Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
5630 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
Home
Features
News
Forums
Classifieds
Links
Downloads
Extras
OS4 Zone
IRC Network
AmigaWorld Radio
Newsfeed
Top Members
Amiga Dealers
Information
About Us
FAQs
Advertise
Polls
Terms of Service
Search

IRC Channel

Who's Online
 58 guest(s) on-line.
 1 member(s) on-line.


 DofD

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 DofD:  3 mins ago
 tomazkid:  11 mins ago
 eliyahu:  20 mins ago
 mritter0:  34 mins ago
 sibbi:  39 mins ago
 vox:  46 mins ago
 A1200:  47 mins ago
 BigD:  48 mins ago
 gregthecanuck:  1 hr 35 mins ago
 pneron:  2 hrs 2 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Free For All
      /  Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 Next Page )
PosterThread
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 1-Sep-2014 19:10:40
#101 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3923
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Thanks for posting more useless crap. Meanwhile, many times I've stated that 'dark energy' is bonk and that according to RP theories, the energy of the vacuum, you know, that thing you're in denial of, explains it away. Einstein's not-so-constant CONSTANT when accounting for the energy/pressure of the vacuum is the best fit like I've been trying to explain.

http://phys.org/news88256526.html#jCp

When are you going to realize that your knowledge is extinct?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 1-Sep-2014 19:36:36
#102 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote:
@BrianK
Quote:

BrianK wrote:
Comparing forces makes no sense

Hey remember when you and some nimrod were convinced SUSY didn't exist since and used that to disprove some of the many scientists/engineers that use SUSY in their RP theories...

...well...
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/176969-searching-for-supersymmetry-work-begins-on-large-hadron-colliders-60-mile-long-successor


SUSY has yet to be proven. See my posting of the Wired article, just a couple posts before this one you commented on. The lack of evidence at the LHC is very troubling and some scientists say we should throw out the idea and work on new ones. SUSY is developed in a way it would link classical and quantum models. Saying it proves RP, too sounds as if you want cake and eat it too.

The new collided tests these yet to be proven ideas. Remember you told us the LHC wouldn't find Higgs, because it wasn't real? The shoe I wear is different. I'm not saying SUSY doesn't exist, but it is unproven. Perhaps the new collided will find it. But, we need the experiment done. Either answer results in us learning something.

*** Thanks Olegil. It's the stupid AW Editor that did this.
When quoting the editor puts bracket, slash, quote, bracket at the end. However, if the end of the quote is a URL, such as Lou included here, AW assumes the text it added is part of the URL string. All fixed. ***

Last edited by BrianK on 02-Sep-2014 at 05:18 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 02-Sep-2014 at 05:13 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
olegil 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 2-Sep-2014 11:24:05
#103 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 22-Aug-2003
Posts: 5887
From: Work

@BrianK

You forgot to end the quote.

Also known as: You broke the internet.

[/quote]

Last edited by olegil on 02-Sep-2014 at 11:24 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.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 2-Sep-2014 17:17:59
#104 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Question. So we have science's measured RP values. They are grossly out of alignment, aka way to frickin' small, compared to what values you'd need if things worked out the way you claim. What you haven't answered is what is causing and what is the fix to that problem? Do you see the scientists equipment as not measuring correctly resulting in a gross under calculation? Or some other error? And how will this be fixed?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 2-Sep-2014 21:17:18
#105 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1207
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
When are you going to realize that your knowledge is extinct?

Just as soon as the two white dwarf stars in J0651 start moving away from each other as a result of the huge levels of radiation pressure between them.
Just as soon as planets stop orbiting stars and move to a position equidistant from all light sources.
Both of these scenarios are what would happen if your RP C.R.A.P. were true.

Concerning the LHC carrying out a search for SUSY, didn't somebody once carry out a similar search for the Luminiferous Aether? How well did that work out? Did they find it yet?
Just because you are looking for something, doesn't mean that you will find it.
And in the event that SUSY is correct it doesn't magically make every other unevidenced assertion that you have dredged up in your search of the internet somehow more valid. Each case stands or falls on its own merit and Sitchin has no merit

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 3-Sep-2014 3:09:25
#106 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

Holographic error detector

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 4-Sep-2014 21:33:41
#107 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

Where are we in the universe We've learned a lot since 1980 Monty Python

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 7-Sep-2014 17:22:44
#108 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3923
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Question. So we have science's measured RP values. They are grossly out of alignment, aka way to frickin' small, compared to what values you'd need if things worked out the way you claim. What you haven't answered is what is causing and what is the fix to that problem? Do you see the scientists equipment as not measuring correctly resulting in a gross under calculation? Or some other error? And how will this be fixed?

