@Lou

As usual, your phrasing makes it seem like you're making a point without actually making the point.

So, comet hit gas giant. This we agree on.
Comet went splat while gas giant wasn't really affected more than some waves and some temporary brown spots. Can we agree on that?



Given that "gas giant" is really a term for "large planet made out of helium, hydrogen or other stuff _that would be a gas on earth_" I don't see any sort of "woooo" moment here. Also, given that stuff falling from space down towards planets routinely burn up in the atmosphere I really don't know what you would have expected to happen.

Jupiter is expected to have a rocky core surrounded by a metallic layer of hydrogen (and possibly another metallic layer of helium), surrounded by layers of liquid hydrogen/helium/water surrounded by the atmosphere which is all we've been able to study so far. Shoemaker-Levy probably never reached anything more than gas.

_________________
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.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: EM. Anyone else shocked? Pun intended. After all, only EM has the power to move the earth. You really need to stop putting the cart in front of the horse and learn the difference between cause and effect. Get a geologist to explain plate tectonics to you, you may then realise that ionisation that sometimes occurs in the region of seismic activity is an explanation for "lights in the sky" that do not [I]involve little green men. [/I]

You say chicken, I say egg.
I love when you have nothing else to say you always turn to mockery/belittlement. What's the matter, run out of math? Speaking of math, did you enjoy the math regarding the [LMAO] 'mass' of the electron? Oh, that essentially also proves that 'mass' is an EM property, but I digress...

Quote:

Quote: RP shielding explains the mass defect in the nucleus of an atom. If that is the case you will be able to post a link to the peer reviewed equations that demonstrate the assertion to be accurate.

You love glossing over details. At the bottom of the page I linked, it clearly states that the paper was submitted to 3, three, III, trois journals in 2010.

Quote:

Quote: EMRP Gravity Theory eliminates dark matter If that is the case you will be able to post a link to the peer reviewed equations that demonstrate the assertion to be accurate. The reason that GR can be shown to be incomplete is that GR makes precise predictions. These predictions have been shown by scientists to be inaccurate according to our current state of knowledge. The scientists haven't just been sitting around doing nothing since the late 1970's, and neither have engineers. Due to the precision of the observations further predictions were made as to where the "missing" energy and matter could be found. As a result some of the "missing" components are already being exposed using equipment that engineers build for scientists, under the direction of scientists to advance science. Now that we know where to look for them, dark matter and energy are being revealed that help to fill the gaps. Feel free to post the mathematical equations that can explain using RP, why these two stars are not heading away from each other. According to your hypothesis the stars in SDSS J0651 should indeed be moving directly away from each other, yet they will soon merge. Or is it that they just don't believe, because their school books are old I am not denying the existence of RP, we know the RP of intergalactic space from calculations, we will soon be getting direct measurements of the RP of interstellar space to match and confirm the calculations for the RP of interstellar space, and we know what the RP from the Sun is on the Earth and at the point at which the RP from the sun drops below the level of interstellar RP. We can even calculate how much smaller the diameter of the sun would be were it not for the RP within the sun.

I can see you're getting desperate... Here's some experimental proof, submitted to the General Science Journal that 'gravity' comes from radiation pressure:
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/physics/borg3.pdf
I'll ignore your useless examples that proves nothing.

Let me summarize what you believe:
Universe = crap energy THEORY + crap matter THEORY + general relativity THEORY = CRAP THEORY
Yet - you call what I accept CRAP when you are covered in it even though I (above) have provided details of experimental evidence. You sir are full of crap.

Quote:

Quote: A comet went straight into Jupiter in 1994. Jupiter laughed. I posted pictures making this point over a year ago. Yes Lou, you posted information about a comet hitting a gas giant There is a (not very) subtle hint in the text of the article " the effects of the comet impacts on Jupiter's atmosphere have been simply spectacular"

Amazing! You accept the word 'spectacular' as scientific evidence that PROVES Jupiter is mostly gas. I'm pretty if I threw a dirty snowball thru a ball of gas[heck, or liquid], that the ball would deform...call me crazy...

Quote:

Quote: His youtube account is: AlienScientist And the relevance of this earth-shattering revelation is? So now we know his name, So what. I know that you learn something every day, but why can't it be something useful? To me he will always be Richard Cranium (abbreviated to dick head)

A shame that this young scientist, whom I reference often, is getting acclaim in a field you denounce and here you are always belittling him.
It's blatantly obvious what's happening here. You probably believe your own bull crap, but I'm pretty sure casual readers will eventually catch on to you...

Last edited by Lou on 11-Jan-2014 at 12:11 AM.

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @Lou As usual, your phrasing makes it seem like you're making a point without actually making the point. So, comet hit gas giant. This we agree on. Comet went splat while gas giant wasn't really affected more than some waves and some temporary brown spots. Can we agree on that? Given that "gas giant" is really a term for "large planet made out of helium, hydrogen or other stuff _that would be a gas on earth_" I don't see any sort of "woooo" moment here. Also, given that stuff falling from space down towards planets routinely burn up in the atmosphere I really don't know what you would have expected to happen. Jupiter is expected to have a rocky core surrounded by a metallic layer of hydrogen (and possibly another metallic layer of helium), surrounded by layers of liquid hydrogen/helium/water surrounded by the atmosphere which is all we've been able to study so far. Shoemaker-Levy probably never reached anything more than gas.

