a habit for you. I've never said 'I don't believe it'. What I have said is your postulates fail against reality. And importantly given you the evidences from reality demonstrating the your belief's inconsistencies and incongruencies. Heck, I've even stacked up your varying claims like Haramein is right vs Brandenburg is right. Turned out what each says is not consistent with each other. Perhaps that's why you finally fessed up that you were lying about accepting Haramein?

Quote:

the table is the internet and you pretend my links don't exist since you have not argument against the material in them

You're right the table to Radiation Pressure is on the internet. In fact, I linked to it myself. What your view doesn't appear to understand is scale. There's a reason that radiation pressure makes up an iota of the trajectory calculations to satellites - it's because it only contributes an iota.

Quote:

Oh how clever "hollow science" yep, attempt to discredit the source, that goes back to debunking 101 when you can't argue the science

Yes I did give it a clever name. However, the rest of your point is but another lie. If you read past my first sentence you'll see how I commented on the science, or serve lack thereof, which is the case. I discarded because of the poor quality or really nearly complete lack of science, not any other reason.

Last edited by BrianK on 29-May-2013 at 02:31 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

You like Einstein, right? http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html

Is your source correct?

Other sources say - a variety of people say this for example: Ben Franklin and a Chinese Proverb

Even your quotes go to demonstrate that just because it's on a webpage doesn't mean it's real. Everyone still has to follow up on accurate and thorough evidence. That's what demonstrates it as correct.

According to Wikipedia: Insanity quote page the earliest documented source found was from 1980. About 25 years after Einstein's death.

...So is this Einstein? Display your evidence - what book or work of Einstein has this quote. Please cite Name, year of publication, company of publication, edition, and page. That way others can fact check your claim to evidence.

Last edited by BrianK on 29-May-2013 at 02:45 PM.

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @Lou In what way doe MRI disprove that spin axis is aligned with field? The whole point of MRI is that you align the spin axis, then turn off the field and measure the decay on the alignment.

It's not an alignment. It's a vector field consisting of the sum of both. As soon as one source goes away, the original is restored - what you call "decay on alignment". Saying they 'align' is just plain wrong and demonstrates an archaic view/knowledge. Close to the earth, the sun's magnetic field has little effect on the earth itself. Just like in a proton, applying a magnetic field doesn't re-orient the dipole orientation of the proton...just the outer edge of it's magnetic field. It takes a really strong magnetic field to actually re-orient the dipole particle completely. This is how an excessively strong magnet can be used to turn another metal into a permanent magnet. Otherwise you're only creating a temporary combined vector field.

Just one of the many problems with the 'facts from planet nimrod'...
Of course I'm just many readers of this thread eat up his posts like they are gospel...and gospel they are because all they are is faith in archaic knowledge.
I have chosen to ignore most of them because there's an old saying about arguing with nimrods...

Last edited by Lou on 29-May-2013 at 06:04 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 29-May-2013 at 06:03 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 29-May-2013 at 05:58 PM.