@Lou

Quote:

Again, science over time is aligning with statemets he made in the 70's. And I repeat once again, you have no evidence showing Sitchin wrong. Here you twist words using homnid when the article I reference used HUMAN. A troll will be a troll...

Science is not aligning with Stichin's statements. And to help your confusion on the age of humans. We have evidence that humans are more than 300K years old.

Quote:

What I've accepted is one man's all-encompassing vision of the past

Yes that indeed is what you believe.

Quote:

You repeatedly impose your beliefs on me with no evidence other than it being the status quo and DEMAND evidence from me

Yes it is my belief that if someone claims to have the truth then they need to be able to demonstrate it to be true. This makes the truth useful and valuable. If you have truth but can't demonstrate it, you can't use it. An unusable 'truth' is worthless. What we see here is you falling into the trap of religion. When someone believes they have truth they stop the search because they have "the answer." So as people question your "evidence" you get defensive with quips and name calling.

It's fair request that you wish us to not question your beliefs. But, in the same sense make no mistake that anyone should accept your beliefs against any other set of beliefs without holding those all up to a series of questions to see what system can best prove it's value in usefulness. If you don't want your beliefs questioned it might be best for you to not even to bother to discuss them. Because people will want you to prove it, and you can't. It's your belief.

Quote:

You need to come to terms with the fact that all archeology is essential digggin up old shit and then forming an opion of what it was. When archeology becomes an exact science, call me rather than troll me.

Nothing is an exact science it's always morphing and changing, and hopefully getting better. Methods and research we have available today are better than that used in the 1920s. And certainly in a hundred years we'll have even better. Though this doesn't mean we accept whatever shit anyone throws out as 'truth'. Instead we hold the sets of evidence against each other to see what works the best. Since there is 0 evidence of aliens we have nothing to test Stichin's claims against in that manner. And the evidence we do have of the language itself the Stichin version provides and inconsistent, incongruent, and inoperable translation. Its been disregarded not because of people hating Stichin. Its been disregarded because the translations just don't frickin' work.

Now again you can believe that Stichin got it right. Go for it. But, if you're going to stand on your soapbox for your inerrant priest than you better be hellasure you can prove your priest to be the inerrant SOB you believe him to be.

Quote:

. Your guilty of your own fallacy here: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Umm first that's not my 'own fallacy' it's a fallacy. Did I make that fallacy? YES! I do not suppose an answer without evidence. Instead of God or Vishnu or Stichin I don't assign an unknown to a known. Instead I say what science does - 'we don't know'.

In the case of the Mayans 'we don't know'. But, through science the best evidence we have is humans were capable of building it themselves and cannot be discarded. We've found 0 evidence of fairies and 0 evidence of cyclopses and 0 evidence of aliens. All very plausible explanations. But, without evidence of those we cannot begin to even approach the answer. If we did, and as you do, you must cite some type of unknown to us magic as the answer. Unfortunately, that's just more postulates on postulates. You haven't left your faith nor have you confirmed your faith. You expanded your faith to a larger group of unprovens and unproveables.

Last edited by BrianK on 20-Dec-2012 at 04:35 PM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

This is a nice line from somebody who also states "That's right, and the 6k+-year old man who writes in cuneiform script isn't alive either." Are you honestly trying to tell us that Sitchin was over 6000 years old when he died?

Exactly the point I was going to raise when I read this load of (Lou's) cr@p.

He keeps banging on about how Sitchin is 100% correct, and no one else can be because they weren't born into this dead language.

From the photos I have seen of him he looked quite well at the time they were for a 6000 yr old man...................

Lou, isnt Sitchin only assuming himself based on what you yourself are stating..........and ergo as he has no other physical evidence to back up his claims and no one else has come forth with any evidence on his behalf then we can safely assume that:

Sitchin is a complete moron and made up a load of cr@p to make money off a load of eager even more stupid people with big wallets

Lou give up, no one here who has more than 2 brain cells to rub together will believe this codswallop.

Last edited by Amiboy on 20-Dec-2012 at 06:56 PM.