It's the diameter of the rocky core we are questioning here. To be considered a gas giant, that core can't be too big or else general relativity epically fails...even though we know it does already... If the atmosphere of Jupiter is thousands and thousands of miles deep, to get it's average density down to a 'gas giant', it should have deformed. Earth is a small planet and 75% of it's (the atmosphere) [LOL] 'mass' is within 6.8 miles from the surface. You can claim 'we don't know' but when we clearly see GR has holes in it, why do you simply accept Jupiter as a gas giant?

The simplest explanation is usually the best one. EMRP = Gravity is the simplest and does away with all the holes in GR from the galactic scale down to the nucleus of the atom.

It's amusing to see a random nimrod unable to disprove EMRP and accept GR with all it's flaws as 'the bible' of science. What's more amusing is the plaguristic author of GR constantly scoffed at QM ... and we all know how that's turning out...

Last edited by Lou on 11-Jan-2014 at 07:39 AM.
Last edited by Lou on 11-Jan-2014 at 12:33 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

You say chicken, I say egg. I love when you have nothing else to say you always turn to mockery/belittlement. What's the matter, run out of math?

And I suppose that you will try to tell me that your car moves along the ground because of the powerful thrust coming out of your tail pipe.

Quote:

You love glossing over details. At the bottom of the page I linked, it clearly states that the paper was submitted to 3, three, III, trois journals in 2010.

And were these journals ever read by scientists and subsequently subjected to peer review. Did they then pass the peer review process and obtain further scientific study When Peter Higgs proposed his ideas about a boson as the explanation for mass, he published his ideas in a scientific journal after it had already been reviewed. As a consequence of survival of the now widening review process a series of experiments were undertaken culminating with the ones at CERN that led to Higgs getting a prize for his efforts.
Do you honestly think that they would have gone to all of that effort for something that could be demonstrated to be false in less than five minutes?
And what "Engineer Borg" submitted was not evidence. What constitutes evidence is having the actual measured levels of radiation pressure, and having demonstrable stars behaving in a manner that contradicts the predictions made by your pet hypothesis. Your habit of ignoring evidence is what lets you down eleven times out of ten.
Feel free to compare the levels of precision required in scientific experiments to Borgs use of off the shelf bearings and housings smoothed using a hand held dremel and using blobs of blu-tack. He claims a precision of about 0.1 gramme (I doubt he succeeded) when, thirty five years ago I was working to levels of 0.1 microgramme.

Quote:

A shame that this young scientist, whom I reference often, is getting acclaim in a field you denounce and here you are always belittling him.

Your Mr Head belittles himself without requiring any assistance from me. He is neither an alien nor a scientist. I will however freely admit that science is a concept that is alien to him.

Quote:

If the atmosphere of Jupiter is thousands and thousands of miles deep, to get it's average density down to a 'gas giant', it should have deformed

Assuming for the moment that there were no solid core the atmosphere of Jupiter would be 44,423 miles deep. Even without a rocky core atmospheric pressure would create a solid core, surrounded by liquid metallic Hydrogen. Gravitational forces seek to maintain Jupiter as a perfect sphere, with its rate of rotation producing a slight bulge at the equator. The difference between radiation pressure on the sunward side and the night side does not produce any measurable distortion in the shape of the planet away from the Sun, helping to discount the RP C.R.A.P. that regularly gets touted by the willingly ignorant.
You want to displace GR, then find something BETTER

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

@Lou

Ok, I'll bite.

For each in GR,RP do:
what's the predicted depth of Jupiters atmosphere, and how far down would Shoemaker-Levy have needed to pass through an atmosphere to have behaved like it did.

The trophosphere alone has been measured to be about 182 km deep (sorry, I don't work in imperial units).

And if you go back to what you quoted again, you'll see you're using a different definition of "gas giant" than what science does. It's not about being gassy, it's about being made up of elements which are not rocks.

Some divide our planets into gas / rocks, others add a third type, ice. Uranus and Neptune consist of gas around water, ammonia and methane ice around a small rocky core, while Jupiter and Saturn consist of hydrogen/helium in gas form around metallic hydrogen around a rocky core.

I don't know where you come from, but this is not the same as being a fluffy cloud of hydrogen that a comet can pass right through.

_________________
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.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: You say chicken, I say egg. I love when you have nothing else to say you always turn to mockery/belittlement. What's the matter, run out of math? And I suppose that you will try to tell me that your car moves along the ground because of the powerful thrust coming out of your tail pipe.

Yes, deflect the subject with inconsequential attempt at false logical humor!

Quote:

Quote: You love glossing over details. At the bottom of the page I linked, it clearly states that the paper was submitted to 3, three, III, trois journals in 2010. And were these journals ever read by scientists and subsequently subjected to peer review. Did they then pass the peer review process and obtain further scientific study When Peter Higgs proposed his ideas about a boson as the explanation for mass, he published his ideas in a scientific journal after it had already been reviewed. As a consequence of survival of the now widening review process a series of experiments were undertaken culminating with the ones at CERN that led to Higgs getting a prize for his efforts. Do you honestly think that they would have gone to all of that effort for something that could be demonstrated to be false in less than five minutes? And what "Engineer Borg" submitted was not evidence. What constitutes evidence is having the actual measured levels of radiation pressure, and having demonstrable stars behaving in a manner that contradicts the predictions made by your pet hypothesis. Your habit of ignoring evidence is what lets you down eleven times out of ten. Feel free to compare the levels of precision required in scientific experiments to Borgs use of off the shelf bearings and housings smoothed using a hand held dremel and using blobs of blu-tack. He claims a precision of about 0.1 gramme (I doubt he succeeded) when, thirty five years ago I was working to levels of 0.1 microgramme.

