@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Oh look, "science" catches up to Sitchin again: I will believe in the concept of science catching up with Sitchin when I see NASA successfully launch a spacecraft made of wattle and daub, using cow dung as a heat shield, just like Sitchin described the assembly of a spacecraft while ignoring the previous paragraph where the Sumerian author described the process of making the bricks to build the ziggurat( or as Sitchin says, Spaceship) At least when I read old Sci-fi written by E. E. 'Doc'Smith, or Isaac Asimov, they acknowledge that the book I am reading is a work of fiction, and they keep the fiction separate from other works of scientific facts They are also more entertaining and better written. The fantasy that Sitchin wrote requires an intelligent lifeform to evolve on a planet that spends most of its time beyond the orbit of Neptune, yet be capable of living comfortably on a planet that has liquid water. This is glossed over by claiming that Nibiru is a "radiant planet". If Nibiru constantly gave off sufficient energy to support a lifeform able to thrive at Earthly temperatures, this planet would have lit up the sky for a survey like WISE, yet none of the discoveries made using satellites IR detectors resembled the requirements of "Nibiru" One other comment on your last post before you took your "holiday" from this thread. Who are the followers of Einstein? I do not use GR because it was postulated by Einstein, I use it because it is the current best fit to the observable universe. When something else supersedes GR as the "current best fit" then I will use the new best fit method. What I have never done, and never will do is follow a theory simply because of the name on the front cover. Regardless if that name is Einstein, or Brandenburg. Harameins CRAP would not be anything other than CRAP even if Hawking published it. I did not make this point earlier as you were not in a position to reply.

Removed by Mod: Personal attack.

Play nice gentlement. "Please be quiet, I disagree" would be the correct response

Last edited by Darrin on 07-Mar-2013 at 04:42 PM.

@Lou

Thanks for providing your source Quote:

http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=33688&forum=4&start=2680&viewmode=flat&order=0#688187

where you claim Quote:

my primary troller linked a youtube video where the author of the video discredited John Brandenburg as someone who has never published a scientic paper

I wonder if you've viewed the video linked? Here's that taken out of the post you commented on for ease of linking http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdnZ1l5TxJk&

I ask because at the 1:30-2:30 area is where I found the author making a claim of no peer reviewed or validated papers on the hypothesis of a nuclear war on Mars. What is not said is 'never published'. In fact, a bit later (around 2:50ish) in the video is the display of the published paper by Brandenburg. And even a bit later (3:15ish) Brandenburg's book is shown. So, it seems to me a bit crazy to claim this video says 'never published' yet displays the published items? If I may ask - what section do you believe says 'never published' I'm just not finding it.

Now what the video does says, and is true, is these published papers are neither peer reviewed nor accepted science. They are untested and unconfirmed hypothesis of Brandenburg.

It's interesting that Brandenburg says he came to the conclusion that a civilization was on Mars by using the Viking images. Newer images of this area of the planet are clearer in detail and indeed do not show a civilization. So better evidence has further discredited Brandenburg's assumptions.

I encourage others to view this video. They do a good job describing on how news, in this case Fox News, failed to fact check their science. Instead they believed the source and reported it. Thereby committing an Argument from Authority fallacy. In the end the Fox News article was fiction that their reporter didn't understand was neither true nor established science.

Getting back to your claim of 'never published' - it's not in the video. If you still wish to contend this I ask you provide even better evidence what exact time in the video do you use as your evidence?

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Thanks for providing your source Quote: http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=33688&forum=4&start=2680&viewmode=flat&order=0#688187 where you claim Quote: my primary troller linked a youtube video where the author of the video discredited John Brandenburg as someone who has never published a scientic paper I wonder if you've viewed the video linked? Here's that taken out of the post you commented on for ease of linking http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdnZ1l5TxJk& I ask because at the 1:30-2:30 area is where I found the author making a claim of no peer reviewed or validated papers on the hypothesis of a nuclear war on Mars. What is not said is 'never published'. In fact, a bit later (around 2:50ish) in the video is the display of the published paper by Brandenburg. And even a bit later (3:15ish) Brandenburg's book is shown. So, it seems to me a bit crazy to claim this video says 'never published' yet displays the published items? If I may ask - what section do you believe says 'never published' I'm just not finding it. Now what the video does says, and is true, is these published papers are neither peer reviewed nor accepted science. They are untested and unconfirmed hypothesis of Brandenburg. It's interesting that Brandenburg says he came to the conclusion that a civilization was on Mars by using the Viking images. Newer images of this area of the planet are clearer in detail and indeed do not show a civilization. So better evidence has further discredited Brandenburg's assumptions. I encourage others to view this video. They do a good job describing on how news, in this case Fox News, failed to fact check their science. Instead they believed the source and reported it. Thereby committing an Argument from Authority fallacy. In the end the Fox News article was fiction that their reporter didn't understand was neither true nor established science. Getting back to your claim of 'never published' - it's not in the video. If you still wish to contend this I ask you provide even better evidence what exact time in the video do you use as your evidence?

You should listen to the Coast To Coast interview with Brandenburg.
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guest/brandenburg-dr-john/53388

The troll's link was nimrodic and essentially did the same thing it pretended to oppose. All the author of the video did was attempt to discredit the person rather than dispute the information. Typical troll tactic.

@Lou

Quote:

All the author of the video did was attempt to discredit the person rather than dispute the information. Typical troll tactic.

I'll disagree.

Actually the information was in dispute. The author of the Fox News article claimed it a fact that nuclear war happened on Mars. The author provided no citation for sources. The most there is, is a quote from Brandenburg. Good scientific journalism does not live on quotes from experts. It takes those quotes and backs them up with detailed demonstrated experimentation and evidence. The Fox News reporter clearly failed, in this case, to be a good scientific journalist.

The way science works is to assume we don't know until the point we can demonstrate something to be true. Unfortunately, the Fox News author assumed true without having the demonstratable evidence of support. If Fox News wants to use 1 paper that's fine. They still must provide supporting evidence that paper is correct.

@Lou

Quote:

A few months ago, my primary troller linked a youtube video where the author of the video discredited John Brandenburg as someone who has never published a scientic paper. I submit this: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00678073?no-access=true Troller discredited. .

Yes Lou, the straw man has now been clearly defeated. It is a pity that you have yet again made an inaccurate assessment of the original facts.

You may now proceed to make an ad hominem attack and resort to puerile name calling. Quote:

Mind you, this troll reports me for calling him out as the troll that he indeed is. As the old saying goes "once a troll, always a troll".

I knew you were going to say that.

Quote:

And oh look, I make a post after I don't even know how long and then shortly there after, my troller posts. Co-inky dink? I think not.

Exactly not a coincidence. Since you were unable to respond I witheld any comment. It was an act of courtesy as requested by a moderator. Once you resumed posting Clearly Ridiculous Asinine Postulates, I felt free to point out that you are living a fantasy. Statements do not miraculously become true just because some self styled "expert" makes the claim, They get accepted as true by being demonstrated to be the best available approximation of "true". This applies regardless of if the name of the expert is Einstein, Hawking, or Lou. Even Brandenburg does not get a free ride, and of course Sitchin has negative academic credibility, as do Velikovsky and VonDaniken who your post associated firmly with Sitchin.

I also note that you did not attempt to logically refute my previous post, preferring to launch yet another personal attack.

Quote:

You should listen to the Coast To Coast interview with Brandenburg. http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guest/brandenburg-dr-john/53388

Since this is not the first time you have posted links to Brandenburgs appearances on this show, it would be safe to say that we have already listened to it, considered what he had to say, and commented on it. Listening to somebody talking a load of CRAP is no more convincing than reading a pile of Clearly Ridiculous Asinine Postulates.
Quote:

All the author of the video did was attempt to discredit the person rather than dispute the information.

Correction: All the author did was to point out that an assertion had been made with no supporting evidence and a "journalist" hadn't bothered to fact check before producing a sensational story that was as scientifically accurate as an episode of noddy.

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

Interesting that the subject of a nuclear war on Mars is discussed in this thread. I heard of that theory so long ago that I had almost forgot it. One of the angles of the theory states that they must have used a cobalt bomb. The official version to why those bombs are not produced here on Earth is that they would spread a huge dust cloud made up of radioactive particles which would cover large areas. Some mean that is just a cover up. The real reason to why the nuclear test of such a bomb was stopped at the last moment back in the sixties was that scientists figured out that if it was detonated a chain reaction involving cobalt and oxygen would consume our entire atmosphere within hours.

That is what would have happened on Mars according to this theory.

edit: grammar

Last edited by Niolator on 08-Mar-2013 at 09:08 AM.

@Niolator

Careful now, or North Korean media will tout Kim Jong-Un (or more likely, his grandfather) as the destroyer of Martian civilization

Last edited by olegil on 08-Mar-2013 at 09:58 AM.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

No worries. To be able to build a cobalt bomb you would have to have the capability to build a hydrogen bomb. Luckily North Korea is far from that.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: A few months ago, my primary troller linked a youtube video where the author of the video discredited John Brandenburg as someone who has never published a scientic paper. I submit this: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00678073?no-access=true Troller discredited. . Yes Lou, the straw man has now been clearly defeated. It is a pity that you have yet again made an inaccurate assessment of the original facts.

I predicted to admins you wouldn't post unless I did. That's exactly how it played out. I didn't even post for some time after your continued exposure of weak character and cowardice. You have nothing to add to this thread other than to state your opinion as fact because you are an almighty engineer and I am not. When I used the same reasoning that scientists have papers that say otherwise, you claim that being scientists doesn't make them more qualified than you. You're just full of "it" and yourself.

Quote:

You may now proceed to make an ad hominem attack and resort to puerile name calling. Quote: Mind you, this troll reports me for calling him out as the troll that he indeed is. As the old saying goes "once a troll, always a troll". I knew you were going to say that.

I call a spade a spade. You don't like it and cry behind the scenes. Let me know your address, I'll send you some cheese.

Quote:

Quote: And oh look, I make a post after I don't even know how long and then shortly there after, my troller posts. Co-inky dink? I think not. Exactly not a coincidence. Since you were unable to respond I witheld any comment. It was an act of courtesy as requested by a moderator. Once you resumed posting Clearly Ridiculous Asinine Postulates, I felt free to point out that you are living a fantasy. Statements do not miraculously become true just because some self styled "expert" makes the claim, They get accepted as true by being demonstrated to be the best available approximation of "true". This applies regardless of if the name of the expert is Einstein, Hawking, or Lou. Even Brandenburg does not get a free ride, and of course Sitchin has negative academic credibility, as do Velikovsky and VonDaniken who your post associated firmly with Sitchin. I also note that you did not attempt to logically refute my previous post, preferring to launch yet another personal attack.

I also noted that you have nothing to say unless I do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueEM2ly0mqQ

Quote:

Quote: You should listen to the Coast To Coast interview with Brandenburg. http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guest/brandenburg-dr-john/53388 Since this is not the first time you have posted links to Brandenburgs appearances on this show, it would be safe to say that we have already listened to it, considered what he had to say, and commented on it. Listening to somebody talking a load of CRAP is no more convincing than reading a pile of Clearly Ridiculous Asinine Postulates.

Yep, just keep repeating your crap and perpetuating your trollish behavior.

Quote:

Quote: All the author of the video did was attempt to discredit the person rather than dispute the information. Correction: All the author did was to point out that an assertion had been made with no supporting evidence and a "journalist" hadn't bothered to fact check before producing a sensational story that was as scientifically accurate as an episode of noddy.

you are FULL of CRAP.
You used that video because the author attempted to dismiss Brandenburg.
I just dimissed the author proving he was full of crap.
BrianK's take on it is that he was referring only to Mars papers and that's just rubbish. As a scientist even if he wrote papers on protons all his life is doesn't mean the one paper he writes on the electron is bunk. You trolls just keep trying to bend your troll-logic to suit your needs. What's your address again so I can send you that cheese?

@Lou

Quote:

BrianK's take on it is that he was referring only to Mars papers and that's just rubbish.

Yeah the thread was between you and Nimrod. However, you invoked a charge of me so I feel it fair to respond. My response however is the one you don't like. Where is your evidence?

You claimed the video post stated that Brandenburg never published a paper. I disagreed. To demonstrate with evidence why I disagreed with your post I cited the time into the video where the statements are made concerning the lack of a fully sussed Mars paper. Additionally, I cited the time into the video where Brandenburg's publications are displayed. At this point I've clearly provided much better evidence that your point is wrong.

(EDIT: It appears you did not go back and rewatch this video. I gave you the timings. Here I'll go even further to transcribe the words. You can flip to 1:45 for a bit more background before I start the transcription.
"How does Brandenburg know this? There the trail grows cold. There's no study and no research paper quoted just one man's opinion. For most journalist's outside the field of science that's all they need. But, science is not like history, or economics or medivial art. The facts in science are easy to source because they all come from research that come from peer reviewed scientific papers. So let's see if Brandenburg has written one" ... Now at this point we can already see the author of the YouTube is not looking for any publication but a specific publication. And not in any old place but in the place of science - peer reviewed journals....forwarding a couple of seconds and ..."yes evidence for a paper from Brandenburg comes up called 'Evidence for a large natural paleo-nuclear reactor on Mars'. But this is not a scientific paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. This was just 1 out of over 1800 papers submitted to the 42nd lunar and planetary science conference as matters of interest and discussion. The only other thing we have from Brandenburg is a book called life and death on Mars"....Time here is 2:59.

As we can see the video discussed 1 Brandenburg paper. It discounted that paper based on the lack of peer review and therefore lack of confirmation. The video never claimed Brandenburg never published anything)


But, at the same time I respect you making your point of view. You can say whatever you want. However, to help demonstrate you're not talking rubbish yourself you do need to provide better indication to what you mean.

Quote:

a scientist even if he wrote papers on protons all his life is doesn't mean the one paper he writes on the electron is bunk.

Unfortunately, you don't treat these things scientifically. If someone writes a bunch off papers and they're all right you treat their new paper as gospel. That's not how science works. Each hypothesis must stand on it's own evidence. You don't get to same something because you have a proven past. Each time a scientist puts forward a new idea the acceptance of that idea relies upon evidence.

For example, Brandenburg seems to have done some good work in the past. However, the accuracy of that past work in no way proves his hypothesis on Mars being a nuclear waste land is right. Instead we need evidence to that event. At present the evidence clearly does not confirm this.

Accepting work because Brandenburg has the right certifications (which you cited in the past as your reason to believe him) is not accepting on evidence. It's accepting by Title. Science doesn't work like your local priesthood where Bishops are a better source. For a good example look at Linus Pauling and his Nobel Prize winning work. Some excellent stuff there. But, his work that vitamin C is a cure-all for cancer was nothing but snake-oil. Ironically enough he was the own anti-proof of his 'Vitamin C cures Cancer' thought because Linus Pauling died of cancer.

Last edited by BrianK on 08-Mar-2013 at 05:00 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

You have nothing to add to this thread other than to state your opinion as fact because you are an almighty engineer and I am not.

At no time in this, or either of the two preceding "Nibiru" threads have I stated that my opinion is a fact because I have greater qualifications. Facts are not based on qualifications like some glorified game of top trumps. My references to my status as an engineer have been to state that I am not a scientist, merely an engineer. From my response to MikeB 13. May. 2011 Quote:

Please allow me to repeat an earlier statement of mine. I am not a scientist, I am an engineer. I believe in using the most appropriate tool for any given task.

Or my respons to you on 2-Aug-2011 Quote:

on the contrary, I have frequently pointed out that I am not a scientist, merely a competent engineer. In fact I have no need to know everything to see through these misleading posts, I just need to have an understanding of the basics.

One of the few benefits of this background is that I do not say "You are wrong because I said so." What I frequently do is state "Here is evidence that contradicts your claim."

Quote:

When I used the same reasoning that scientists have papers that say otherwise, you claim that being scientists doesn't make them more qualified than you. You're just full of "it" and yourself.

The fact that somebody is not a scientist does not make them automatically wrong, and the fact that somebody is a scientist does not automatically make them right. The final arbiter of right and wrong is not the name written at the foot of the page, or the number of letters the author has after his name. A scientific theory is accepted if it is demonstrably better than all competing theories. As yet none of the fantasies that you keep posting have managed to qualify, and some of them are so ridiculous that they do not need to be disproved by advanced science, it merely takes an ancient engineer who can still remember a few of the basics.

My first comment on this subject was to point out that contrary to your beliefs, the Maya and Aztecs did not build anything in the Gaza strip, and you then sought to claim that you knew better as a result of being almost forty years old. I indicated that to be irrelevant as I have children of your age.

Everything that you have done since that first exchange has been a vain attempt to demonstrate that science is wrong, and only the religion of Nibiru with Zechariah Sitchin as its messiah, and Lou as its Grand Wizard, has any validity. Back in April of 2011 you claimed that there "are websites mathematically proving what he's been saying about our solar system which came simply from his translations" yet after almost two years you have still failed to post a single link to such a website. At the same time I and others have shown that Sitchin was not capable of translating these texts and simply made up a load of bull tomake himself look smarter than he really was. When challenged by academics to justify his so called "translations" he simply ignored them and wrote another, even more ridiculous story to sell to his followers. If you have any evidence to support your claims, then please feel free to post the evidence. All you have done in the last two years is post unfounded postulates in support of unevidenced assumptions, and when this has not caused the world to fall to their knees worshipping your supreme intellect, you have resorted to childishly throwing your toys out of the pram and posting personal insults.

Quote:

I also noted that you have nothing to say unless I do. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueEM2ly0mqQ

An amusing lesson in trolling from the author of post #586
it is amusing how you do a five second search for some CRAP for me to analyse, and then assume that I am the troll because I looked at the CRAP you asked me to look at and show that it is in fact pure unadulterated 110% CRAP

Quote:

As a scientist even if he wrote papers on protons all his life is doesn't mean the one paper he writes on the electron is bunk.

This is in fact the absolute truth. People can use skills gained in one field of expertise and apply them to making advances in another field. As an example Linus Pauling is the only person to win two unshared Nobel prizes, and made discoveries in chemistry and biology. If however in your example the scientist assumes an electron mass of 800,000,000 tonnes, then his paper on electrons will carry no real weight.

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

@Niolator

Quote:

The real reason to why the nuclear test of such a bomb was stopped at the last moment back in the sixties was that scientists figured out that if it was detonated a chain reaction involving cobalt and oxygen would consume our entire atmosphere within hours.

The original urban legend was that the scientists who built the first hydrogen bomb were uncertain if it would cause a chain reaction involving all hydrogen held in water vapour in the atmosphere, and water in the oceans. It would seem that some people delight in trying to portray scientists as some kind of Frankenstein figure tinkering with things beyond human understanding, or trying to usurp divine authority.

The principle of the cobalt bomb was that it would produce a large, highly radioactive cloud with a very short half life. This would depopulate a region while leaving the infrastructure largely intact, ready for your troops and a new population to move in after a short wait, in perfect safety.

The reason that stories choose to refer to cobalt bombs on Mars is that low number isotopes of cobalt decay to become iron which is abundant on the surface of Mars. This is taken by some as clear proof that since there is iron on Mars, it must be a result of Cobalt decay arising from a nuclear war, completely overlooking the fact that iron is a stable, naturally occuring, common element found in abundance throughout the known universe. It also overlooks the fact that high number radioactive isotopes of cobalt decay to nickel, which is not as hugely abundant on the surface of Mars.

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

Higgs looking very standard ... Unfortunately, early rumblings from the forthcoming physics symposium look like Higgs is the one predicted by the Standard Model.

@Nimrod

Quote:

The principle of the cobalt bomb was that it would produce a large, highly radioactive cloud with a very short half life. This would depopulate a region while leaving the infrastructure largely intact, ready for your troops and a new population to move in after a short wait, in perfect safety.

Yes, that is exactly what I wrote. So, you are a part of the cover up too?

@Lou

Quote:

Once again BrianK, your reading comprehension is full of fail. The article is about the origin of the Y chromosome pinning it to around 338,000 years ago. As Sitchin translated, native females were implanted...hence the X chromosome won't have been touched.

It seems perhaps you may not have a larger understanding of genetic, biology, and/or evolution to fit this article in perspective. Thus we see you claing this is some sort of 'Adam' for all men. When no such thing is demonstrated. Here is some reading I came across this weekend that I thought may help you. http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/father-of-us-all/#more-5389

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: You have nothing to add to this thread other than to state your opinion as fact because you are an almighty engineer and I am not. At no time in this, or either of the two preceding "Nibiru" threads have I stated that my opinion is a fact because I have greater qualifications. Facts are not based on qualifications like some glorified game of top trumps. My references to my status as an engineer have been to state that I am not a scientist, merely an engineer. From my response to MikeB 13. May. 2011 Quote: Please allow me to repeat an earlier statement of mine. I am not a scientist, I am an engineer. I believe in using the most appropriate tool for any given task. Or my respons to you on 2-Aug-2011 Quote: on the contrary, I have frequently pointed out that I am not a scientist, merely a competent engineer. In fact I have no need to know everything to see through these misleading posts, I just need to have an understanding of the basics. One of the few benefits of this background is that I do not say "You are wrong because I said so." What I frequently do is state "Here is evidence that contradicts your claim." Quote: When I used the same reasoning that scientists have papers that say otherwise, you claim that being scientists doesn't make them more qualified than you. You're just full of "it" and yourself. The fact that somebody is not a scientist does not make them automatically wrong, and the fact that somebody is a scientist does not automatically make them right. The final arbiter of right and wrong is not the name written at the foot of the page, or the number of letters the author has after his name. A scientific theory is accepted if it is demonstrably better than all competing theories. As yet none of the fantasies that you keep posting have managed to qualify, and some of them are so ridiculous that they do not need to be disproved by advanced science, it merely takes an ancient engineer who can still remember a few of the basics. My first comment on this subject was to point out that contrary to your beliefs, the Maya and Aztecs did not build anything in the Gaza strip, and you then sought to claim that you knew better as a result of being almost forty years old. I indicated that to be irrelevant as I have children of your age. Everything that you have done since that first exchange has been a vain attempt to demonstrate that science is wrong, and only the religion of Nibiru with Zechariah Sitchin as its messiah, and Lou as its Grand Wizard, has any validity. Back in April of 2011 you claimed that there "are websites mathematically proving what he's been saying about our solar system which came simply from his translations" yet after almost two years you have still failed to post a single link to such a website. At the same time I and others have shown that Sitchin was not capable of translating these texts and simply made up a load of bull tomake himself look smarter than he really was. When challenged by academics to justify his so called "translations" he simply ignored them and wrote another, even more ridiculous story to sell to his followers. If you have any evidence to support your claims, then please feel free to post the evidence. All you have done in the last two years is post unfounded postulates in support of unevidenced assumptions, and when this has not caused the world to fall to their knees worshipping your supreme intellect, you have resorted to childishly throwing your toys out of the pram and posting personal insults. Quote: I also noted that you have nothing to say unless I do. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueEM2ly0mqQ An amusing lesson in trolling from the author of post #586 it is amusing how you do a five second search for some CRAP for me to analyse, and then assume that I am the troll because I looked at the CRAP you asked me to look at and show that it is in fact pure unadulterated 110% CRAP Quote: As a scientist even if he wrote papers on protons all his life is doesn't mean the one paper he writes on the electron is bunk. This is in fact the absolute truth. People can use skills gained in one field of expertise and apply them to making advances in another field. As an example Linus Pauling is the only person to win two unshared Nobel prizes, and made discoveries in chemistry and biology. If however in your example the scientist assumes an electron mass of 800,000,000 tonnes, then his paper on electrons will carry no real weight.

This whole 'evidence' thing is a sham.
There is no 'evidence' that General Relativity is correct. It only has made approximations in local space and is way off base on larger scales yet you regurgitate the math of general relativity to me like it is FACT when I offer science that supercedes general relativity. You then also always put the burden of proof onto me when you cannot even prove your own faith in general relativity is correct.

You are full of it.

@Lou

Quote:

You then also always put the burden of proof onto me when you cannot even prove your own faith in general relativity is correct

These are two related but independent thoughts. You claim that EM_is _God. Well, you have to do the work to prove EM_is_God. If Nimrod claims that GR is everything then Nimrod has to do the work to demonstrate GR is everything. Your claims that GR is wrong in no way works to automatically accept EM is right. Whatever is claimed to be the truth must be able to demonstrate it. Unfortunately, you haven't. And I may note that you wasted lots of cycles and respect by defending fiction, eg Haramein, for tens, if not hundreds, of posts and then admitting you know it bunk all along. Seems to me your use of Haramein were deliberately crafted messages to provoke others with the intention of wasting their time and energy or just to cause anger and confrontations

@Lou

Quote:

There is no 'evidence' that General Relativity is correct.

Absolutely true. The problem that you have is that nobody has said that either GR or any aspect of the standard model is an absolute and incontrovertible fact that must never under any circumstance be questioned. We all accept that there are aspects of the standard model that need sorting out, but it still remains the best available fit Your arguments against GR are the equivalent of claiming that because nobody has ever seen an actual event of in utero fertilization, the stork theory of human reproduction has to be correct

Quote:

when I offer science that supercedes general relativity.

Actually you do not offer anything of the sort. What you offer is unsupported postulates based on outmoded theories that have failed to match the observable universe in over a hundred years. These you put forward as absolute and incontrovertible fact that must never under any circumstance be questioned.

Quote:

You then also always put the burden of proof onto me when you cannot even prove your own faith in general relativity is correct.

I will once again remind you that when Einsteins GR superseded Newtons model, Einstein had to not only show the errors in Newtons model, he also demonstrated a better model. In other words the onus of proof was on the proposer of the new theory. If it was good enough for Albert, it is good enough for you. If you want us to accept a new theory, present the evidence for it and prove that it is better. As yet you have no evidence that your assorted CRAP even works, let alone have proof of it being better. Brandenburgs claim that it is all radiation pressure does not match reality, any more than his ideas about a nuclear war on Mars.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

We all accept that there are aspects of the standard model that need sorting out, but it still remains the best available fit

Interestingly enough it appears that the Standard Model has run it's course. Higgs is the last real predicted but unconfirmed feature. If you look earlier it appears the work done late last year is getting to close to 7-sigma that Higgs is real and the one commonly predicted.

We'll see the Physics papers soon. But, the lack of excitement generally indicates confirmation. The way scientific research works is failures are often more exciting. They lead us down new paths and new directions. What will be exciting is to further research where we go past the current Standard Model predictions and confirmations. Will it be a whole new model? Will the Standard Model be expanded? No one knows. What fun!

@BrianK

Quote:

Higgs is the last real predicted but unconfirmed feature. If you look earlier it appears the work done late last year is getting to close to 7-sigma that Higgs is real and the one commonly predicted.

Getting the full 7-sigma on the Higgs is the equivalent of fitting the last of the edge pieces on a jigsaw puzzle. We now have to fill in all of the gaps in the middle.

As Lou takes great pains to point out, there is matter and energy not yet accounted for in the standard model that needs to be found, so it seems that the great easter egg hunt has only just begun.

Here is to the future discoveries that we will make

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