Because their zero points aren't zero.
The vacuum has energy. Physics was normalized to dumb it down.
Like I linked earlier, about 'dark energy' being vacuum energy, you'd realize that pressure is there. Relativity is a dumbed down RP model. Basically, if you square something then take the square root of it, the answer is always positive and that's why gravity is always attractive so that you have to hack in some repulsive force to make the universe right. People didn't like that QM said that the vacuum has a really high level of energy...because it doesn't make sense in relativity. Einstein, despite kickstarting QM, didn't like QM.

When you fill the universe with the pressure of the vacuum and then put two objects next to each other, they can shadow some pressure and attract. This can be seen in a bowl of cereal where the bowl shadows pressure from outside the bowl so cereal cling to the edge of the bowl and also cereal clump in the middle because the ones in the middle cast a combined shadow from the center upon each other. The space between the two is the pressure of milk in the bowl

I've showed you many times that 'mass' is just energy potential in a volume. The 'Gravity' formula is just comparing radiuses and when you actually measure a radius/diameter then you adjust the density of the planet [hence the arbitrary 'mass'] to fit the formula. It's a complete joke.

You can't see it and if you do, then you are simply waiting for someone else to tell you something better...but I have.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 7-Sep-2014 20:54:50
#109 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1207
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
The vacuum has energy.

Yes Lou. We know. It has even been measured.
And it is NOT several thousand million billion quadrillion TeraJoules per nanometre cubed as you seem to think.

The Voyager spaceprobe only recently reached a position where the measured energy radiating away from our sun became less than the measured background noise level of the rest of the galaxy.
Just out of curiosity, do you know what the word "measured" means?

Quote:
When you fill the universe with the pressure of the vacuum and then put two objects next to each other, they can shadow some pressure and attract.

Please feel free to compare the measured levels of vacuum energy and RP in between two White Dwarf stars that are closer to each other than the moon is to the Earth.
Far from being two black objects shadowing each other in a radiant environment, they are two brightly radiant objects in a dark environment. And yet the stars in J0651 are not flying apart at some multiple of the speed of light as your C.R.A.P. would require them to do.
Likewise if energy sources were as immensely repulsive as you claim, why do planets stay close to stars rather than clustering as far from the light and radiation pressure as possible. After all, Stars radiate more energy than interstellar space, not less.

Quote:
I've showed you many times that 'mass' is just energy potential in a volume.
No Lou, you have only asserted it. You have yet to provide any evidence. You seem to have as much difficulty with the definition of the word "evidence" as you do with the word "measured"
Your equation sort of worked for an Proton but it went totally out of the window for a Neutron which has the same mass but zero electrical charge and for an electron which is equal but opposite the Proton for charge but has a mass of 1/1840 of the Proton.

Quote:
The 'Gravity' formula is just comparing radiuses and when you actually measure a radius/diameter then you adjust the density of the planet [hence the arbitrary 'mass']
And again you lash out with totally inaccurate and unsupported assumptions and assertions. When Voyager2 made its flypast of Neptune measurements taken enabled the scientists to reassess the mass of Neptune. This wasn't a result of them measuring the diameter of the planet, but a result of using very accurate measurements of the distance between the known mass of the Voyager probe and the acceleration applied to the probe during its flypast.

Quote:
You can't see it and if you do, then you are simply waiting for someone else to tell you something better...but I have.
Have you?
When and where?
You first asserted that some entries in a photoshop competition were "Proof of Giants".
Your claims have consistently got wilder and less rooted in reality since then.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 10-Sep-2014 20:08:00
#110 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
Because their zero points aren't zero.
The vacuum has energy. Physics was normalized to dumb it down.
There's a couple thoughts you have going on here. First Zero Pt energy has never meant no energy. What it means is a system is at it's lowest point of energy and still retain a system. If more energy is extracted the system is destroyed. As defined Zero Point has never equaled Zero. Another way to view this is nothing can truly be zero energy lest it violate the Heisenburg Uncertainity Principle.