Here's the long and short of it:
papers submitted by a self-admitted nimrod: 0
papers submitted by scientists I accepted: infinity

You sir, reflect your username.

Quote:

Quote: A shame that this young scientist, whom I reference often, is getting acclaim in a field you denounce and here you are always belittling him. Your Mr Head belittles himself without requiring any assistance from me. He is neither an alien nor a scientist. I will however freely admit that science is a concept that is alien to him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discredit
I see a mirror and you're looking into it.

Quote:

Quote: If the atmosphere of Jupiter is thousands and thousands of miles deep, to get it's average density down to a 'gas giant', it should have deformed Assuming for the moment that there were no solid core the atmosphere of Jupiter would be 44,423 miles deep. Even without a rocky core atmospheric pressure would create a solid core, surrounded by liquid metallic Hydrogen. Gravitational forces seek to maintain Jupiter as a perfect sphere, with its rate of rotation producing a slight bulge at the equator. The difference between radiation pressure on the sunward side and the night side does not produce any measurable distortion in the shape of the planet away from the Sun, helping to discount the RP C.R.A.P. that regularly gets touted by the willingly ignorant. You want to displace GR, then find something BETTER

[/quote]
I have found something better but your pigeon brain won't accept it.

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @Lou Ok, I'll bite. For each in GR,RP do: what's the predicted depth of Jupiters atmosphere, and how far down would Shoemaker-Levy have needed to pass through an atmosphere to have behaved like it did. The trophosphere alone has been measured to be about 182 km deep (sorry, I don't work in imperial units). And if you go back to what you quoted again, you'll see you're using a different definition of "gas giant" than what science does. It's not about being gassy, it's about being made up of elements which are not rocks. Some divide our planets into gas / rocks, others add a third type, ice. Uranus and Neptune consist of gas around water, ammonia and methane ice around a small rocky core, while Jupiter and Saturn consist of hydrogen/helium in gas form around metallic hydrogen around a rocky core. I don't know where you come from, but this is not the same as being a fluffy cloud of hydrogen that a comet can pass right through.

You ignore the fact that Earth is a liquid minority.
Even a liquid giant would deform more than Jupiter did.
As for the math, Blazelabs.com provides it so why bother me with your petty requests? When are you going to realize that there is a cap on 'gravity' and GR requires you to change the density so that the [LOL] 'mass' fits the equation?
It's already been proven to you that [LOL] 'mass' is a property of EM when the [LOL] 'mass' of an electron is the energy of a standing wave with the diameter of an electron. Why is it that you and most every other nimrod on the planet can't put 1 and 1 together? If a mass defect exists in the nucleus of an atom, what do you call a large body of [LOL] 'mass' with a 'mass defect'. I'd call it a 'gas giant'. For a smaller [LOL] 'mass' like Neptune or Uranus, I'd call it 'ice giants' and for smaller [LOL] 'masses' they coincidentally are 'rocky worlds'... Why is it that as diameter grows the 'apparent' density of celestial entities goes down? Well, unless you're a 'black hole' then you have this imaginary 'event horizon'. It's like black freakin magic - you go about gaining diameter and gaining mass but all along losing density and the BOOM, your like way the frack smaller and you're like a freaking black mother freaking hole emitting Xrays from your accredation disc, or you're a star and emitting light......which also includes X-rays since, FYI, X rays are a subset of light.

I preface 'mass' with [LOL] because 'mass' is a joke. Mass is energy and energy is a wave. To think in terms of mass and GR is a joke and akin to the preschool of real physics. Grow the frak up.

I will summarize your 'accepted physics':
Santa Claus brings you on presents on Dec 25th... But any other time you receive presents it was because of your parents with the exception of the occasional tooth fairy.

I just want to know: at what point do I prove something to you or at what point that you, for yourself, realize the 'accepted physics', like religion, has dealt you the wrong card and that all your beliefs are made up to justify your initial wrong turn?

Last edited by Lou on 12-Jan-2014 at 06:04 AM.
Last edited by Lou on 12-Jan-2014 at 05:50 AM.
Last edited by Lou on 12-Jan-2014 at 05:42 AM.
Last edited by Lou on 12-Jan-2014 at 05:37 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

Yes, deflect the subject with inconsequential attempt at false logical humor!

There was no humour contained in my response, and the difference between levels of energy between exhaust thrust/drive power compared with lightshow/plate tectonics hugely favoured your argument. If you doubt this, shine your car headlampsa at a brick wall and see how long it takes for them to push it over. I will repeat a question I asked you a long time ago, what size magnetic field do you need to lift a 1kG block of granite against the Earths gravity? It should be easy for you to calculate since you have all of the evidence from your Mr Richard Cranium.

