@Niolator

Quote:

I did not write that I am a fan of M-theory

I had included M-Theory as one of the types of postulates that exist that were similar to the ideas you were asking.

Quote:

That the maths invovled is so advanced that you have to be a supersavant to be able to understand it doesn't make things better

I'm open that such an ununderstandable universe may exist. Many animals do not conceive of addition (easy example worms) and yet the universe exists. Many things exist in the universe that animals can't directly see (easy example we see less colors than what exists). Clearly there's no mandate in the universe that it must be understandable. Though we should always keep creating more evidence and asking the questions. The search for truth only comes from objects we can demonstrate repeatably and predictably how they operate. Certainly the simper the better, for us, but again the universe doesn't care for us in this manner. If an unknowable, unobservable force exists, then it does and we'll never be able to prove it's true. It's simply beyond us. Perhaps similar to how dogs don't build rocketships.

So perhaps anti-gravity does exist in many dimensions but many of those are unobservable to us. Kinda sad as we'll never be able to make use of anti-gravity. Again perhaps similar to how dogs don't extract chemicals for their solid fueled rocketships.

As for 7-dimensional theories they are rarer than 11 or 5 dimensional theotries. I believe Loop Quantum Gravity is one such 7 dimensional possiblity. Interstinly enough LQG keeps gravity and EM as seperate entities and doesn't combine them as Lou has claimed they are. Loop doesn't combine Weak+EM+Strong+Gravity into what is called (TOE) Theory of Everything. (Note I'm not putting any weight on that I'm simply spelling out some of the aspects of the postulate.)

Last edited by BrianK on 20-Sep-2012 at 12:06 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: We already know that "weak" is magnetism. Yes and no. EM and Weak do combine into a unified symmetry above 100GeV. This condition is likely to have existed soon after the 'Big Bang'. However this condition doesn't exist now. At our lower energies these appear to be different. Weak transmits by 3 bosons and EM by the photon. So their methods of communication are also different. Those different particles are arrived at because of the EMW symmetry breaking. It's not true to say weak is magnetism. It's more true to say EM and Weak were part of a unified symmetrical field sometime during the condition of the 'Big Bang' and since in our universe they have broken in two.

Weak was "invented" the deal with neutrinos. It is the least observed force. If a neutrino is simply a small charged particle spinning and rotating so wildly that it appears pretty neutral, then the interaction with other charged particles is "weak". Neutrinos are poorly understood. Since changing "flavor" (who makes this stuff up) could be the effect of oscillations in the spinning and rotation of the particle. Kind like how a top has weird spinning oscillations.

Recall this:
Quote:

Solar neutrino problem Starting in the late 1960s, several experiments found that the number of electron neutrinos arriving from the Sun was between one third and one half the number predicted by the Standard Solar Model. This discrepancy, which became known as the solar neutrino problem, remained unresolved for some thirty years. It was resolved by discovery of neutrino oscillation and mass. (The Standard Model of particle physics had assumed that neutrinos are massless and cannot change flavor. However, if neutrinos had mass, they could change flavor, or oscillate between flavors).

So realize the "The Standard Model" was/is flawed...and you will say science "prevails" and adjusts the standard model... I think your problem is you defend *it* to the death until "science prevails" again and fixes it. This is the problem I have with you and the "theories" you defend.

Quote:

Quote: I have presented papers from researchers who believe "strong" is a gravitational-like effect if you solve for the Schwartzchild proton Again we're at your failing to understand what evidence is. 'Papers' that 'Believe' are postulates not evidence. Remember my explaination was based on the evidence we have to date. Perhaps you'll have some evidence here in the future.

So in other words, the same amount of evidence for the 'graviton'...and your religious view of 'gravity'...

Quote:

Quote: You really have no evidence of gravity(and strong) as being unique Actually we do. Communication of the Strong is via the Gluon. Gravity is via the Graviton. Gluons have been observed. Gravitons haven't been observed. Importantly Gluons have been observed to have a lack of gravity-like behaviors. If such evidence existed, as you indicate, then we'd have 3 fundamental forces. Where the Gluon communicated the Gravity-Strong forces. Also, I find it interesting you now try to stick Gravity onto Strong when for so many pages you tried to tell us that Gravity is EM. Changing your mind?

Once again you are wrong. Free gluons HAVE NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. *Something* "called" quark-gluon plasma is what your thinking of. The "gluon" was "invented" by theorists who couldn't figure out that "strong" force was just a gravitational-effect.
http://www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/Gluon.html

Quote:

Quote: There is physical evidence of this meanwhile the same observations for gravity are the same for radiation pressure and shielding theories only Gravity has anomilies that pressure and shielding can explain. Again, no gravitons = no gravity. You seem internally conflicted here. First you tell us that Gravity is part of EM. Then you tell us that Gravity is part of Strong. Now you tell us that Gravity doesn't exist at all. You really should make up your mind on your explaination.