Second science recognizes the vacuum has energy. Standard model puts this energy fairly small 9 decimals of a Joule. Quantum Field Theory puts this energy much larger - 110x100 zeros Joules. QFT theory came to that number through renomalization. They did so because QFT tells us the answer is infinite amount of energy which posses some huge problems for the universe as we have observed it.

What we have is Voyager whose observations of Vacuum Energy Density which is about 100 orders of magnitude smaller than what Quantum Field Theory's renomalized amount and a few orders of magnitude larger than what the Standard Model suggests.

Really we can look at this another way. We know we don't have the Standard Model and the Quanta connected in a way that makes sense to us. Because the cosmological constant (Std) and the vacuum energy (QFT) don't align we know we have more work to do bring the two systems into alignment with each other. Of course scientists are working on that and there's no proven answer yet. I'd venture so far to say that since observation doesn't agree with either of the two models we may have even more work cut out for us than we know. Of courses scientists are working on the Vacuum catastrophy issue as we speak. Had there been a proven answer (as you want us to believe) they'd all be flipping burgers at McDonalds.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 15-Sep-2014 15:48:15
#111 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

Scientific Consensus, and why it matters.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 21-Sep-2014 15:04:40
#112 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

Lou,

Science continues to not trust scientists. Again Einstein's mathematical work is put to a physical test of our universe. Time moves slower in a faster frame

Last edited by BrianK on 21-Sep-2014 at 03:06 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 25-Sep-2014 4:09:25
#113 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

http://www.iflscience.com/space/cosmic-inflation-claims-take-hit

Gravity Waves evidence

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 29-Sep-2014 18:01:49
#114 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

Probably a good piece for this chain of parts. No matter the evidence we pass it through our beliefs first

A good short read on how we as people refuse to accept the evidence if it doesn't jive with our world view. I think we can say what's happened here are a couple different world views. One world view says Science will figure this and move forward and gives us the evidence (BrianK for example). Another world view believes all science is, is a corrupt collection of people trying to make saints out of themselves which would never accept evidence of other experiments, therefore we should never do other experiments and instead allow rigor be thrown aside and claim the postulates as truths (Lou for example).

Last edited by BrianK on 29-Sep-2014 at 06:02 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 30-Sep-2014 18:49:49
#115 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

Lou,

What if Dark Matter isn't real Good summary of science has told us, what is postulated, and what other options they may be aka-fringe.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 3-Oct-2014 2:10:07
#116 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3923
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
http://www.iflscience.com/space/cosmic-inflation-claims-take-hit

Gravity Waves evidence

You need to read the details. Those primordial gravity waves went up in a cloud of dust. Literally.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/09/gravity-wave-evidence-disappears-into-dust/

you should give up on gravity while you are already way behind...

Last edited by Lou on 03-Oct-2014 at 02:12 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 3-Oct-2014 2:10:34
#117 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3923
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
The vacuum has energy.

Yes Lou. We know. It has even been measured.
And it is NOT several thousand million billion quadrillion TeraJoules per nanometre cubed as you seem to think.

The Voyager spaceprobe only recently reached a position where the measured energy radiating away from our sun became less than the measured background noise level of the rest of the galaxy.
Just out of curiosity, do you know what the word "measured" means?

Quote:
When you fill the universe with the pressure of the vacuum and then put two objects next to each other, they can shadow some pressure and attract.

Please feel free to compare the measured levels of vacuum energy and RP in between two White Dwarf stars that are closer to each other than the moon is to the Earth.
Far from being two black objects shadowing each other in a radiant environment, they are two brightly radiant objects in a dark environment. And yet the stars in J0651 are not flying apart at some multiple of the speed of light as your C.R.A.P. would require them to do.
Likewise if energy sources were as immensely repulsive as you claim, why do planets stay close to stars rather than clustering as far from the light and radiation pressure as possible. After all, Stars radiate more energy than interstellar space, not less.

