@olegil

Quote:

By your tone I expect you to now provide us with flashbacks to where your favourite postulates predicted this.

There's a not so subtle failure in logic just under the surface here. See, Lou embraced and tells us that Brandenburg's postulates are in fact the truth. (Of course he doesn't provide any evidence but does make this claim.) Lou, also, likes to tell us there are no constants, they're just there for convenience. However, reading Brandenburg one of his 'successes' is how he derives the CONSTANT Big G. (Which is totally useless because Lou knows constants don't exist.) Talk about some logical inconsistency there - embracing no-constants to be true while claiming a proof of a constant to be true.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @olegil Quote: By your tone I expect you to now provide us with flashbacks to where your favourite postulates predicted this. There's a not so subtle failure in logic just under the surface here. See, Lou embraced and tells us that Brandenburg's postulates are in fact the truth. (Of course he doesn't provide any evidence but does make this claim.) Lou, also, likes to tell us there are no constants, they're just there for convenience. However, reading Brandenburg one of his 'successes' is how he derives the CONSTANT Big G. (Which is totally useless because Lou knows constants don't exist.) Talk about some logical inconsistency there - embracing no-constants to be true while claiming a proof of a constant to be true.

I love how you make up the facts as you go along by putting words in my (and John Brandenburg's) mouth.

Keep up the good work, troll.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909004112.htm What? Another constant that's not constant? *shocker* /yawn Who would have thunk that constants change all the time... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110720085828.htm As has frequently been explained to you, the only true constant in science is the requirement to follow the evidence. As new and better evidence becomes available new and better theories are developed to match. This is the reason that there is the quote "The fine structure constant, and other fundamental constants, are absolutely central to our current theory of physics. If they really do vary, we'll need a better, deeper theory," in the first article. Also in the second article is the line "The constants, which range from relatively famous (the speed of light) to the fairly obscure (Wien frequency displacement law constant) are adjusted every four years in response to the latest scientific measurements and advances. " You may possibly remember a post of mine stating that the "value for π" has changed from 22/7 to a number exceeding one million decimal places of precision. Despite the constant changes to the value for π, it is not, never has been, and never will be true that π=42. It is only recently that we have been able to remotely measure such things to an accuracy of 0.0001% across the known universe, and we base these measurements and calculations on a theory that you do not yourself accept as being accurate, if GR is so flawed how can it be used to make accurate measurements across the observed universe. If you wish to demonstrate the superiority of your EM is god universe shouldnt you be linking to evidence that measures these constants to a greater degree of accuracy using measured radiation pressure figures from the distant galaxies, or the magnetic fields of non-magnetic rocks. Everywhere you look there is evidence of tiny variations and fluctuations that needs to be explained, but the theory that explains them does need to be better than the current theories

The only constant is that I can type 1 sentence and you will write a small novel to attempt to discredit that one sentence even if what you write about is completely irrelevant because you think that if you write enough CRAP some fool will see you as an authority and might actually believe your rhetoric.

Far be it from you and every other troll to go to the source of the article. After all, it tells you what you don't like to hear...

Last edited by Lou on 17-Jun-2013 at 09:17 PM.

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @Lou By your tone I expect you to now provide us with flashbacks to where your favourite postulates predicted this.

Even though you have been in this thread for a while, I stated A LONG TIME AGO that general relativity fails because it uses LOCAL 'good enough' constants to attempt to predict the rest of the universe.

You can search the archives yourself. I know what I said.

@Lou

Quote:

Even though you have been in this thread for a while, I stated A LONG TIME AGO that general relativity fails because it uses LOCAL 'good enough' constants to attempt to predict the rest of the universe.

And what level of accuracy is shown by the CRAP that you keep posting as being supposedly better than GR.
Nobody is claiming that GR is absolutely perfect, merely that it is better than all of the other contenders. When Brandenburg et al can produce maths that is able to to be used to spot a variation of 0.0001% across the entire observed universe they will only have matched GR. as it is most of the CRAP that you have posted isnt even good enough for local usage.