_________________
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.

@Amiboy

Quote:

Amiboy wrote: @Nimrod Quote: This is a nice line from somebody who also states "That's right, and the 6k+-year old man who writes in cuneiform script isn't alive either." Are you honestly trying to tell us that Sitchin was over 6000 years old when he died? Exactly the point I was going to raise when I read this load of (Lou's) cr@p. He keeps banging on about how Sitchin is 100% correct, and no one else can be because they weren't born into this dead language. From the photos I have seen of him he looked quite well at the time they were for a 6000 yr old man................... Lou, isnt Sitchin only assuming himself based on what you yourself are stating..........and ergo as he has no other physical evidence to back up his claims and no one else has come forth with any evidence on his behalf then we can safely assume that: Sitchin is a complete moron and made up a load of cr@p to make money off a load of eager even more stupid people with big wallets Lou give up, no one here who has more than 2 brain cells to rub together will believe this codswallop.

What am I supposed to give up? My beliefs on your authority? Get real.
Let's get something clear. Here's what I've said:

1) I choose to believe Sitchin's version of history since it's all encompassing
2) I don't necessarily believe it to be 100% accurate
3) I don't care that it may not be 100% accurate, its views interest me
4) Other views have no more weight other that more people have closed-minded and egotistical views because they haven't had the experience I have had
5) As crazy as he sounded in the 70's, his solar system creation story continues to be more and more plausible by science over time
6) People/trolls ask me for 'evidence' that he is correct yet fail to provide evidence that he is wrong (other than popular opinion, which is not evidence)
7) Trolls continue to try to change what I choose to believe, stupidly, I might add

So perhaps it is you and the trolls who need to 'give it up'.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Again, science over time is aligning with statemets he made in the 70's. And I repeat once again, you have no evidence showing Sitchin wrong. Here you twist words using homnid when the article I reference used HUMAN. A troll will be a troll... Science is not aligning with Stichin's statements. And to help your confusion on the age of humans. We have evidence that humans are more than 300K years old. Quote: What I've accepted is one man's all-encompassing vision of the past Yes that indeed is what you believe. Quote: You repeatedly impose your beliefs on me with no evidence other than it being the status quo and DEMAND evidence from me Yes it is my belief that if someone claims to have the truth then they need to be able to demonstrate it to be true. This makes the truth useful and valuable. If you have truth but can't demonstrate it, you can't use it. An unusable 'truth' is worthless. What we see here is you falling into the trap of religion. When someone believes they have truth they stop the search because they have "the answer." So as people question your "evidence" you get defensive with quips and name calling. It's fair request that you wish us to not question your beliefs. But, in the same sense make no mistake that anyone should accept your beliefs against any other set of beliefs without holding those all up to a series of questions to see what system can best prove it's value in usefulness. If you don't want your beliefs questioned it might be best for you to not even to bother to discuss them. Because people will want you to prove it, and you can't. It's your belief. Quote: You need to come to terms with the fact that all archeology is essential digggin up old shit and then forming an opion of what it was. When archeology becomes an exact science, call me rather than troll me. Nothing is an exact science it's always morphing and changing, and hopefully getting better. Methods and research we have available today are better than that used in the 1920s. And certainly in a hundred years we'll have even better. Though this doesn't mean we accept whatever shit anyone throws out as 'truth'. Instead we hold the sets of evidence against each other to see what works the best. Since there is 0 evidence of aliens we have nothing to test Stichin's claims against in that manner. And the evidence we do have of the language itself the Stichin version provides and inconsistent, incongruent, and inoperable translation. Its been disregarded not because of people hating Stichin. Its been disregarded because the translations just don't frickin' work. Now again you can believe that Stichin got it right. Go for it. But, if you're going to stand on your soapbox for your inerrant priest than you better be hellasure you can prove your priest to be the inerrant SOB you believe him to be. Quote: . Your guilty of your own fallacy here: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Umm first that's not my 'own fallacy' it's a fallacy. Did I make that fallacy? YES! I do not suppose an answer without evidence. Instead of God or Vishnu or Stichin I don't assign an unknown to a known. Instead I say what science does - 'we don't know'. In the case of the Mayans 'we don't know'. But, through science the best evidence we have is humans were capable of building it themselves and cannot be discarded. We've found 0 evidence of fairies and 0 evidence of cyclopses and 0 evidence of aliens. All very plausible explanations. But, without evidence of those we cannot begin to even approach the answer. If we did, and as you do, you must cite some type of unknown to us magic as the answer. Unfortunately, that's just more postulates on postulates. You haven't left your faith nor have you confirmed your faith. You expanded your faith to a larger group of unprovens and unproveables.