Quote:

Here's the long and short of it: papers submitted by a self-admitted nimrod: 0 papers submitted by scientists I accepted: infinity

Firstly you have no idea how many papers I may, or may not have submitted, but if you choose to guess at zero then that is your prerogative. Your Dick Head has not submitted an infinite number of papers but assume for the moment that he has, that makes his success rate for acceptance among the actual real scientific community who do real science and advance the levels of human knowledge, zero/infinity, somewhat less than my own assumed zero/assumed zero, which equals unity. All of my submitted papers have been accepted It doesn't matter whether you accept somebodys output or not, The scientific community chose to spend money on CERN following the evidence for Higgs while ignoring all of the CRAP that you keep dredging up.

Do you know who classified the original Nimrod as a foolish man? Religious acolytes who resented him for not accepting their made up stories, that's who. People just like you, in fact.

Quote:

I have found something better but your pigeon brain won't accept it.

so explain again your story about how two light spheres in a dark box will move apart, and then tell me why these stars are due to merge instead of separating at a significant portion of speed c. Then explain why planets orbit around stars instead of being pushed to points equidistant from strong outputs of radiation pressure(stars)

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discredit I see a mirror and you're looking into it.

Feel free to check how often I have been required to take a holiday for making personal attacks i.e. abusive posts/name calling. All I do is point out the flaws in your "logic", they are usually pretty obvious if you bother to do a little research. You have heard about research, it's that thing that you don't like me doing.

Quote:

Even a liquid giant would deform more than Jupiter did.

And I suppose that you have the mathematics to support your assertion? No? I thought not. Jupiter is not a liquid giant, it is a Gas giant. We know this because remote sensing equipment has taken measurements of the atmosphere

Quote:

As for the math, Blazelabs.com provides it so why bother me with your petty requests?

Blazelabs.com provides no mathematics that have any valid relationship with science. There is better science included in the technobabble spouted in episodes of Star Trek. Actually even Star Wars is more scientific than Blazelabs.
Quote:

t's already been proven to you that [LOL] 'mass' is a property of EM

Usual question, when & where. Don't just assert, include evidence

Concerning your inane rant about mass, volume, and density I will simply ask why does a ton of Hydrogen have a lower density than a ton of Lead. Answer to be in terms of their EM properties.

Quote:

I just want to know: at what point do I prove something to you or at what point that you, for yourself, realize the 'accepted physics', like religion, has dealt you the wrong card and that all your beliefs are made up to justify your initial wrong turn?

That is an easy one. When you provide EVIDENCE that you have come up with something BETTER, instead of the C.R.A.P. that you are in the habit of pretending has something to do with science.
All you have done is religiously claim that since science doesn't corroborate the Gospel according to the holy prophet Sitchin, then science must be wrong. To support your hypothesis you have given us pictures of reflections of the sun, pictures of stars taken through a radio telescope, gaps in Google sky, Brandenburg regurgitating Kaluza-Klein, Mensur Omerbashich whose theories were "stolen" by a conspiracy between USPS and RCMP, N.K.Shah, who has a problem with his caps lock key, Nassim Haramein, and an entire supporting cast of frauds, fakers, and snake oil salesmen.
What you have failed to provide is evidence.

Last edited by Nimrod on 13-Jan-2014 at 11:46 AM.

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

@Nimrod

I love when you post like this.
It's obvious you have no real counter to my recent postings so you are resorting to new levels of pettiness, insults and mockery.

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Yes, deflect the subject with inconsequential attempt at false logical humor! There was no humour contained in my response, and the difference between levels of energy between exhaust thrust/drive power compared with lightshow/plate tectonics hugely favoured your argument. If you doubt this, shine your car headlampsa at a brick wall and see how long it takes for them to push it over. I will repeat a question I asked you a long time ago, what size magnetic field do you need to lift a 1kG block of granite against the Earths gravity? It should be easy for you to calculate since you have all of the evidence from your Mr Richard Cranium.

Yep, another deflected question with petty insults to boot. Running out of math?

Quote:

Quote: Here's the long and short of it: papers submitted by a self-admitted nimrod: 0 papers submitted by scientists I accepted: infinity Firstly you have no idea how many papers I may, or may not have submitted, but if you choose to guess at zero then that is your prerogative. Your Dick Head has not submitted an infinite number of papers but assume for the moment that he has, that makes his success rate for acceptance among the actual real scientific community who do real science and advance the levels of human knowledge, zero/infinity, somewhat less than my own assumed zero/assumed zero, which equals unity. All of my submitted papers have been accepted It doesn't matter whether you accept somebodys output or not, The scientific community chose to spend money on CERN following the evidence for Higgs while ignoring all of the CRAP that you keep dredging up.

In some schools of math, 0/0 = 1. We now know the basis of yours.

Quote:

Do you know who classified the original Nimrod as a foolish man? Religious acolytes who resented him for not accepting their made up stories, that's who. People just like you, in fact.

You're the only religious acolyte I see here. You cling to the plagurisms of a man who admitted he was wrong and sought what others have done: unification of the forces.

Quote:

Quote: I have found something better but your pigeon brain won't accept it. so explain again your story about how two light spheres in a dark box will move apart, and then tell me why these stars are due to merge instead of separating at a significant portion of speed c. Then explain why planets orbit around stars instead of being pushed to points equidistant from strong outputs of radiation pressure(stars)

Why do you keep bringing up your false logic? And link to musings of other worshippers of your false logic? Anything you can explain with the logical fallacy you think is a separate force can be explained with EMRP.
You bring NOTHING to the table.

Quote:

Quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discredit I see a mirror and you're looking into it. Feel free to check how often I have been required to take a holiday for making personal attacks i.e. abusive posts/name calling. All I do is point out the flaws in your "logic", they are usually pretty obvious if you bother to do a little research. You have heard about research, it's that thing that you don't like me doing.

LOL, we all know that is merely a reflection of your manhood, or rather, your lack there of. I enjoy the holiday. It means I got in your head.

Quote:

Quote: Even a liquid giant would deform more than Jupiter did. And I suppose that you have the mathematics to support your assertion? No? I thought not. Jupiter is not a liquid giant, it is a Gas giant. We know this because remote sensing equipment has taken measurements of the atmosphere

We know nothing until something or someone lands there. Just models based on theory.

Quote:

Quote: As for the math, Blazelabs.com provides it so why bother me with your petty requests? Blazelabs.com provides no mathematics that have any valid relationship with science. There is better science included in the technobabble spouted in episodes of Star Trek. Actually even Star Wars is more scientific than Blazelabs.

Right. So just dismiss all the experimental evidence they have on the site because this NIMROD says so.

Quote:

Quote: t's already been proven to you that [LOL] 'mass' is a property of EM Usual question, when & where. Don't just assert, include evidence

Even the plaguristic preacher you worship said as much, but in your senility, I understand how quickly you forget...

Quote:

Concerning your inane rant about mass, volume, and density I will simply ask why does a ton of Hydrogen have a lower density than a ton of Lead. Answer to be in terms of their EM properties.

Why does the price of tea in China fluctuate?
You dodge questions that challenge your beliefs then waste my time with irrelevant ones. Good tactic.

Quote:

Quote: I just want to know: at what point do I prove something to you or at what point that you, for yourself, realize the 'accepted physics', like religion, has dealt you the wrong card and that all your beliefs are made up to justify your initial wrong turn? That is an easy one. When you provide EVIDENCE that you have come up with something BETTER, instead of the C.R.A.P. that you are in the habit of pretending has something to do with science.

You are the emperor with no clothes...and we also see no gonads. We have EVIDENCE that says GR is broken. The same man who plagurized it said QM is not correct - yet it is more correct and less broken than GR. Why don't you provide evidence of GR working properly outside of local space and within the nucleus of the atom?

Quote:

All you have done is religiously claim that since science doesn't corroborate the Gospel according to the holy prophet Sitchin, then science must be wrong. To support your hypothesis you have given us pictures of reflections of the sun, pictures of stars taken through a radio telescope, gaps in Google sky, Brandenburg regurgitating Kaluza-Klein, Mensur Omerbashich whose theories were "stolen" by a conspiracy between USPS and RCMP, N.K.Shah, who has a problem with his caps lock key, Nassim Haramein, and an entire supporting cast of frauds, fakers, and snake oil salesmen. What you have failed to provide is evidence.

In your own senile brain, that is...
It's no secret things of our scale interact mechanically with QM:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140109092008.htm
Remember, contrary to your pope [Einstein]: QM is real and GR is just a local paradigm with too many fixed parameters.

Last edited by Lou on 15-Jan-2014 at 03:29 AM.
Last edited by Lou on 15-Jan-2014 at 03:28 AM.

Oh look. Another young scientist I've referenced in the past gets a paper published:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgjINXby-rQ

@Lou

Quote:

You're the only religious acolyte I see here. You cling to the plagiarisms of a man who admitted he was wrong and sought what others have done: unification of the forces.

So who managed to produce an acceptable Grand Unification Theory, when did they do it and did they get the Nobel yet? Or is it just another figment of your overactive imagination?

Quote:

We know nothing until something or someone lands there. Just models based on theory.

Nobody has stretched a tape between here and the Sun so how far away is it? Nobody has stretched a tape around the moon, so how do we know its diameter? You don't even know enough about mathematics to be able to grasp the exponential function, yet you feel qualified to type rubbish about scientific use of indirect measuring methodology. We do not need to poke a thermometer into the sun in order to measure how hot it is, and by using the full spectrum of EM we can look into the atmosphere of Jupiter to determine its composition. Please note that the term is measure Jupiter, not move Jupiter.

Quote:

Right. So just dismiss all the experimental evidence they have on the site because this NIMROD says so.

Was that supposed to be his experiment? I am so sorry, it's just that my kids bought better than that home from pre-school classes. Compare his lashups with what they have at CERN.

Quote:

Even the plaguristic preacher you worship said as much, but in your senility, I understand how quickly you forget...

First learn how to spell plagiarist, or at least use a spell checker, if the English language is too difficult for you. Next, I couldn't give a toss for what people say, I follow the evidence that they present. This is why I do not accept your assertions but require e v i d e n c e , something that you have never yet provided.

Quote:

We have EVIDENCE that says GR is broken.