Quote:
I've showed you many times that 'mass' is just energy potential in a volume.
No Lou, you have only asserted it. You have yet to provide any evidence. You seem to have as much difficulty with the definition of the word "evidence" as you do with the word "measured"
Your equation sort of worked for an Proton but it went totally out of the window for a Neutron which has the same mass but zero electrical charge and for an electron which is equal but opposite the Proton for charge but has a mass of 1/1840 of the Proton.

Quote:
The 'Gravity' formula is just comparing radiuses and when you actually measure a radius/diameter then you adjust the density of the planet [hence the arbitrary 'mass']
And again you lash out with totally inaccurate and unsupported assumptions and assertions. When Voyager2 made its flypast of Neptune measurements taken enabled the scientists to reassess the mass of Neptune. This wasn't a result of them measuring the diameter of the planet, but a result of using very accurate measurements of the distance between the known mass of the Voyager probe and the acceleration applied to the probe during its flypast.

Quote:
You can't see it and if you do, then you are simply waiting for someone else to tell you something better...but I have.
Have you?
When and where?
You first asserted that some entries in a photoshop competition were "Proof of Giants".
Your claims have consistently got wilder and less rooted in reality since then.

Who queued up the broken record?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 3-Oct-2014 19:35:10
#118 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1207
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
You need to read the details. Those primordial gravity waves went up in a cloud of dust. Literally.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/09/gravity-wave-evidence-disappears-into-dust/

Yes Lou, That is exactly the point BrianK and the article he cited made. If you had bothered to READ his post instead of just posturing and pontificating you would have seen that he was chalking it up as an example of how scientists are always cross checking each others work and correcting it.
This directly contradicts your constant whining assertions that scientists are all conspiring to keep the amazing revelations of a bunch of backyard tinkerers out of the public domain.

The reason that we do not worship at the feet of the people you keep citing is because their harebrained fantasies can't even survive the efforts of a geriatric engineer, let alone the sort of analysis and inspection that they would receive at the hands of the A team.

Quote:
Who queued up the broken record?
The reason I keep on posting the same tired old explanation is that you keep repeating the same tired old mistake.
You seem to be incapable of understanding what the word "measured" means and that failing comes back and bites you in the butt eleven times out of ten. In fact it was the failure to check the measurements of the dust radiation that gave the BICEP team their "Oops!" moment.

Last edited by Nimrod on 03-Oct-2014 at 07:35 PM.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 3-Oct-2014 22:14:04
#119 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3923
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
You need to read the details. Those primordial gravity waves went up in a cloud of dust. Literally.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/09/gravity-wave-evidence-disappears-into-dust/

Yes Lou, That is exactly the point BrianK and the article he cited made. If you had bothered to READ his post instead of just posturing and pontificating you would have seen that he was chalking it up as an example of how scientists are always cross checking each others work and correcting it.
This directly contradicts your constant whining assertions that scientists are all conspiring to keep the amazing revelations of a bunch of backyard tinkerers out of the public domain.

The reason that we do not worship at the feet of the people you keep citing is because their harebrained fantasies can't even survive the efforts of a geriatric engineer, let alone the sort of analysis and inspection that they would receive at the hands of the A team.

Quote:
Who queued up the broken record?
The reason I keep on posting the same tired old explanation is that you keep repeating the same tired old mistake.
You seem to be incapable of understanding what the word "measured" means and that failing comes back and bites you in the butt eleven times out of ten. In fact it was the failure to check the measurements of the dust radiation that gave the BICEP team their "Oops!" moment.

And, oh nimrodic one, if you read my posts back in June or whenever they originally thought they found them, I immediately pointed to a counter article.

"Science" today is a joke. Sheeple like you get it from headlines. There's been many scientists saying as much and that going against the grain is frowned upon. You are the definition of the old grain.

Last edited by Lou on 03-Oct-2014 at 10:14 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 5-Oct-2014 16:26:03
#120 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1207
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
You are the definition of the old grain.

And your desperate adherence to the Luminiferous Aether fallacy is supposed to be cutting edge modern science I suppose.
I admit that scientists often get it wrong and their predicted results do not match the measured results However you always get better science when you change your theories to match the universe rather than the other way round.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright 2000 - 2017 Amigaworld.net.

Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle