@olegil
Earlier in the thread Lou cited the "progress" being made by Rossi, claiming that he was on the verge of going into production. I pointed out that his "reactors" had a habit of fizzling out after a few hours and seemed to be nothing more than battery powered heaters, the "battery" being a big Nickel-Metal hydride cell disguised as a cold fusion plant. Rossi has since gone back to the drawing board after it was revealed last year that he had not been accurately measuring the input energy, and since he was underestimating the input power for a given output power, he had exaggerated the power produced by his "reactor"
At the time it was claimed that his main customer was "a large military-industrial concern"

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @olegil Earlier in the thread Lou cited the "progress" being made by Rossi, claiming that he was on the verge of going into production. I pointed out that his "reactors" had a habit of fizzling out after a few hours and seemed to be nothing more than battery powered heaters, the "battery" being a big Nickel-Metal hydride cell disguised as a cold fusion plant. Rossi has since gone back to the drawing board after it was revealed last year that he had not been accurately measuring the input energy, and since he was underestimating the input power for a given output power, he had exaggerated the power produced by his "reactor" At the time it was claimed that his main customer was "a large military-industrial concern"

Sure, change the focus to a single drop in the bucket..

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205142218.htm
Quote:

... Essentially, entanglement involves two particles, each occupying multiple states at once -- a condition referred to as superposition. For example, both particles may simultaneously spin clockwise and counterclockwise. But neither has a definite state until one is measured, causing the other particle to instantly assume a corresponding state. The resulting correlations between the particles are preserved, even if they reside on opposite ends of the universe. But what enables particles to communicate instantaneously -- and seemingly faster than the speed of light -- over such vast distances? Earlier this year, physicists proposed an answer in the form of "wormholes," or gravitational tunnels. The group showed that by creating two entangled black holes, then pulling them apart, they formed a wormhole -- essentially a "shortcut" through the universe -- connecting the distant black holes. ...

My my my, where have we heard something like this before?
http://thearrowsoftruth.com/tag/the-schwarzschild-proton/

@Lou

I must be reading Haramein differently from you, cause I don't see him arguing that gravity is quantum entanglement. I see him argue that the strong force is gravity.

Did you even read that article?

_________________
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

Quote:

olegil wrote: @Lou I must be reading Haramein differently from you, cause I don't see him arguing that gravity is quantum entanglement. I see him argue that the strong force is gravity. Did you even read that article?

It's a language barrier. You need to "read into" something.

Haramein proposed elementary particles are tiny black holes, thereby eliminating the strong force since it's just "gravity".
This "article" takes that one step further and deals with entangled black holes.

Interesting that it also mentions gravity as a result of a 5th dimension which John Brandenburg also did.

My view is that gravity is an EM pressure mapping across space and a worm hole is a vortex linking two points. Because there is no pressure/resistance in the center of that worm hole, like the eye of a cyclone, it is easy to exceed the speed of light.

Last edited by Lou on 09-Dec-2013 at 10:41 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Haramein proposed elementary particles are tiny black holes, thereby eliminating the strong force since it's just "gravity"

This so called theory that you put on the table was exposed as an unworkable thesis simply because the characteristics of microscopic black holes do not match the known features of the particles in question.
The mass of a proton sized black hole does not match that of a proton.
The energy given off by a proton does not include any Hawking radiation.
Protons are STABLE and do not evaporate.
Protons do not have a temperature of 39,000,000,000 degrees Celsius.
You subsequently withdrew the idea from the table claiming that it was merely a thought provoking hypothetical. And now you try to sneak it back onto the table and pretend that it was never shown to be totally devoid of any form of credibility. You again display the moral integrity of a hustler trying the "shell and pea" trick.
Quote:

My view is that gravity is an EM pressure mapping across space

A view that you cling to, despite the fact that the measured EM pressure is insufficient to achieve what you claim. Your view seems to be that you can float a boat on top of a cumulo-nimbus because there is enough water in it.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Haramein proposed elementary particles are tiny black holes, thereby eliminating the strong force since it's just "gravity" This so called theory that you put on the table was exposed as an unworkable thesis simply because the characteristics of microscopic black holes do not match the known features of the particles in question. The mass of a proton sized black hole does not match that of a proton. The energy given off by a proton does not include any Hawking radiation. Protons are STABLE and do not evaporate. Protons do not have a temperature of 39,000,000,000 degrees Celsius. You subsequently withdrew the idea from the table claiming that it was merely a thought provoking hypothetical. And now you try to sneak it back onto the table and pretend that it was never shown to be totally devoid of any form of credibility. You again display the moral integrity of a hustler trying the "shell and pea" trick. Quote: My view is that gravity is an EM pressure mapping across space A view that you cling to, despite the fact that the measured EM pressure is insufficient to achieve what you claim. Your view seems to be that you can float a boat on top of a cumulo-nimbus because there is enough water in it.

Your fingers type but you don't really say much other than 'I don't believe'.
Quantum mechanics is how things are. Relativity is an approximation of quantum mechanics on a macroscopic level and not that good of one.

"Science" keeps learning new things about black holes that they didn't expect, when did you become an expert? In other words - you are not. A lot of what you thought was impossible in these threads have become possible thru the course of it. What's it been, 2+ years? Perhaps you should stop being a Debbie Downer, mmmk?

@Lou

Quote:

Your fingers type but you don't really say much other than 'I don't believe'.

When are you going to understand the simple fact that belief is irrelevant. If I believed that there were pink unicorns living at the bottom of my garden, would they suddenly appear? Of course not.
Science does indeed keep learning new things, and it does so by following the evidence. What it does not do is make some stupid assertion that contradicts the observable and measurable evidence and when some geriatric engineer points out the clear and obvious flaws resort to namecalling.
Many things that were considered too fantastic for science fiction when I left school are now either mundane, or even obsolete, yet it has never occurred to you that I may be one of those that has in some way contributed to achieving these changes, preferring to call me a stick-in -the-mud because I do not fall for every item of fakery and quackery and every bill of goods offered by every gold brick salesman this side of nowhere.
Any time somebody tells you something and says "Put your faith in me, I'm a priest" or "Trust me, I'm a doctor" put your hand over your wallet and demand to see the evidence for their proposal. Then cross check all of the available evidence before parting with a brass farthing. This will save you a lot of heartache, and a lot of money.
True science comes from informed scepticism and accurate measurement; as my grandfather put it "Measure twice, cut once".
I admit that a pessimist can be wrong, just as an optimist is often wrong, but unlike an optimist, a pessimist never gets let down and all of his surprises are pleasant ones. And yes I have had one or two pleasant surprises in my life, but unfortunately no more than that.

Last edited by Nimrod on 12-Dec-2013 at 01:34 PM.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Your fingers type but you don't really say much other than 'I don't believe'. When are you going to understand the simple fact that belief is irrelevant. If I believed that there were pink unicorns living at the bottom of my garden, would they suddenly appear? Of course not. Science does indeed keep learning new things, and it does so by following the evidence. What it does not do is make some stupid assertion that contradicts the observable and measurable evidence and when some geriatric engineer points out the clear and obvious flaws resort to namecalling. Many things that were considered too fantastic for science fiction when I left school are now either mundane, or even obsolete, yet it has never occurred to you that I may be one of those that has in some way contributed to achieving these changes, preferring to call me a stick-in -the-mud because I do not fall for every item of fakery and quackery and every bill of goods offered by every gold brick salesman this side of nowhere. Any time somebody tells you something and says "Put your faith in me, I'm a priest" or "Trust me, I'm a doctor" put your hand over your wallet and demand to see the evidence for their proposal. Then cross check all of the available evidence before parting with a brass farthing. This will save you a lot of heartache, and a lot of money. True science comes from informed scepticism and accurate measurement; as my grandfather put it "Measure twice, cut once". I admit that a pessimist can be wrong, just as an optimist is often wrong, but unlike an optimist, a pessimist never gets let down and all of his surprises are pleasant ones. And yes I have had one or two pleasant surprises in my life, but unfortunately no more than that.

Why is it that you keep regurgitating the same stuff? Repeating it doesn't make any of what you write a fact.

Did you know that many scientists believe the universe is a hologram?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/universe-hologram-physicists_n_4428359.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

@Lou

Why is it that you keep regurgitating the same stuff? Repeating it doesn't make any of what you write a fact.

_________________
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.

@Lou

Quote:

Did you know that many scientists believe the universe is a hologram? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/universe-hologram-physicists_n_4428359.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Old news, but at least it is a bit better than citing stuff that got junked in the 19th century as new discoveries, like you usually do.
Theoretical physicists come up with all kinds of crazy stuff. The trick is not to panic and wait until they find evidence to back their claims. Peter Higgs made some pretty wild assertions about a theoretical guage boson, got the evidence to warrant further study and wound up collecting a Nobel prize as a result of having advanced science.
And to top it all I am citing something new that happened after I left school.

Last edited by Nimrod on 13-Dec-2013 at 05:12 PM.
Last edited by Nimrod on 13-Dec-2013 at 05:07 PM.

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

@Nimrod

Every scientist is not as impressed by the hologram idea:

http://www.universetoday.com/107172/why-our-universe-is-not-a-hologram/

Last edited by Niolator on 17-Dec-2013 at 07:15 AM.

@Niolator

Awesome punchline:

“Important idea of string theory shown not to be mathematically inconsistent in one particular way”.

_________________
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.

@Niolator

Quote:

Every scientist is not as impressed by the hologram idea:

Of course they aren't. That is because, despite what Lou thinks, scientists just love to pick holes in each others ideas.
Theoretical scientists spend most of their time bouncing ideas off the wall to see what sticks. Any ideas that get through this process receive further crash testing to destruction.
It is only when an idea survives all of this that it begins to involve people like me. Then the scientists will expect somebody to knock up some sort of test rig or start manufacturing hoverboards and flux capacitors.

Last edited by Nimrod on 17-Dec-2013 at 02:45 PM.

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

The problem with GR worshippers are when they have been proven wrong they just make up another theory (dark energy/matter) to fill in the gap...

It's amusing to see simpletons not believe in extra dimensions.
I can't "see" time yet I accept it as a dimension.

It's funny, you can't see gravity but you accept it.

You accept all these things yet 1 extra dimension is unfathomable. How ironic.

http://www.rense.com/general96/forsterphotos/forster.html

Yep...all with a hammer & chisel and some string...

/sigh

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @Lou Why is it that you keep regurgitating the same stuff? Repeating it doesn't make any of what you write a fact.

There's a difference between saying "I don't believe it." 100000 times regurgitating THEORY that is actually proven wrong...so wrong that the margin of error is 2500% on galactic and greater scales.

I post articles from new sources corroborating the original point.

What's even more hypocritical is when someone's username can be interpreted two ways. One as a figure represented fictionally in a book but also has historical significance in Sumerian texts but also as someone slow-witted. Said user claims its a historical reference but then goes on denying the history.

Can you say hypocrite?

I don't believe in 'christianity' but perhaps in the next public forum I join my username will be jesus.

Last edited by Lou on 20-Dec-2013 at 12:28 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

There's a difference between saying "I don't believe it." 100000 times regurgitating THEORY that is actually proven wrong...so wrong that the margin of error is 2500% on galactic and greater scales.

I will once again admit that GR has not answered every last question concerning the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, but that does not mean that some crazy crackpot fantasy that is totally unsupported by evidence has to be true. Your position is like somebody climbing Mount Olympus in Greece and announcing "I can't see Zeus, so therefore Odin is clearly the true God of the Universe, despite having no clue as to where the Bifrost bridge can be found.
Let me reiterate. GR is used since it is the best available fit. None of the other contenders have any supporting evidence. I am not claiming that it is perfect, although as more evidence is found it tends to fill the gaps in GR rather than create additional errors.

Incidentally, do you know why the character "Nimrod" gained the biblical reputation for being slow witted? It was because he did not blindly follow the instructions of the priesthood.
Yes that's right he required something called *evidence* before following a course of action, rather than just obeying "Divine revelation" As a result the people who he ignored wrote down that he was a vain and foolish man because he disagreed with them and didn't accept their "divine revelations. Obviously balanced and unbiased reporting there (Not)
Nimrod was reputed to be a skilled hunter and as such would observe his intended prey, make certain predictions on where his prey would be at a specific point in the future, and then await confirmation of his theory. This is a simplified application of the scientific principle, and contrasts with the religious standpoint of sitting at home waiting for "manna from heaven" because its coming was revealed to you by some self appointed prophet.
Quote:

I post articles from new sources corroborating the original point.

Since the original point was that Nibiru was coming soon and was actually visible as a second sun, (made by MikeB in April 2011) I suspect any corroboration may well be inaccurate

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: There's a difference between saying "I don't believe it." 100000 times regurgitating THEORY that is actually proven wrong...so wrong that the margin of error is 2500% on galactic and greater scales. I will once again admit that GR has not answered every last question concerning the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, but that does not mean that some crazy crackpot fantasy that is totally unsupported by evidence has to be true. Your position is like somebody climbing Mount Olympus in Greece and announcing "I can't see Zeus, so therefore Odin is clearly the true God of the Universe, despite having no clue as to where the Bifrost bridge can be found. Let me reiterate. GR is used since it is the best available fit. None of the other contenders have any supporting evidence. I am not claiming that it is perfect, although as more evidence is found it tends to fill the gaps in GR rather than create additional errors. Incidentally, do you know why the character "Nimrod" gained the biblical reputation for being slow witted? It was because he did not blindly follow the instructions of the priesthood. Yes that's right he required something called *evidence* before following a course of action, rather than just obeying "Divine revelation" As a result the people who he ignored wrote down that he was a vain and foolish man because he disagreed with them and didn't accept their "divine revelations. Obviously balanced and unbiased reporting there (Not) Nimrod was reputed to be a skilled hunter and as such would observe his intended prey, make certain predictions on where his prey would be at a specific point in the future, and then await confirmation of his theory. This is a simplified application of the scientific principle, and contrasts with the religious standpoint of sitting at home waiting for "manna from heaven" because its coming was revealed to you by some self appointed prophet. Quote: I post articles from new sources corroborating the original point. Since the original point was that Nibiru was coming soon and was actually visible as a second sun, (made by MikeB in April 2011) I suspect any corroboration may well be inaccurate

If your best fit has a 2500% margin of error, you are doing it wrong.

http://www.latest-ufos.com/2013/12/huge-triangle-shaped-ufo-sighting-at-the-bridgewater-massachusetts-in-1979-made-news-on-19th-december-2013/
Passing thru Raynham, Massachusetts in 1996 in the same area in this video is where I and my friend saw a large blimp/goldfish object on fire floating over the tree-line. Who would have thunk that I wasn't the only one that has seen strange things in that area?