Yes Lou, I know that GR does not answer all of the questions. I also know that GR has shown evidence of gaps in human knowledge. Newtons theories did the same thing, and when his calculations were applied to the orbit of Mercury it became obvious that we needed something better than Newton. That "something better" was Einsteins GR, not any of the other competing theories of the day. We now need to either fill the gaps or come up with something even better than GR. So far we have had more success at filling the gaps than finding a better theory. QM is brilliant at the sub-atomic and molecular scale, but fails in the median and macro scale, while GR works in the median and macro scales and we are filling the gaps that have become apparent on the super macro scale, it does as you say break down at sub atomic levels. Unfortunately there is as yet no "Theory of Everything", and no "Grand Unifying Theory". Brandenburg has built his dream on Kaluza-Klein, which is the scientific equivalent of polishing a turd. Ether physics went the way of Phlogiston Chemistry, and Astrology.

Quote:

Remember, contrary to your pope [Einstein]: QM is real and GR is just a local paradigm with too many fixed parameters.

Remember, I follow the E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E. not the name. Regardless of what the name is. (Mrs?) Einstein provided evidence for GR, and Alberts later "retraction" was unevidenced.

Quote:

Oh look. Another young scientist I've referenced in the past gets a paper published:

Yeah, J. K. Rowling got published too, doesn't mean waving a stick and talking Latin will make things happen.

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

@Nimrod

What? No Dick Head joke? Roll out the maturity carpet!

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: You're the only religious acolyte I see here. You cling to the plagiarisms of a man who admitted he was wrong and sought what others have done: unification of the forces. So who managed to produce an acceptable Grand Unification Theory, when did they do it and did they get the Nobel yet? Or is it just another figment of your overactive imagination? Quote: We know nothing until something or someone lands there. Just models based on theory. Nobody has stretched a tape between here and the Sun so how far away is it? Nobody has stretched a tape around the moon, so how do we know its diameter? You don't even know enough about mathematics to be able to grasp the exponential function, yet you feel qualified to type rubbish about scientific use of indirect measuring methodology. We do not need to poke a thermometer into the sun in order to measure how hot it is, and by using the full spectrum of EM we can look into the atmosphere of Jupiter to determine its composition. Please note that the term is measure Jupiter, not move Jupiter. Quote: Right. So just dismiss all the experimental evidence they have on the site because this NIMROD says so. Was that supposed to be his experiment? I am so sorry, it's just that my kids bought better than that home from pre-school classes. Compare his lashups with what they have at CERN. Quote: Even the plaguristic preacher you worship said as much, but in your senility, I understand how quickly you forget... First learn how to spell plagiarist, or at least use a spell checker, if the English language is too difficult for you. Next, I couldn't give a toss for what people say, I follow the evidence that they present. This is why I do not accept your assertions but require e v i d e n c e , something that you have never yet provided. Quote: We have EVIDENCE that says GR is broken. Yes Lou, I know that GR does not answer all of the questions. I also know that GR has shown evidence of gaps in human knowledge. Newtons theories did the same thing, and when his calculations were applied to the orbit of Mercury it became obvious that we needed something better than Newton. That "something better" was Einsteins GR, not any of the other competing theories of the day. We now need to either fill the gaps or come up with something even better than GR. So far we have had more success at filling the gaps than finding a better theory. QM is brilliant at the sub-atomic and molecular scale, but fails in the median and macro scale, while GR works in the median and macro scales and we are filling the gaps that have become apparent on the super macro scale, it does as you say break down at sub atomic levels. Unfortunately there is as yet no "Theory of Everything", and no "Grand Unifying Theory". Brandenburg has built his dream on Kaluza-Klein, which is the scientific equivalent of polishing a turd. Ether physics went the way of Phlogiston Chemistry, and Astrology. Quote: Remember, contrary to your pope [Einstein]: QM is real and GR is just a local paradigm with too many fixed parameters. Remember, I follow the E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E. not the name. Regardless of what the name is. (Mrs?) Einstein provided evidence for GR, and Alberts later "retraction" was unevidenced. Quote: Oh look. Another young scientist I've referenced in the past gets a paper published: Yeah, J. K. Rowling got published too, doesn't mean waving a stick and talking Latin will make things happen.

When you have EVIDENCE that relativity is correct, do come back with something of substance.


Nimrod's approach to evidence contradicting his religious worship of Einstein:

@Lou

Quote:

When you have EVIDENCE that relativity is correct, do come back with something of substance.

Relativity is still the best fit until something better comes along. I know that GR does not answer all of the questions. I also know that GR has shown evidence of gaps in human knowledge. Newtons theories did the same thing, and when his calculations were applied to the orbit of Mercury it became obvious that we needed something better than Newton. That "something better" was Einsteins GR, not any of the other competing theories of the day. We now need to either fill the gaps or come up with something even better than GR. So far we have had more success at filling the gaps than finding a better theory. QM is brilliant at the sub-atomic and molecular scale, but fails in the median and macro scale, while GR works in the median and macro scales and we are filling the gaps that have become apparent on the super macro scale, it does as you say break down at sub atomic levels. Unfortunately there is as yet no "Theory of Everything", and no "Grand Unifying Theory". Brandenburg has built his dream on Kaluza-Klein, which is the scientific equivalent of polishing a turd. Ether physics went the way of Phlogiston Chemistry, and Astrology.

Quote:

Nimrod's approach to evidence contradicting his religious worship of Einstein

Remember, I follow the E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E. not the name. Regardless of what the name is. (Mrs?) Einstein provided evidence for GR, and Alberts later "retraction" was unevidenced. If I worshipped at the "Altar of Einstein" wouldn't I also blindly follow his "retraction" even though the evidence supported GR. If I held fast to the creed "God doesn't play dice with the world." why do I accept the stochastic nature of radioactive decay that you still fail to understand, and why am I able to apply chaos theory and recognise that there is a difference between random and chaotic data.

It is not true that I am unaware of the existence of your fantasies, it is true that I am also aware of the failings that your fantasies have as an inbuilt feature, and I consequently treat them with the respect that they deserve. Their hypotheses would only be of use if printed on soft paper.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: When you have EVIDENCE that relativity is correct, do come back with something of substance. Relativity is still the best fit until something better comes along. I know that GR does not answer all of the questions. I also know that GR has shown evidence of gaps in human knowledge. Newtons theories did the same thing, and when his calculations were applied to the orbit of Mercury it became obvious that we needed something better than Newton. That "something better" was Einsteins GR, not any of the other competing theories of the day. We now need to either fill the gaps or come up with something even better than GR. So far we have had more success at filling the gaps than finding a better theory. QM is brilliant at the sub-atomic and molecular scale, but fails in the median and macro scale, while GR works in the median and macro scales and we are filling the gaps that have become apparent on the super macro scale, it does as you say break down at sub atomic levels. Unfortunately there is as yet no "Theory of Everything", and no "Grand Unifying Theory". Brandenburg has built his dream on Kaluza-Klein, which is the scientific equivalent of polishing a turd. Ether physics went the way of Phlogiston Chemistry, and Astrology. Quote: Nimrod's approach to evidence contradicting his religious worship of Einstein Remember, I follow the E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E. not the name. Regardless of what the name is. (Mrs?) Einstein provided evidence for GR, and Alberts later "retraction" was unevidenced. If I worshipped at the "Altar of Einstein" wouldn't I also blindly follow his "retraction" even though the evidence supported GR. If I held fast to the creed "God doesn't play dice with the world." why do I accept the stochastic nature of radioactive decay that you still fail to understand, and why am I able to apply chaos theory and recognise that there is a difference between random and chaotic data. It is not true that I am unaware of the existence of your fantasies, it is true that I am also aware of the failings that your fantasies have as an inbuilt feature, and I consequently treat them with the respect that they deserve. Their hypotheses would only be of use if printed on soft paper.

Your post proves what a hypocrite you are.
"Best fit" means wrong as a whole. Evidence has proven this already.
Every HOLE in GR is explained by EMRP. GR is a subset of EMRP, one with many fixed parameters for 'relatively' local space.
Mass is energy in a volume. Energy is just a measure of EM.
You're here just to troll.

Last edited by Lou on 18-Jan-2014 at 07:51 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

"Best fit" means wrong as a whole. Evidence has proven this already.

Best fit means exactly what it says, namely that there is not a better explanation There wasn't one when (Mrs?)Einstein originally published, and there still isn't one now.
For example, 150 years ago Darwins theory of evolution was the best explanation given the facts available. Since 1859 new sciences of molecular biology and genetics have appeared and have bought fresh evidence to the table. Without Darwins theory we could never have worked out where the gaps were that became evident once the evidence was examined. Any time in the intervening time a new discovery could have overturned Darwins hypotheses, but instead the new discoveries have filled the gaps and strengthened the original theory. Einsteins GR is currently going through the same process, and despite your baseless assertions it still remains the best fit, and is actually a better fit than it was originally because many of its predictions have indeed been confirmed since the original publication.

Quote:

Every HOLE in GR is explained by EMRP.

You keep making this claim, but you have never yet provided a single scrap of EVIDENCE to support your claims. Once you show the EVIDENCE supporting your claim that tiny amounts of RP pushing the planet away from the sun is the reason that the planet is attracted towards the sun, I will stop thinking that your hypothesis is as reasonable as an ant picking up an elephant and carrying it off.

If Radiation Pressure is pushing stuff away from stars, why do planets orbit around stars rather than clustering at points equidistant from them?
If two glowing spheres in a dark box will move away from each other, why are the stars in J0651 due to merge, instead of moving apart?

Quote:

Mass is energy in a volume.

Have you ever seen the simplified equation that relates energy to rest mass? Does the equation E=MC2 ring any bells? We are fully aware that mass and energy have an equivalence, but unlike you we are also aware of exactly what that equivalence is. HUGE amounts of energy are the equivalent of a tiny amount of mass, not vice versa The ratio is 90,000,000,000,000,000 energy to 1 mass, unless of course you have EVIDENCE to the contrary

Just out of curiosity, do you know what the word EVIDENCE actually means?
Free clue, it is what they found at CERN to support Peter Higgs.

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

@all

This is where I was born.
Being from there, the rumor growing up was that the Azores are what's left of Atlantis...

http://worldtruth.tv/underwater-pyramid-found-near-portugal-has-portuguese-navy-investigating-2/

Funny how we keep discovering "evidence" to these ancient myths despite what most nimrods would like you to 'believe'...

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: "Best fit" means wrong as a whole. Evidence has proven this already. Best fit means exactly what it says, namely that there is not a better explanation There wasn't one when (Mrs?)Einstein originally published, and there still isn't one now. For example, 150 years ago Darwins theory of evolution was the best explanation given the facts available. Since 1859 new sciences of molecular biology and genetics have appeared and have bought fresh evidence to the table. Without Darwins theory we could never have worked out where the gaps were that became evident once the evidence was examined. Any time in the intervening time a new discovery could have overturned Darwins hypotheses, but instead the new discoveries have filled the gaps and strengthened the original theory. Einsteins GR is currently going through the same process, and despite your baseless assertions it still remains the best fit, and is actually a better fit than it was originally because many of its predictions have indeed been confirmed since the original publication. Quote: Every HOLE in GR is explained by EMRP. You keep making this claim, but you have never yet provided a single scrap of EVIDENCE to support your claims. Once you show the EVIDENCE supporting your claim that tiny amounts of RP pushing the planet away from the sun is the reason that the planet is attracted towards the sun, I will stop thinking that your hypothesis is as reasonable as an ant picking up an elephant and carrying it off. If Radiation Pressure is pushing stuff away from stars, why do planets orbit around stars rather than clustering at points equidistant from them? If two glowing spheres in a dark box will move away from each other, why are the stars in J0651 due to merge, instead of moving apart? Quote: Mass is energy in a volume. Have you ever seen the simplified equation that relates energy to rest mass? Does the equation E=MC2 ring any bells? We are fully aware that mass and energy have an equivalence, but unlike you we are also aware of exactly what that equivalence is. HUGE amounts of energy are the equivalent of a tiny amount of mass, not vice versa The ratio is 90,000,000,000,000,000 energy to 1 mass, unless of course you have EVIDENCE to the contrary Just out of curiosity, do you know what the word EVIDENCE actually means? Free clue, it is what they found at CERN to support Peter Higgs.

You're a hypocrite and all you do is DENY DENY DENY.
Let me give you a clue about CERN's results - some say it breaks the conservation of energy law.
What's more amusing is that CERN proves QM and nothing about GR which is in contradiction to your pope. Repeat after me "I'm a hypocrite, I'm a hypocrite ..."
The Higgs field is simply a measure of radiation pressure of local space. Even John Brandenburg came up with a value for it.
You are chasing paradigms instead of reality.

Last edited by Lou on 19-Jan-2014 at 07:34 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @Nimrod Repeat after me "I'm a hypocrite, I'm a hypocrite ..."

You are a hypocrite, you are a hypocrite............

_________________
Live Long and keep Amigaing!

A1200, Power Tower, TF1260 128MB RAM, 68060 Rev 6, OS3.9 BB2, HD-Floppy, Mediator TX+ PCI, Voodoo 3 3000, Soundblaster 4.1, TV Card, Spider USB, 100MBit Ethernet, 16GB CF HD, 52xCDRom.

@Lou

From the story about the "discovery of Atlantis" is the following line.Quote:

suggests their belief that humans existed in the Azores region before the arrival of the Portuguese thousands of years ago

Do you know how many billions of years Portugal has been exploring the Atlantic Ocean? Oops sorry, Portugal only came into existence in 1065 and didn't achieve independence until 1139. This hardly qualifies as "Thousands of years ago"
Analysis of textual evidence and mythology, together with Archaeological and Geological surveys indicate that the site of Atlantis was most likely to have been the Thera caldera, also called Santorini. I am tempted to simply categorise this along with the claims for pyramids in or near the "Bermuda triangle", however I will, as I always do wait until there is some EVIDENCE before making any conclusions. This is of course the exact opposite to your favoured methodology of leaping to a conclusion and then twisting or discarding inconvenient EVIDENCE that contradicts your conclusion.

Quote:

Let me give you a clue about CERN's results - some say it breaks the conservation of energy law.

So who says CERN's results break conservation laws? I know that BrianK cited the fact that particle accelerators moving protons at close to speed c demonstrated that Protons did not have the mass Haramein claimed that they did have, but this is evidence against Haramein, not evidence against particle accelerators. Find me an accredited scientist who has made the claim, not some woo woo merchant trying to sell a book.

Quote:

The Higgs field is simply a measure of radiation pressure of local space.

Not according to the scientists working at CERN. I know that Brandenburg has a PhD, but so do one or two of the scientists who work at CERN. Incidentally we can measure the radiation pressure of space, we can also measure the radiation pressure from the sun. All eight of the planets receive a greater solar radiation pressure pushing away from the sun than they do from local space. Yet they are not pushed away from the sun.
Despite all of your blind denial J0651 still contradicts your light balls in a black box fallacy. You could say it proves it to be an absolute load of balls.

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

@Nimrod

I've come to believe that the "radiation" Lou is hypothesizing is something NOT measurable except as gravity, which would explain why he doesn't accept your constantly repeated "we can measure the radiation pressure of space, we can also measure the radiation pressure from the sun. All eight of the planets receive a greater solar radiation pressure pushing away from the sun than they do from local space. Yet they are not pushed away from the sun"

The thing is, if a planet can shield from gravity then we should become weightless if we travel inside a planet. Lou should be able to predict how deep we need to go to fly. I look forward to that.

_________________
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.