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

@Lou

Quote:

Even though you have been in this thread for a while, I stated A LONG TIME AGO that general relativity fails because it uses LOCAL 'good enough' constants to attempt to predict the rest of the universe.

Great! We all get why you believe GR to be wrong. The difficulty your having is you're yet to provide evidence that EM is any better. EM doesn't win by default. It is treated with exactly the same demands as anything else scientifically. It must demonstrate it's superiority and workability. You've yet to provide qualitatively or quantitatively superior evidence. Us accepting without demonstration is simply our faith in your faith. It's no proof of accuracy.

BTW. You spent lots of time telling us why you didn't have to bother with gravity's evidence. However, did you ever bother to read Kuhn or Popper I suggested? These two lead the philosophical writings/understanding about Paradigm Shifts in science.

Last edited by BrianK on 18-Jun-2013 at 09:05 PM.

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/features/science-news/is-nature-unnatural/

@Lou

Oh oh coming soon is a change in all cosmic distances. LINK - Short version is we can now more accurately measure distances.

@BrianK

Not sure if I understand here.

We know the distance through triangulation, but do we really know the size of the star? To use it as a standard candle for measuring distances I would think the size of it would be fairly important.

Edit:
Uhm. Distance is known, observed intensity is known, so from this you calculate real size. So that takes care of that. But to use this to calculate distance to other events I would think BOTH real size and observed size would needed to be known, otherwise you're just guessing.

Last edited by olegil on 21-Jun-2013 at 11:08 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

Quote:

We know the distance through triangulation, but do we really know the size of the star? To use it as a standard candle for measuring distances I would think the size of it would be fairly important. Edit: Uhm. Distance is known, observed intensity is known, so from this you calculate real size. So that takes care of that. But to use this to calculate distance to other events I would think BOTH real size and observed size would needed to be known, otherwise you're just guessing.

There's guessing and then there's estimation, which is using all available knowledge we have to determine the answer. Unfortunately we don't know everything in the universe. So we have to postulate, evidence, conclude in a never ending cyclic process. We call it science.

More directly there are 2 ways to handle distance. The triangulation measurement works. However, you need sufficient distance between the 2 known points in relation to the distant object. Triangulation works well for objects that are within our own galaxy.

As we aren't in the center of our solar system we could wait until we get to the 'otherside' and use triangulation between galaxies. That would take a few years (about 8 million). Needless to say the dinosaurs didn't do their job. They're fired. Instead what is used is the Hubble Law . What this law says is there's a linear relationship between redshift and distance. As we improve our knowledge of those exact measures we can improve the accuracy in the estimates.

Of course at some point everything is moving away and spinning. So to a certain degree there will be an error factor. For example, if we were in a distance galaxy trying to measure earth there'd be a +/- factor of about 150M KM, which is approximately the radius of our rotation. Compare that to the distance of the nearest solar system 11.7M light years. (A light year is roughly 10 trillion KM) that is fairly tiny error in the scheme of galactic distances.

Your head ages faster than your feet - Einstein's time delay measured within a foot.

@Lou

Belief in ET is akin to religious thought - a good read by Michael Shermer. He talks about your favorite TV shows - Ancient Aliens, favorite author - Van Daniken, and your favorite defenses - ad ignorantium and 'god' of the gaps. (Well in your case Aliens of the gaps.)

@BrianK
I was following a different debate elsewhere and I saw this.

Different discussion, same answer.

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

As I recall, some nimrod, among others, said beaming microwave energy wasn't possible as a method of using space satellites to beam energy around the globe as depicted on the History Channel's Ancient Aliens series....

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131107154818.htm
Yes a simpler version of what AlienScientist said is possible in 2008 as is alluded to in the article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcCLIwlbhLc

I've also been labeled a conspiracy theorist. Funny when one proves to be true...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden

Take your scientific method and shove it where it's only impossible until it actually happens... Keep living in denial...

Last edited by Lou on 30-Nov-2013 at 06:52 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Belief in ET is akin to religious thought - a good read by Michael Shermer. He talks about your favorite TV shows - Ancient Aliens, favorite author - Van Daniken, and your favorite defenses - ad ignorantium and 'god' of the gaps. (Well in your case Aliens of the gaps.)