Actually, the only one confused is you. I said "gravitational effect". I have described said gravitatioanl effect as the effect of EM pressure. You keep thinking gravity is a unique and separate force when this "effect" can be seen in all mediums. It's a cheerios effect in a sea of EM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheerios_effect

Quote:

Also, be sure to not conflate the unproven to the unproveable. Even if we don't have proof for a graviton that doesn't mean you get to claim that we must accept X as true. You must do the leg work to evidence X as being true. You like to skip that step. We don't get to accept it's RP because we haven't found the Graviton. You need to evidence it's RP. Since I can block RP and this doesn't block Gravity I think you have lots of Evidence to build. If they were one in the same they should have the same effects when exposed to elements that control them. What we have observed is they don't do this and are therefore said to be unique.

I think(well, I personally know actually) you are being a hypocrit. Radiation Pressure and shielding can be tested. Has been proven. Meanwhile we got nothing for your 'gravity'. "Blocking radiation pressure" is called shielding and that is the attractive effect because you cause a pressure imbalance in a direction. For instance, the earth below you is shielding you from the RP of the universe in that direction. The sky above you is not shielding you so you are pushed to the earth. You can't have just one or the other, it is the net of both that nets a force vector. So what I say 'radiation pressure' I mean 'radiation pressure AND shielding' ... or generally just a radiation pressure imbalance.

Quote:

Quote: Planets with their thickness become good shields...however they can only shield to 100% and that's why after a certain radius, they get classified as "gas giants" (graviational point of view) because the shielding strength increase becomes a function of the radius HUH this makes no sense whatsoever. Where'd you come up with the 'shielding' bunk? Scientists aren't classifying based on shielding. Classification of objects are done by us based upon the composition of matter here on earth. Rock is the term we consider a solid and those objects in the universe made up of metals and silicon. Ice is the term we give to objects comprised of water and ammonia. Gas is the term where the composition is primarily hydrogen and helium. The 'Gas Giant' is a planet comparised primarily of hydrogen and helium (gas) and much larger than earth (giant). There also are 'Gas Planets' which are hydrogen and helium but sized slightly larger than earth. As such 'Gas Giant' can actually be a misnomer. For example, Jupiter is primarily composed not of gaseous hydrogen but thought to be some layers of liquid hydrogen and hydrogen in superfluid state. We should call it a Superfluid Giant. But, simply that's not how the scientists decided to write the classification.

No. The term comes from the calculated average density of the planet based on the observed volume and the *assumed* mass derived from it's GR-based orbit. You can't tell me that Jupiter has been scanned inside out to its core. That is a farce. Gases in space don't hold their shape so perfectly. If it was a fluid/superfluid, it too would be extremely warped.

As I said in the past, NASA allowed a satellite to hit Jupiter and knows exactly how solid it is...they just haven't cared to admit it.
Also, just the other day, a comet hit Jupiter and there were picture posted. Seems pretty solid to me...actually this has happened many times...
This is a clear case where your accepted theories don't match observation...and another situation where the 'radiation pressure imbalance' (are you happy now?) view of the 'gravitational effect' does match observation...or atleast makes the prediction that all 'planets' are pretty solid regardless of what general relativity says it's average density should be.

Last edited by Lou on 20-Sep-2012 at 03:12 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 20-Sep-2012 at 03:06 PM.

@all,

I long for the day when I can remove the alternator from the accessory side of the engine... Someday a car will run on battery power until it warms up, then will run on it's own heat... Heat converted into electricity to power the PCM and fire the spark plugs...and recharge the battery...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120919135310.htm

@Lou

Quote:

So realize the "The Standard Model" was/is flawed...and you will say science "prevails" and adjusts the standard model... I think your problem is you defend *it* to the death until "science prevails" again and fixes it. This is the problem I have with you and the "theories" you defend.

The Standard Model has been a very good predictor of composite entities that make up the atom. Higgs is really the last particle it predicts. It looks like we found Higgs, though some more confirming experiments are underway, Dec this year noteably. From there the Standard Model basically stops. Certainly there are many other postulates from there - SuperSymmetry (which actually looks to not work based on our current evidence) and others. Though Physics needs some new stuff.

If you want to know my issue with your presentation is that you don't say 'Here's a cool postulate that might be true'. (Which is the right approach) Instead you claim 'X is True' and fail to have the evidence to back up your claims. And sometimes the evidence we do have is clearly against your claims (cough Haramein cough)

As for your 'never observed Gluon claim' Gluons observed in the mid-late 1970s.

Quote:

You keep thinking gravity is a unique and separate force when this "effect" can be seen in all mediums. It's a cheerios effect in a sea of EM.

Good postulate. Evidence? Oh yeah we've been asking. But, we're still open to it.

Quote:

I think(well, I personally know actually) you are being a hypocrit. Radiation Pressure and shielding can be tested. Has been proven

Yeah it has and magnitudes severly smaller than what you claim. They clearly have NOT been tested at interstellar levels. Go back to the RP Chart I included which demonstrates the amount of RP in the solar system.

Quote:

the earth below you is shielding you from the RP of the universe in that direction. The sky above you is not shielding you so you are pushed to the earth.

Okay so build a RP shield above your head. Like say a metal dome roof of many of the government buildings in your area of the world. The RP above that dome is greater than the RP under the dome. You have a shield in place above you. Not so surprisingly you don't create anti-gravity. If your statement were true that simple shild around all sides (put yourself in a Faraday Cage) would cause you to float. We know from experiments that stuff inside a Faraday Cage doesn't float.

Quote:

The term comes from the calculated average density of the planet based on the observed volume and the *assumed* mass derived from it's GR-based orbit. You can't tell me that Jupiter has been scanned inside out to its core

Again no. The science world decided 'gas' was the term to be used for helium and hydrogen bodies. Just like 'ice' is used for methane, and water. Just like 'rock' is used for silicon and mettalics. They don't scan the densities. They look at the different materials (fairly easy with a Chromospectographier) and assign the term.

Quote:

If it was a fluid/superfluid, it too would be extremely warped.

Liquids resist pressure changes they try to equalize them. When equal pressure is abound they form into a 'bubble'. Take a look at the videos on the space stations when astronauts shoot their drink at each other. Skylab has a famous one where the fluid formed into a bubble and the astronaut stuck a straw into it and drank it. EVIDENCE! It always reigns. Perhaps you should find some before telling us what you believe.

This might help you Gas Giants . Jupiter's hydrogen is superfluid "most of the volume of these planets all the components (other than solid materials in the core) are above the critical point and therefore there is no distinction between liquids and gases"

Quote:

Also, just the other day, a comet hit Jupiter and there were picture posted. Seems pretty solid to me...

All I can say is your observation is unrepeated, unagreed to, and we therefore must consider it flawed.

Quote:

I long for the day when I can remove the alternator from the accessory side of the engine... Someday a car will run on battery power until it warms up, then will run on it's own heat...

Engines are around 30% efficent at best. Energy is expended in heat and in pushing out gases. Cost effective thermal to electrical conversion devices have been out of reach, or considered so by the industry. This is all good but really something known for decades. Though too much thermal removal will be bad. I live in Minnesota and needed that heat to keep me and the kids warm in the car the last couple of days.

Last edited by BrianK on 20-Sep-2012 at 04:26 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Or is it more mathematical slight of hand like X=X?

It wasnt me that posted an equation that turned out to be worthless, it was one of Brandenburg little gems of numerology whn he claimed an equation yielded a constant result. In post #2293 I accepted the assumption made, and solved the equation g^2/(2π G) + S^2/(c^2 L)= Constant and showed that what Brandenburg was postulating was that 1/S^2=1/S^2. My comment at the time was "How very profound."

Quote:

You casually mention background radiation, however you forget vacuum energy...why is that?

I do not "forget" vacuum energy, I merely refuse to use the wrong method of calculating its value in order to inflate it to some huge multiple of its true value in a futile attempt to make it appear significant. The figures that are bandied about by the "free energy" and "overunity" crowd are achieved by using quantum field theory to measure something that quantum field theory is totally unsuited to measuring. It is like using a six inch ruler to measure electrical current. Since quantum field theory only measures energy differences and as such cannot measure the energy density, the calculations used have to make certain assumptions, and since the theoretical results make predictions that fail to match actual measurements by a factor of at least 10^120, rising to infinity, it can be demonstrated that the assumptions that lead to huge values for vacuum energy are false. A simplified explanation is given here that lists the measured vacuum energy as about 0.6 Joules per kM3.

Quote:

Oh that's right, you don't *believe* in vacuum energy,

Correction, I acknowledge its existence, I simply refuse to worship it as an all powerful deity. As I have previously explained, "Belief is irrelevant."

Quote:

Radiation Pressure and shielding can be tested.

Indeed they can. In this scenario, can you point out what is shielding the radiation pressure being produced locally, at short ranges, not dissipated by the inverse square law. These two stars are orbiting each other at a distance of 0.6 light seconds, and they are getting closer

Quote:

Has been proven.

When and where? Being postulated by somebody with the rational capabilities of Arnold J. Rimmer, is not proof of scientific validity. You once asked if Einstein would still have scientific validity if he were a serial rapist, and I cited a WvB as proof that he would, but qualified the statement by saying that it would be different if he believed in fairies at the bottom of his garden. Brandenburgs invention of a prehistoric Martian civilization wiping itself out in a nuclear catastrophe, based on a few blurred images, destroys any and all scientific credibility from this source.

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

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

Lou wrote: @SpaceDruid Quote: SpaceDruid wrote: @Lou Top tip, don't start your case by calling those that don't agree with you "noobs". It is a derogatory term that doesn't exactly give your argument the best opening. Tip, Read back 119 pages and you'll see why I'm treating 2 people specifically that way.

And if you read back to before I entered this discussion you will see that the attitude, and the blind assertion of anything touted by a drunk at the bar as fact is a constant factor.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Brandenburgs invention of a prehistoric Martian civilization wiping itself out in a nuclear catastrophe, based on a few blurred images, destroys any and all scientific credibility from this source.

Point of order. Just because someone is really really wrong about something doesn't mean we should reject all their ideas. Afterall a broken clock is right twice day. There are noteable quality work in science done by people whose other ideas turned out to be completely false. Noteably Linus Pauling comes to mind. He did some great work when it comes to molecular bonding. However, his Vitamin C work turned out to be wrong and he refused to give up the thought of it being a panacea. He did leave discredited, though his prior work stands.

Likewise I don't reject Brandenburg's work because he's completely wrong about many other postulates. I question all postulates. And it just turns out Brandenburg's keeps failing over and over again.

I see your point that Brandenburg is developing his own case of cries wolf syndrome. He tells us over and over how truthful his believes are and continues to fail to prove it. If he ever did happen along something useful he might have discredited himself so much that others will figure they bet on the broken horse far too much already.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Nimrod Quote: Brandenburgs invention of a prehistoric Martian civilization wiping itself out in a nuclear catastrophe, based on a few blurred images, destroys any and all scientific credibility from this source. Point of order. Just because someone is really really wrong about something doesn't mean we should reject all their ideas. Afterall a broken clock is right twice day. There are noteable quality work in science done by people whose other ideas turned out to be completely false. Noteably Linus Pauling comes to mind. He did some great work when it comes to molecular bonding. However, his Vitamin C work turned out to be wrong and he refused to give up the thought of it being a panacea. He did leave discredited, though his prior work stands. Likewise I don't reject Brandenburg's work because he's completely wrong about many other postulates. I question all postulates. And it just turns out Brandenburg's keeps failing over and over again. I see your point that Brandenburg is developing his own case of cries wolf syndrome. He tells us over and over how truthful his believes are and continues to fail to prove it. If he ever did happen along something useful he might have discredited himself so much that others will figure they bet on the broken horse far too much already.

Amusing when you claim to have read nothing 'he' has published...

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: So realize the "The Standard Model" was/is flawed...and you will say science "prevails" and adjusts the standard model... I think your problem is you defend *it* to the death until "science prevails" again and fixes it. This is the problem I have with you and the "theories" you defend. The Standard Model has been a very good predictor of composite entities that make up the atom. Higgs is really the last particle it predicts. It looks like we found Higgs, though some more confirming experiments are underway, Dec this year noteably. From there the Standard Model basically stops. Certainly there are many other postulates from there - SuperSymmetry (which actually looks to not work based on our current evidence) and others. Though Physics needs some new stuff.

No, it doesn't look like we found 'Higgs' however 'they' are happy to call it 'Higgs' for now...

Quote:

If you want to know my issue with your presentation is that you don't say 'Here's a cool postulate that might be true'. (Which is the right approach) Instead you claim 'X is True' and fail to have the evidence to back up your claims. And sometimes the evidence we do have is clearly against your claims (cough Haramein cough)

No, I show scientic papers with data from researchers and you say 'oh I didn't read that in highschool so it can't be true'.

Quote:

As for your 'never observed Gluon claim' Gluons observed in the mid-late 1970s.

Again you fail to read the details... As I told you, 'gravity' is based on EM pressure, they they observed [ZOMG!] radiation. I told you, "a free gluon has never been observed". Why? Because it's a placeholder for an observation and isn't a real particle.

Quote:

Quote: You keep thinking gravity is a unique and separate force when this "effect" can be seen in all mediums. It's a cheerios effect in a sea of EM. Good postulate. Evidence? Oh yeah we've been asking. But, we're still open to it.

And the wheels of the bus...
Sure, I'll give you that 'evidence' right after you show me evidence every other THEORY you believe in is actually FACT.

Quote:

Quote: I think(well, I personally know actually) you are being a hypocrit. Radiation Pressure and shielding can be tested. Has been proven Yeah it has and magnitudes severly smaller than what you claim. They clearly have NOT been tested at interstellar levels. Go back to the RP Chart I included which demonstrates the amount of RP in the solar system. Quote: the earth below you is shielding you from the RP of the universe in that direction. The sky above you is not shielding you so you are pushed to the earth. Okay so build a RP shield above your head. Like say a metal dome roof of many of the government buildings in your area of the world. The RP above that dome is greater than the RP under the dome. You have a shield in place above you. Not so surprisingly you don't create anti-gravity. If your statement were true that simple shild around all sides (put yourself in a Faraday Cage) would cause you to float. We know from experiments that stuff inside a Faraday Cage doesn't float.

Faraday cages cannot block static and slowly varying magnetic fields, such as the Earth's magnetic field (a compass will still work inside)...so keep on coming up with CRAP this isn't true to prove your failing point.

Quote:

Quote: The term comes from the calculated average density of the planet based on the observed volume and the *assumed* mass derived from it's GR-based orbit. You can't tell me that Jupiter has been scanned inside out to its core Again no. The science world decided 'gas' was the term to be used for helium and hydrogen bodies. Just like 'ice' is used for methane, and water. Just like 'rock' is used for silicon and mettalics. They don't scan the densities. They look at the different materials (fairly easy with a Chromospectographier) and assign the term.

WTF are you talking about? We were talking about Jupiter and such planets being classified as gas giants. /disregarded, BK picks one sentence and goes off on a tangent again...

Quote:

Quote: If it was a fluid/superfluid, it too would be extremely warped. Liquids resist pressure changes they try to equalize them. When equal pressure is abound they form into a 'bubble'. Take a look at the videos on the space stations when astronauts shoot their drink at each other. Skylab has a famous one where the fluid formed into a bubble and the astronaut stuck a straw into it and drank it. EVIDENCE! It always reigns. Perhaps you should find some before telling us what you believe.

Evidence? Are you on crack? Look at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=ntQ7qGilqZE&NR=1
So a solid hits a liquid and it [ZOMG!] distorts! Did Jupiter DISTORT?
...and the failing continues...

Quote:

This might help you Gas Giants . Jupiter's hydrogen is superfluid "most of the volume of these planets all the components (other than solid materials in the core) are above the critical point and therefore there is no distinction between liquids and gases"

You just don't get it. If the solid portion is so small, Jupiter would have distorted when hit by a comet. It's crust is large, just study the impacts of comets on it.

Quote:

Quote: Also, just the other day, a comet hit Jupiter and there were picture posted. Seems pretty solid to me... All I can say is your observation is unrepeated, unagreed to, and we therefore must consider it flawed.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/comet-hit-jupiter-equivalent-20-megaton-nuclear-bomb-170427524.html
All I can say it you are on crack. You blatantly defy and deny observation. I now consider you a raving lunatic.

Quote:

Quote: I long for the day when I can remove the alternator from the accessory side of the engine... Someday a car will run on battery power until it warms up, then will run on it's own heat... Engines are around 30% efficent at best. Energy is expended in heat and in pushing out gases. Cost effective thermal to electrical conversion devices have been out of reach, or considered so by the industry. This is all good but really something known for decades. Though too much thermal removal will be bad. I live in Minnesota and needed that heat to keep me and the kids warm in the car the last couple of days.

Having to turn the altenator is a huge portion of that poor efficiency.
If you have a fireplace or wood furnace...or even a campfire, you can generate electricity:
http://www.tegpower.com/

@Lou

Quote:

No, I show scientic papers with data from researchers and you say

correction, you link to assertions from people of dubious mental stability and expect the world to fall at your feet in worship of their ineffable wisdom. What you have still failed to do is provide any evidence that there is any truth to your claims. re-linking to the same unfounded assertion does not cause it to accrue validity.

Quote:

Faraday cages cannot block static and slowly varying magnetic fields

Wrong While a steady stete or low frequency EM field is difficult to exclude, it is not impossible given the right material, and the right construction.
Permalloy, and mu-metal are two examples that go a long way to achieving total isolation, but there are other methods that can also be used in conjunction.

Quote:

Having to turn the altenator is a huge portion of that poor efficiency.

The alternator is probably the most efficient thing about the car. If you remove the alternator and just run the car with a fully charged battery the engine will still get ***king hot. Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of anything that cuts down on waste and inefficiency and TEG certainly helps. But at the moment the efficiency saving of LED lighting over incandescent lamps is a far greater gain than the advances made in thermocouple pile generation. For example any car that is so wasteful that it only achieves 22mpg in urban conditions and 32mpg on the open road is only fit for the scrap heap. In the meantime a combination of reduced cost of thermo-electric generation and increased efficiency of domestic electric consumption is a good way of contributing toward the solution of many problems.

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

@Lou

Quote:

No, it doesn't look like we found 'Higgs' however 'they' are happy to call it 'Higgs' for now...

Yes the press published Higgs. Science continues to suss out it's other properties to see it's Higgs. You stated they'd find nothing and shouldn't bother to look. Well they found something.

Quote:

No, I show scientic papers with data from researchers and you say 'oh I didn't read that in highschool so it can't be true'.

Last part first - I never said that. If I did find the # or withdraw your further lies. First part last - your papers are assertions not data. You attempt circular logic to prove themselves true. That is not how this works. In science you don't get away with the 'Bible' approach of claiming true and enforcing we must accept it true. Instead we see Einstein as true not because his paper claims it true but because repeatable observed evidence demonstrates him to be more true than others (for example).

Quote:

We were talking about Jupiter and such planets being classified as gas giants

And you falsely claimed Quote:

The term comes from the calculated average density of the planet ...etc

which is false. You need to read up on how science classify planets (heck I linked to the explaination for you). Though Kudos for making up your own method. Though science choose to not use your version.

Quote:

You just don't get it. If the solid portion is so small, Jupiter would have distorted when hit by a comet. It's crust is large, just study the impacts of comets on it

Read up on Galileo. It's probe went through Hydrogen / Helium gas and liquid for roughly the first 1/3 of the planet, over 160KM. Levy9 was seen by us only because we had Galileo watching, the crash was on the back side away from earth at the time. It was a 3K km spout of flame with very little solid material. It did not hit a crust in the way you believe. Your observeration is flawed.

Quote:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/comet-hit-jupiter-equivalent-20-megaton-nuclear-bomb-170427524.html All I can say it you are on crack. You blatantly defy and deny observation

There's nothing here that says it hit a surface near the edge the planet. You must be a Karl Rove fan blaming others for your own bad crack taking behaviors. If you assert there is quote the exact line. Cuz it ain't there crackbaby.

Quote:

Having to turn the altenator is a huge portion of that poor efficiency.

Umm no. It's part of the poor efficency but not a huge part. In reality nearly two-thirds of energy input is lost as waste heat. Because the engine is about 30% efficent and 66.667% is lost in heat, clearly the alternator is not a huge portion of poor efficency.

Quote:

If you have a fireplace or wood furnace...or even a campfire, you can generate electricity:

In the early 1800s the science dealing with thermocouples came to be. Welcome to the 19th century. Let me know when you make it to the 21st.

Last edited by BrianK on 22-Sep-2012 at 03:02 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

Sure, I'll give you that 'evidence' right after you show me evidence every other THEORY you believe in is actually FACT.

Sorry skipped this.
Scientific facts are those observable repeatable results, called evidence. Scientific Theory is that body of work that gathers, the currently available facts, and constructs an explaination for them. You seem to rely on common venacular in your definitions and clearly do not understand emperical skepticism (aka science.)

Now I've provided you many evidenced data to review and see how those facts work. I also provided you a way to get more. You refused to read and made excuses for yourself. I, at least, did you the respect to consider your papers. They weren't evidence or facts as you claimed. They were postulates. And I pointed out many ways those postulates do not comply with reality (aka observed facts). This was consideration. Heck I'm open for you to providing evidence.

What I'm not open to is being disrepected again. Once you finish with the first set of papers I'll gladly provide you more readings. Since you can't be bothered with starting it makes more sense to make your pile even larger.

@BrianK

Quote:

Point of order. Just because someone is really really wrong about something doesn't mean we should reject all their ideas

I do not reject Brandenburg out of hand, but with his determined defence of his alien fantasy he does himself no favours. Compare Brandenburgs approach to that of the scientists who had recorded neutrinos apparently exceeding the speed limit. They did not break the story with a big fanfare that they had discredited or beaten Einstein, they simply cited their figures and experimental data and invited the scientific community to investigate further. Everybody anticipated that the source of an error would be found but many were also hopeful that this could lead to the start of a whole new field of FTL physics. Other scientists have managed to retain their scientific credibilty while also being succesful sci-fi authors, simply because they were able to differentiate between the science and the fiction.

Your citing of Pauling is more approriate to Lous "EM is God" stance, since up to certain levels the adage "the more the merrier" does actually apply to Vitamin C therapy, but once there is enough in the body any excess is simply wasted, and above a certain level can become toxic. Likewise EM has its uses, but is not the sole force in the universe.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Point of order. Just because someone is really really wrong about something doesn't mean we should reject all their ideas I do not reject Brandenburg out of hand, but with his determined defence of his alien fantasy he does himself no favours. Compare Brandenburgs approach to that of the scientists who had recorded neutrinos apparently exceeding the speed limit. They did not break the story with a big fanfare that they had discredited or beaten Einstein, they simply cited their figures and experimental data and invited the scientific community to investigate further

Fair enough. Just be sure rejections are evidence based. When Brandenburg postulates fail to comply with reality that's a problem. Haramein is pure sci-fi.

The greatness of good scientists is when they say 'help' we can't figure out where this is wrong. It's that very important step of validation of the evidence.

Quote:

Your citing of Pauling is more approriate to Lous "EM is God" stance, since up to certain levels the adage "the more the merrier" does actually apply to Vitamin C therapy, but once there is enough in the body any excess is simply wasted, and above a certain level can become toxic

Unfortunately, Vitamin-C didn't cure cancer as Pauling claimed. Not even close. One could possibly take in a toxic level of Vitamin-C. They'd have to eat a boatload and a half as it's water soluble. I'd say 2K or 3K tablets at once might do it.

@physics noobs in denial of vacuum energy and hence pressure:

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/Casimir.html

To quote, cuz I know atleast one of you hates following links and generally reads nothing then asks for evidence while providing nothing but rhetoric himself...

Quote:

Casimir effect -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A small attractive force that acts between two close parallel uncharged conducting plates. Its existence was first predicted by the Dutch physicist Hendrick Casimir in 1948 and confirmed experimentally by Steven Lamoreaux, now of Los Alamos National Laboratory, in 1996. The Casimir effect is one of several phenomena that provide convincing evidence for the reality of the quantum vacuum – the equivalent in quantum mechanics of what, in classical physics, would be described as empty space. According to modern physics, a vacuum is full of fluctuating electromagnetic waves of all possible wavelengths which imbue it with a vast amount of energy, normally invisible to us. Casimir realized that between two plates, only those unseen electromagnetic waves whose wavelengths fit a whole number of times into the gap should be counted when calculating the vacuum energy. As the gap between the plates is narrowed (to a few nanometers), fewer waves can contribute to the vacuum energy and so the energy density between the plates falls below the energy density of the surrounding space. The result is a tiny force trying to pull the plates together – a force that has been measured and thus provides proof of the existence of the quantum vacuum. Pushes, pulls, and nanotechnology Casimir's original theory applied only to ideal metals and dielectric materials; however, in the 1950s and '60s, the Russian physicist Evgeny Lifshitz extended Casimir's theory to include real metals and found that the forces at work could be repulsive as well as attractive. Because of his contribution, the Casimir effect is now also known as the Casimir–Lifshitz effect. To date, only the attractive form of the effect has been studied in detail and without any immediate practical application. But the emergence of nanoscale devices has brought to light a drawback of the Casimir–Lifshitz effect: it can cause tiny pieces of machinery, such as microscopic cogs, to stick together. As such devices continue to shrink, the consequences of the effect will need to be taken seriously. One possibility, explored by Federico Capasso of Harvard University and his co-workers,4 is to exploit the repulsive Casimir–Lifshitz effect to make nanomachines run more easily. Instead of vacuum between metal plates, Capasso's team used a liquid, bromobenzene, as the separating medium, and a gold-coated polystyrene sphere attached to a cantilever, and a silica plate. The key to the experiment is the dielectric permittivity of each of these materials. This property represents a material's ability to carry an electric field. To get a repulsive force out of the system, the dielectric permittivity of one plate must be higher than that of the surrounding liquid, and the dielectric permittivity of the second plate must be lower than that of the surrounding liquid. In the arrangement used by Capasso's group, gold has the highest dielectric permittivity, followed by bromobenzene, followed by silica. The Casimir-Lifshitz force works so that the liquid is attracted into the gap between the two, forcing them apart. Casimir effect and propulsion The Casimir effect has been linked to the possibility of faster-than-light travel because of the fact that the region inside a Casimir cavity has negative energy density. Zero energy density, by definition, is the energy density of normal "empty space." Since the energy density between the conductors of a Casimir cavity is less than normal, it must be negative. Regions of negative energy density are thought to be essential to a number of hypothetical faster-than-light propulsion schemes, including stable wormholes and the Alcubierre warp drive. There is another interesting possibility for breaking the light-barrier by an extension of the Casimir effect. Light in normal empty space is "slowed" by interactions with the unseen waves or particles with which the quantum vacuum seethes. But within the energy-depleted region of a Casimir cavity, light should travel slightly faster because there are fewer obstacles. A few years ago, K. Scharnhorst of the Alexander von Humboldt University in Berlin published calculations showing that, under the right conditions, light can be induced to break the usual light-speed barrier. Under normal laboratory conditions this increase in speed is incredibly small, but future technology may afford ways of producing a much greater Casimir effect in which light can travel much faster. If so, it might be possible to surround a space vehicle with a "bubble" of highly energy-depleted vacuum, in which the spacecraft could travel at FTL velocities, carrying the bubble along with it.

So I emphasized CONFIRMED and MODERN PHYSICS because a NIMROD continues to deny it's existence...meanwhile you both worship antiquated 'gravity' which is an UNCONFIRMED theory.

So, oh worshippers of the THEORY of general relativity, who's author said is wrong, and which requires supplemental theories (dark energy) to even come close to being correct, where the FOCK is your evidence?

Go pray to your 'Gravity Gods' now! You got nothing but rhetoric. Just clowns on parade.

The Casimir effect is a 'gravitational' effect because as the modern theories of said effect as really the result of radiation pressure and shielding, two conductive plates make for good shields. Planets make good shields...etc...

@Lou

Quote:

Planets make good shields

Lots of BS that we don't know the Casimir effect. What you seem to not understand is the Casmir Effect has not, in any way, be shown to be operating on 'human scales' let along planetary. It's your belief that the nano works exactly the same on the galactic. You have provided zero evidence to demonstrate planets work like the two very very closely spaced metal plates. As provided to you many links and methods to get more the Gravity has the preponderance of evidence to date. Doesn't mean it might not be what you say. It's simply the truth that you don't have the better evidence to cause a paradigm shift. I'll be one of the first in line when we get FTL and floating cars. So I encourage people to bring it!

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Planets make good shields Lots of BS that we don't know the Casimir effect. What you seem to not understand is the Casmir Effect has not, in any way, be shown to be operating on 'human scales' let along planetary. It's your belief that the nano works exactly the same on the galactic. You have provided zero evidence to demonstrate planets work like the two very very closely spaced metal plates. As provided to you many links and methods to get more the Gravity has the preponderance of evidence to date. Doesn't mean it might not be what you say. It's simply the truth that you don't have the better evidence to cause a paradigm shift. I'll be one of the first in line when we get FTL and floating cars. So I encourage people to bring it!

What you don't understand is that YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND.

@Lou

Quote:

What you don't understand is that YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND.

When you're pointing your index finger of blame at me look at the other 3, See where they point. Yeah that's the problem.

@Lou

Quote:

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/Casimir.html To quote, cuz I know atleast one of you hates following links and generally reads nothing then asks for evidence while providing nothing but rhetoric himself...

And I know that you hate the fact that I follow your links, read (or watch) what they contain and then investigate the claims made.

My reading of the same article produces the following

Quote:

A small attractive force that acts between two close, parallel uncharged conducting plates. Its existence was first predicted by the Dutch physicist Hendrick Casimir in 1948

. Nobody is denying the existence of the Casimir-Lifshitz effect, just as we do not deny the existence of EM, we are merely aware of its limitations.

Quote:

So I emphasized CONFIRMED and MODERN PHYSICS because a NIMROD continues to deny it's existence.

I am aware that the effect is confirmed, and despite your perpetual resort to attacking straw men on any occasion that you are not actively and deliberately posting untruths I have never denied the existence of this small force, I merely refuse to multiply its value by an almost infinite amount in order to make it appear significant. As I explained earlier "Since quantum field theory only measures energy differences and as such cannot measure the energy density, the calculations used have to make certain assumptions". Your postulate depends on assumptions that can be demonstrated to be false. The vacuum energy has been measured at 0.6 Joules per kM3.
Since this is the second time that I have said what the measured energy is so maybe you will stop making false claims that I am in denial of the existence of vacuum energy.

Quote:

The Casimir effect is a 'gravitational' effect because as the modern theories of said effect as really the result of radiation pressure and shielding,

OK genius, so where is the shielding here. Answer, there in none and it doesn't matter because radiation pressure, while it does exist, is an insignificantly small force in the overall scheme of things.

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

@Nimrod

Physics moving to open access NICE!