If you don't accept what I believe - I DON'T CARE! Its you trolls that continuously attempt to discredit my beliefs.

Your vision of gravity is essentially magic, so the pot is calling the kettle black here.
You have faith is admittedly flawed science JUST BECAUSE ITS GENERALLY ACCEPTED. Your beliefs are, to me, MORE laughable because there is hard evidence that relativity is wrong. A simple google search will tell you that. Even in the face of its author telling you its wrong, you continue to believe it. This defines the hypcritical nature of you and every other troll here.

For further reading, google: Einstein is a plagurist
Einstein worked in a patents office. He got to see scientific theories being patented before they were published. He published relativity June 30...meanwhile someone else published it on June 5...hmmm... Rumor has it that his wife was the real genius and that's why after she died, he did nothing notable. Here's a quote:
Quote:

The couple had a baby, Hans Albert. And 1905 was even better. It was Einstein's annus mirabilis, the miracle year. Albert published his four scientific papers that each marked an important breakthrough. Mileva told a Serbian friend, "we finished some important work that will make my husband world famous."

It's actually funny watching you defend the science of a man whom you know little about and that I have studied. Back then, the man of the house took credit for everything...

Last edited by Lou on 21-Dec-2012 at 03:20 PM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: and if my aunt had a penis, she'd be my uncle... The height of intellectual debate. Quote: Sorry, but if you weren't born into the language ... 6000+ years later, you're still assuming This is a nice line from somebody who also states "That's right, and the 6k+-year old man who writes in cuneiform script isn't alive either." Are you honestly trying to tell us that Sitchin was over 6000 years old when he died? The fantasist that you worship did not have an all encompassing vision of the past, he made stuff up he CHERRYPICKED a statement from a document and deliberately mistranslated the word for ziggurat as "spaceship". He also ignored the previous paragraph describing how they mixed mud and straw to make the bricks to build the ziggurat. I am not concentrating on just one carefully selected sentence, I am looking at the document as a whole. I am aware that the recently retired space shuttles had ceramic tiles on their underside for re-entry heat shielding but I somehow doubt that NASA bought them from here. and even bathroom tiles do not contain straw.

Why is simple logic so hard for a rocket scientist like you to understand:

1) Sitchin post his opinions
2) anti-Sitchinists post theirs
3) I choose to believe Sitchin until SCIENCE proves him wrong
4) You choose to believe anti-Sitchinists because that is your opinion of their opinion
5) You are a troll

Quote:

Quote: If you simply left me to my oen beliefs [i]Lou, I really couldn't give a flying shiite what you allow yourself to be deluded into believing[i] because belief is irrelevant. If you want to be a good little catholic and let the priest show you his rubric behind the choir stalls while accepting the concept of papal infallibility that is just fine by me. If you want to transfer your infatuation to believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden, or little grey homunculi at the garden of your bottom that is perfectly OK just don't try to tell me that any of that CRAP is scientific fact. At best it is a leap of faith and more likely it is the sort of anti intellectual gibberish that led to the dark ages and holy wars.

Yet here you are continuously moving your fat troll's fingers on the keyboard...

Quote:

Quote: You need to come to terms with the fact that all archeology is essential digggin up old shit and then forming an opion of what it was Archaeology is like forensic science shown on almost any police drama series. Given the evidence at the scene, possibilities are tested and verified until the best outcome considering the balance of probabilites is arrived at. What archeaology does not do is arrive at a site, assume a particular outcome, throw away any evidence that does not support that outcome. You on the other hand assume aliens, multiply the masses of stonework by some stupid factor in order to assert that it was too big to be moved by humans, misrepresent the time factor by some stupid factor to assert that it was too far back to be covered by written record. Dishonestly claim that scientists are baffled when they aren't, and claim that all stonework on ancient sites is either diorite or even harder, and that diorite can only be cut using ultra modern technology despite the fact that diorite can be cut using sand as an abrasive agent. As much as you would like it to be otherwise, archaeology is not all about opinion. Yes Archaeologists do express opinions, but they are still constrained to keep the opinion to within the bounds of the facts. Including the fact that the Nazca plains are not the Gaza strip, and there is a difference between Gaza and Giza. The "big picture" may be pretty, but the devil is in the detail, and the detail shows that Sitchin is wrong,

You know what they say about opinions right? However, I believe you stink irregardless of your opinions...

@Lou

Quote:

Why is simple logic so hard for a rocket scientist like you to understand: 1) Sitchin post his opinions 2) anti-Sitchinists post theirs 3) I choose to believe Sitchin until SCIENCE proves him wrong 4) You choose to believe anti-Sitchinists because that is your opinion of their opinion 5) You are a troll

1) Sitchin dishonestly claims to be a scholar, and posts a fantasy story disguised as a translation of ancient texts.
2) Real scholars refute his ridiculous fantasy and also the fairy story that he produced to support his fantasy about being a scholar.
3) some people are so socially inept that they prefer to live a lie than accept that the evidence shows Sitchin to be a liar and a fool.
4) I have no beliefs because [b]belief is irrelevant. Evidence indicates that Sitchin is wrong
5) I am not the one who trawls the internet for CRAP to post purely in order to cause irritation. EVIDENCE

Quote:

You know what they say about opinions right? However, I believe you stink irregardless of your opinions...

The height of your intellectual prowess is to resort to childish stupidity, and name calling. I suppose that it is what is to be expected from an educational system that wants to teach religious obfuscation as science.


On a lighter note it appears that we have fought our way through another apocalypse that "they" were keeping from the rest of us. Whoever "they" are they have done a bloody good job, because I never noticed a thing as the world blew up around me

Last edited by Nimrod on 24-Dec-2012 at 02:34 PM.

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

@Lou

Quote:

If you don't accept what I believe - I DON'T CARE! Its you trolls that continuously attempt to discredit my beliefs.

For someone that doesn't care you spend an awful lot of time claiming postulates are evidence, being defensive, and mudslinging.

Quote:

Your vision of gravity is essentially magic, so the pot is calling the kettle black here.

My version of gravity is accepting to what it does not know and is working on it's unknowns. Your version of gravity claims to have completed it's work and is unable to prove it. There's a big difference here.

Quote:

You have faith is admittedly flawed science

Yes my 'faith' admits that science is an imperfect endeavor by man where we skeptically review all evidence, even previously proved evidence, in an attempt to build a better system of knowledge. It's also the only system that enables paradigm shifts to better knowledge as that becomes available. Multiple steps better than your deification of Stichin as the inerrant and infallible.

Quote:

Rumor has it that his wife was the real genius and that's why after she died, he did nothing notable

Yes rumors are your faith. No evidence of Stichin, accept the rumors of him being right. Dislike Einstein, accept the rumors that he didn't do the work. Your faith in rumors is no better than the local old ladies tea party collective.

Quote:

It's actually funny watching you defend the science of a man whom you know little about

If you actually read what was defended that work was defended because it was a predictable and evidenced improvement over the previous theory. If it was Einstein's wife so be it. The problem there lay not in the work itself but the assignment of success. The appeal here was to evidence not person.

Do note it was you that were defending a work based on a man you know little about. You proclaimed Brandenburg to be right over Nimrod because you know Brandenburg has a PhD and don't know Nimrod's credentials. Your appeal here was to the person not to the evidence.

TL:DR? In short you're trying to blame others for mistakes that we didn't make but you did.

@BrianK

Quote:

The problem there lay not in the work itself but the assignment of success. The appeal here was to evidence not person.

As you state, when (Mrs?) Einsteins theories were accepted it was because they were better than the ones that they supplanted. From that moment on they became subject to an eternity of testing to see if they could be improved on. These tests were rigourous enough to expose discrepancies. Discrepancies that we are using to move beyond (Mrs?) Einstein just as (s)he moved us beyond Newton. This is not a case of science sitting back and congratulating itself on how clever scientists are, as some would try to claim, but an example of steady progress.

Even now, more scientists are setting up experiments to improve our understanding of what is going on around us. The five year mission of Gaia is simply to map and monitor a thousand million stars in our galaxy. It will also provide stringent new tests of (Mrs?) Einstein’s general relativity theory.

Edit spelling error

Last edited by Nimrod on 21-Dec-2012 at 04:59 PM.

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

Apparently neither noob nor troll has looked up all the challenges to 'relativity'...

Meanwhile: new magnetism, new matter
http://www.geekosystem.com/new-magnetism-new-matter/

Last edited by Lou on 24-Dec-2012 at 03:31 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Apparently neither noob nor troll has looked up all the challenges to 'relativity'...

The fact that (Mrs) Einsteins theory contradicts the religious doctrine held by by someone who equates opinionated but unfounded assertion with proven scientific fact, does not qualify as a serious challenge.

Quote:

Meanwhile: new magnetism, new matter

far from being new antiferromagnetism is something that even I had heard of. Even its Wikipedia entry has a revision history going back to January 2009. The specific substance, herbertsmithite (Zn Cu 3 (OH) 6 Cl 2) is a naturally ocurring mineral first identified in Chile in 1972. It is also found in USA, Iran, and Greece.

If MIT only discovered the properties of Herbertsmithite (aka Anarakite) last week, what is this article about?

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

@Lou

Quote:

Apparently neither noob nor troll has looked up all the challenges to 'relativity'...

You again lie. I've commented many a time here on all the different challenges to Einstein's Theories. And to date none has proved there worth. See there's a major difference between claim and proof of said claim. Just because someone creates science fiction, doesn't immediately create a new reality.

Quote:

Meanwhile: new magnetism, new matter http://www.geekosystem.com/new-magnetism-new-matter/

WOW! What a badly written article. The early postulates were built in the early 70s. While the more solid theory came about in 1987. Naturally occurring materials, also, were found in the early 70s. Actually what happened is scientists spent 10 months growing what they needed. Due to the rarity in nature if we humans find this stuff useful we'll have to manufacture it.

@Lou

2012's 27 science facts that were once fiction -- Though you might be interested in this as we all like science's continual discoveries.

Doomsdays Conspiracies A good and fairly short primer.

Blackhole's Menu from Hell A great article on how the absence of evidence allows several postulates to choose from and paradoxes. Consequently the issue can be resolved by increasing the quantity and quality of evidence.

EDIT: Fixed Typo thanks Lou.

Last edited by BrianK on 28-Dec-2012 at 06:59 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: [url=https://simonsfoundation.org/features/science-news/mathematics-and-physical-science/alice-and-bob-meet-the-wall-of-fire/] Blackhole's Menu from Hell [/ur] A great article on how the absence of evidence allows several postulates to choose from and paradoxes. Consequently the issue can be resolved by increasing the quantity and quality of evidence.

Your link is bad but I figured it out.

This article reminds me that some people can be so smart that they are stupid.

Paradoxes for the loss..
If you believe in General Relativity, then that's where this 'Event Horizon' concept came from. However these scientists talk about it like it's at a fixed location...essentially ignoring GR. What I mean is that the Event Horizon is based on gravitational attraction. Well 'gravitational attraction' is based on the mass of BOTH objects...if you believe in GR... Hence light would have a different Event Horizon than a star or planet relative to the black hole in question. Also, the virtual particle aspect can be applied to reality as well. For instance, if we are on a rocket ship drifting near a black hole, then suddenly we tip toe onto the mythical event horizon computed based on the two masses, we start to be pulled into the black hole. However this acceleration isn't instant and infinite. The rocket could apply it's engine and "lose mass" aka generate thrust and pull itself out of the event horizon ... which would suddenly be smaller since the rocket has lost some mass in the form of fuel.

The problem with theorists is they deal with extremes and not reality.

Interesting that the 'firewall' was brought up... My my, that sounds an awful like a star... I wonder who else associated a black hole with a star... Oh yes, that so called crazy guy name Nassim Haramein...

@Lou

Quote:

If you believe in General Relativity, then that's where this 'Event Horizon' concept came from. However these scientists talk about it like it's at a fixed location...essentially ignoring GR. What I mean is that the Event Horizon is based on gravitational attraction. Well 'gravitational attraction' is based on the mass of BOTH objects...if you believe in GR... Hence light would have a different Event Horizon than a star or planet relative to the black hole in question

I think you have a definitional misunderstanding. An Event Horizon a term that is defined by the inability for any thing to escape. Actually, the inability of light itself to escape is what gives meaning to an Event Horizon. There's indeed a point in space where a slower and more massive object could not escape a black hole. However, if the light from that object can escape then the object has not entered the 'Event Horizon'. If your case here is true, an object jettisons mass and adds acceleration to escape, then by definition it wasn't truly in the 'Event Horizon'. It escaped the Black Hole, it didn't escape the Event Horizon. Again because the Event Horizon by definition is inescapable by everything.

Quote:

Interesting that the 'firewall' was brought up... My my, that sounds an awful like a star... I wonder who else associated a black hole with a star... Oh yes, that so called crazy guy name Nassim Haramein

Don't forget that is an unproven 1 out of 3 best case postulates. As we don't have evidence we can neither confirm nor deny the option. It's simply something for future research to tackle.

Haramein doesn't add understanding he adds work. He claimed Earth is around a black hole. We've no evidence of that. He claimed aliens use the black hole in the sun. We've no evidence of aliens doing that. He claimed the black hole in the sun was capable to be used for an interstellar wormhole. We've no evidence of that either. Thus to show Haramein as true we not only have to evidence that the 'firewall' is the right one out of the 3 but his additional claims as well.

Unfortunately, reality works on it's own set of laws. Science says these are our 3 best guesses. We don't know yet what's right. Perhaps they all are under a certain set of conditions. Or perhaps none are. How we know is evidence based, not faith.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Interesting that the 'firewall' was brought up... My my, that sounds an awful like a star... I wonder who else associated a black hole with a star... Oh yes, that so called crazy guy name Nassim Haramein Don't forget that is an unproven 1 out of 3 best case postulates. As we don't have evidence we can neither confirm nor deny the option. It's simply something for future research to tackle. Haramein doesn't add understanding he adds work. He claimed Earth is around a black hole. We've no evidence of that. He claimed aliens use the black hole in the sun. We've no evidence of aliens doing that. He claimed the black hole in the sun was capable to be used for an interstellar wormhole. We've no evidence of that either. Thus to show Haramein as true we not only have to evidence that the 'firewall' is the right one out of the 3 but his additional claims as well. Unfortunately, reality works on it's own set of laws. Science says these are our 3 best guesses. We don't know yet what's right. Perhaps they all are under a certain set of conditions. Or perhaps none are. How we know is evidence based, not faith.

Interestingly, Haramein has provided more math when it comes to understanding the black hole universe than these theorists have provided about black holes and event horizons...but I digress...

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: If you believe in General Relativity, then that's where this 'Event Horizon' concept came from. However these scientists talk about it like it's at a fixed location...essentially ignoring GR. What I mean is that the Event Horizon is based on gravitational attraction. Well 'gravitational attraction' is based on the mass of BOTH objects...if you believe in GR... Hence light would have a different Event Horizon than a star or planet relative to the black hole in question I think you have a definitional misunderstanding. An Event Horizon a term that is defined by the inability for any thing to escape. Actually, the inability of light itself to escape is what gives meaning to an Event Horizon. There's indeed a point in space where a slower and more massive object could not escape a black hole. However, if the light from that object can escape then the object has not entered the 'Event Horizon'. If your case here is true, an object jettisons mass and adds acceleration to escape, then by definition it wasn't truly in the 'Event Horizon'. It escaped the Black Hole, it didn't escape the Event Horizon. Again because the Event Horizon by definition is inescapable by everything.

These theorists use the terminology of 'THE event horizon' or 'a black hole's event horizon'. If they mean the point at which light can't escape then it should be clearer...however for more massive objects, that point still remains farther out. For instance Alice and Bob have a different event horizon than light...and that's my point. The article treats Alice, Bob and light as having the same event horizon. What I'm saying is that Alice would be able to see Bob fall in, where as the article says she couldn't. If she couldn't then Bob would have crossed light's event horizon, HOWEVER Alice would cross it soon enough herself.

Basically, these theorists are stupid and use bad terminology and dig themselves into paradoxes.

@Lou

Quote:

Interestingly, Haramein has provided more math when it comes to understanding the black hole universe than these theorists have provided about black holes and event horizons...but I digress...

Assuming you're correct. Is it really more interesting that Haramein's postulated formula is more complex? I'd say not. It's more interesting which more accurately represents reality.

Harmein is the one that claims blackholes to be at the center of the sun, the earth, and every atom. Noteably the immediately available evidence we have is counter to Haramein's claim.

Quote:

These theorists use the terminology of 'THE event horizon' or 'a black hole's event horizon'. If they mean the point at which light can't escape then it should be clearer.

The theorists are very clear here. Your problem appears to be the article didn't take the time to better explain what the established definition for 'The Event Horizon'. Again in physics this means the area around the singularity where nothing, not even light, can escape.

Quote:

however for more massive objects, that point still remains farther out

No it doesn't. The Event Horizon is where nothing can escape. If something is escaping then that region of space is not part of the Black Hole's Event Horizon. What you're describing is being captured by a black hole, which (especially on massive and slow objects) will happen well in advance of those objects entering the Event Horizon.

Quote:

For instance Alice and Bob have a different event horizon than light...and that's my point.The article treats Alice, Bob and light as having the same event horizon

Your definitional use is incorrect. Alice and Bob have different points of capture than light or than a planet. They do in fact have the exact same Event Horizon. The Event Horizon is defined as the region of spacetime where the escape velocity of all objects is greater than speed of light. So by definition if something is escaping at a velocity under c than that object is not in the Event Horizon.

Quote:

What I'm saying is that Alice would be able to see Bob fall in, where as the article says she couldn't. If she couldn't then Bob would have crossed light's event horizon, HOWEVER Alice would cross it soon enough herself. Basically, these theorists are stupid and use bad terminology and dig themselves into paradoxes.

The problem here is in the analogy.

Analogies are imperfect by nature. They're meant to help the reader grasp on how this works. To really understand it we'd have to throw up the formulas and 99% of the readers would be lost. Your problem here is you assigned the problem to science, when in fact it's a problem with the literary use of analogy.

Last edited by BrianK on 29-Dec-2012 at 03:25 PM.

@Lou

Nassim Haramein is entirely self taught with no reference or credit given to outside sources. What this means in practice is that he taught himself everything that he knows, and since he started off knowing nothing, by the laws of circular logic he now knows precisely nothing, even though he claims to know everything. The problem with Haramein and others like himself is that they always ignore basic principles, especially the basic definitions. It is by ignoring the basic definition of the term "event horizon" that you seek to muddy the waters by claiming that a photon, Alice and Bob, and the planet Jupiter all have differing event horizons because they have differing capture characteristics based on their own mass. (Please note that the differing characteristics are based on mass not EM charge.)

This lack of understanding of basic definitions is responsible for Harameins "Schwarzchild proton" fantasy. The Scwarzchild radius is the distance from the center of an object such that, if all the mass of the object were compressed within that sphere, the escape speed from the surface would equal the speed of light. I have taken the liberty of bolding the word that both Haramein and yourself seem incapable of seeing or understanding.

For example the fact that the Earth has a Schwarzchild radius of 8.9mm means that if the Earth were compressed into a sphere 8.9mm radius it would become a black hole as opposed to the Haramein statement that it has an 8.9mm radius black hole at its centre.

In my youth I had a stable body mass of 67kG which means that I had a Schwarzchild radius that I could calculate using the formula already mentioned. I won't bother doing the calculation since the answer would be considerably less than the Planck length as a ratio, rather than in terms of "feet and inches". More recently this radius would have increased as my body mass increased to 100kG. Despite the fact that I have a varying Schwarzchild radius I know that my mass is not the result of a black hole at my core, if only for the reason that over the last few years I have reduced mass to 74kg without emitting any detectable Hawking radiation

When Haramein delves into the subject of ancient history he not only fails to understand the basics, he can be seen to have deliberately misrepresented the facts in order to make his fantasies seem credible. He is not quite in the Von Daniken catgory of creating forged "evidence" yet , but give him more time and things may change.

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