Perhaps you should believe what people who've been to space say, rather than what you read in a book?

After all, religious beliefs come from books...

http://theviralpost.com/chris-hadfield-all-astronauts-believe-in-aliens/

@Lou
Lou, I have NEVER stated that energy transmission was impossible, nor have I ever claimed that EM does not exist so please stop reiterating the dishonest claim that I have.
You have consistently attempted to cite our current abilities to transmit low levels of energy at reasonably high levels of efficiency over a narrow range of frequencies as proof that Terawatts can be harvested at overunity levels from nowhere.
It doesn't matter how many improvements are made in energy harvesting technologies whether they capture solar energy, or "waste" RF energy transmitted from a local AM radio station, we cannot, and never will be able to harvest Zero Point energy as your original assertion tried to imply.
Incidentally the only reason that the reported improvements will ever achieve any success is because of the application of the scientific method, not by scrapping it. I notice that despite many claims that have been made to the contrary, I still cannot buy an anti-gravity car powered by a Mr Fusion cold fusion generator supplying the required one point twenty one jiggerwatts to the flux capacitor. When I can, please be so good as to let me know.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Lou, I have NEVER stated that energy transmission was impossible, nor have I ever claimed that EM does not exist so please stop reiterating the dishonest claim that I have. You have consistently attempted to cite our current abilities to transmit low levels of energy at reasonably high levels of efficiency over a narrow range of frequencies as proof that Terawatts can be harvested at overunity levels from nowhere. It doesn't matter how many improvements are made in energy harvesting technologies whether they capture solar energy, or "waste" RF energy transmitted from a local AM radio station, we cannot, and never will be able to harvest Zero Point energy as your original assertion tried to imply. Incidentally the only reason that the reported improvements will ever achieve any success is because of the application of the scientific method, not by scrapping it. I notice that despite many claims that have been made to the contrary, I still cannot buy an anti-gravity car powered by a Mr Fusion cold fusion generator supplying the required one point twenty one jiggerwatts to the flux capacitor. When I can, please be so good as to let me know.

You, you go out of your way to claim nothing and ridicule everything.

Remember when you said COLD FUSION was bogus science? You probably don't I'm sure...or that is what you'll claim anyway...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxeKeuh_2Bw

Funny to see NASA promoting it now...

Ever stop and think that you and BrianK are close-minded old foggies?
This is what happens when you get your science from the 10 o'clock news...

@Lou

Quote:

Remember when you said COLD FUSION was bogus science?

"Bogus science is not a term that I would use, so if I felt like being pedantic I could simply deny having made such a statement.
What I have commented about cold fusion is that it has never happened, there is no evidence of any successful cold fusion experiments and there is unlikely to be any successful demonstration of cold fusion in the forseeable future. The fact that NASA may be studying the claims of kitchen sink experimenters does not mean that the concept has been proven.
Any way, wasn't somebody called Rossi supposed to be about to start manufacturing these things last year? Can I buy one yet?

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Remember when you said COLD FUSION was bogus science? "Bogus science is not a term that I would use, so if I felt like being pedantic I could simply deny having made such a statement. What I have commented about cold fusion is that it has never happened, there is no evidence of any successful cold fusion experiments and there is unlikely to be any successful demonstration of cold fusion in the forseeable future. The fact that NASA may be studying the claims of kitchen sink experimenters does not mean that the concept has been proven. Any way, wasn't somebody called Rossi supposed to be about to start manufacturing these things last year? Can I buy one yet?

Wrong. It has happened, you just refuse to believe the evidence as usual.

For example: the NANOR device at MIT

@Lou

Evidence for cold fusion must include:
1: radiation (even if neutrons are absorbed, the absorbing still will cause radiation of some sort).
2: fused product. That is, you put one sort of atom in and get another sort of atom out.

To date, neither of these has been showed by any muon-less cold fusion. Without these, there simply is no fusion involved.

Heck, I would even go as far as being interested if it can be showed that point 2 has taken place. Sadly, no evidence as of yet.

_________________
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.