Jump to content

Mathematicians, Physicists, etc come in fur a spik


Brian86
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm still interested on what you think about gravity being approximated locally by Newtons law of gravitation. I'm sure you're aware that if you think it's wrong, or that gravity pushes, you can say nothing about comets since we fit their orbits using good old Newton...

 

I can say what the hell I want.

Just because your church states gravity is created within; instead of the more obvious reason, of being the effect of other forces; this will make no odds on the behavior of comets. Once the hocus pocus is rejected, there can be only one alternative. Taking your bible to the rest of the galaxy or Universe at large, you must be feeling a bit silly at the scale of the imbalance in your numbers; hence the need for the priests of Mond to be drafted in.

 

It’s an interesting historical fact that the attitudes of scientists toward the Fatio-Lesage “explanation†of gravity have varied widely, not just from one scientist to another, but for individual scientists at different moments. This is exemplified by Newton’s ambivalence. On one hand, he told Fatio that if gravity had a mechanical cause, then the mechanism must be the one Fatio had described. On the other hand, Newton usually inclined toward the view that gravity does not have a mechanical cause. It’s true that he explicitly denied the intelligibility of bare action at a distance, but he just as explicitly rejected the notion that space is filled with some material substance that communicates the force of gravity. His alternative was to say that gravity is caused by the will and spirit of God, not by any material cause.

 

And I'm still interested to know what the dielectric is.

 

You don't really play by even your own rules, do you Brian?

 

Effectively I have to prove every aspect of the big bang or disprove every aspect of EU while you can afford the luxury of not ever having to demonstrate you even understand either theory!

Given my non-cosmology background I clearly can't fully explain either theory but I can at least understand basic thoughts behind them and can make some effort to understand the evidence for either.

 

You're not here to attempt any understanding of the EU but more just to be the deniers spokesperson, muddy the water and nit pick anything that you can find that I may not be fully versed on.

In summery; you waste my time. I already have everything I need from debating on Shetlink and have little interest in sharing any more ideas with the mostly slack jawed left overs, that now dominate the board.

 

The comet is a semi conductor; the solar wind is an electrolyte and the material at the comet surface would act as a dielectric, discharging through dielectric layers.

You can use that as a model to go on but I doubt that those who own the equipment to check, have any more real interest to check it out than you do.

This may turn out to be claptrap but don't for one minute think your team own this game or for that matter, should have ever been invited to the party in the first place.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18725161.300-comet-tails-of-the-unexpected.html

 

It's a mystery to me how comets work at all
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Edit: actually, forget it.

 

You simply prance around here posting anything that's anti mainstream despite never actually analysing anything yourself or probably even reading the mainstream explanation beyond a title. You're just a modern e-scientist with a masters in youtube and PhD in google, watch a few vids, read a few titles and suddenly you know more than the 10000s of folk who have dedicated their lives to study. I doubt you would even be able to tell me what an electron volt is if asked without the internet at hand.

 

 

I certainly came here to learn since if I hadn't I would have dismissed your posts as crank and nonsense right off, instead I asked questions and read papers (more than you, I guarantee it). Clearly if I wanted to learn I should have asked elsewhere since you lack the ability to answer any questions that you aren't immediately able to google and copy paste (likely without even reading the content). However having read both sides of the theory, EU pro and mainstream pro, EU has more holes than a colander. Same questions have been asked for 30 years and not once has anyone even created a model or done a quantitative analysis. Mainstream folk have done ones to show why EU is wrong and never has anyone pointed out any errors. There's no other alternative theory that has gone so long without a model.

 

 

I stated at the start I was skeptical about dark matter so that should be enough to show I am willing to try other theories. I also (not stated earlier) didn't think the Higgs boson would be found, am verrry skeptical of dark energy and think string/M theory are likely maths constructions. I am willing to read all sides of the story, something you are not (if it's anti mainstream, you go for it).

 

 

I imagine you're just a bit upset about the dark matter super structures and Higgs boson find in the recent days. EU position is basically that it's all made up so I imagine you'll take that position. I seem to remember one of the EU higher ups said that if the Higgs was found that would invalidate EU, of course now he's changed his tune to say they mainstream don't know what they are doing and so even if they find the Higgs it means nothing. If it is the Higgs, EU is invalid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have no other example of a field like this; a fundamental scalar field that is uniform throughout space as far as we can tell.

 

http://worldsciencefestival.com/videos/ask_brian_greene_and_lawrence_krauss_cerns_higgs_announcement

 

Welcome to the Aether :lol: We've been expecting you.

 

As for your god particles; I'm sure with a few more 100's of billions of pounds of grants and public funding, they'll be able to tell us they've found Jesus or Madeleine Mccann in there as well. :roll:

 

You're just a modern e-scientist with a masters in youtube and PhD in google, watch a few vids, read a few titles and suddenly you know more than the 10000s of folk who have dedicated their lives to study.

 

Not quite.

I figured out you lot were wrong all by myself. 8)

I was quite surprised and a little bit miffed once I found out others had got there before me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have no other example of a field like this; a fundamental scalar field that is uniform throughout space as far as we can tell.

 

http://worldsciencefestival.com/videos/ask_brian_greene_and_lawrence_krauss_cerns_higgs_announcement

 

Welcome to the Aether :lol: We've been expecting you.

 

Straight up copy paste here, didn't check, didn't read further, internet forum user.

 

"The luminiferous ether was discarded because it violated special relativity. It presupposed a fixed reference frame of the ether against which everything moved. In special relativity there exists no absolute frame of reference, and special relativity has been vindicated many times experimentally.

 

The Higgs field, as also the vacuum sea in general, comes from quantum field theory formulations of the interactions of elementary particles. All quantum field theories are consistent with special relativity , and thus the Higgs field is also consistent with special relativity. It therefore cannot play the role of the luminiferous ether, and also the same holds for the vacuum sea, which is seething with virtual pairs of particle/antiparticle."

 

 

As for your god particles; I'm sure with a few more 100's of billions of pounds of grants and public funding, they'll be able to tell us they've found Jesus or Madeleine Mccann in there as well. :roll:

 

You're just a modern e-scientist with a masters in youtube and PhD in google, watch a few vids, read a few titles and suddenly you know more than the 10000s of folk who have dedicated their lives to study.

 

Not quite.

I figured out you lot were wrong all by myself. 8)

I was quite surprised and a little bit miffed once I found out others had got there before me.

 

I'm sure you did. Read plenty from both sides, did some analytical work, weighted up both cases, came to a conclusion about the state of the universe and modern physics. If you really did then you should have the knowledge to argue your position without the endless streams of quotes and youtube videos. If you think something is relevant, post a link and say what it says and why it is relevant. Don't just post

'oh but look at this...'

-wallls of teeext-

'Guess the elephant in the room is a strawman walking by the emperors clothes right! As -someone- said -irrelvant quote-.

 

That's literally how your posts go.

 

I offered to discuss Io with you, we could have gone into detail about both sides but for some reason you have yet to answer my points with any rational answer. Sure you can say anything you want, but how on earth is that of any use in any situation. It's clear you disagree with the gravity, if it's wrong, how can you talk about highly elliptical orbits for comets when we only know that their orbits are elliptical by applying gravitational laws to observations! You accept gravity to use in EU comet theory but reject it in mainstream explanations. Which is it?

 

 

Edit: As a note about if I weighed up evidence from both sides. The answer is yes! Although it was more of a 'is mainstream wrong' rather than 'is this other theory right'. As an example.

 

I took a relativity class when I was doing my masters and myself, along with nearly everyone else in there, came into the class to learn what it was about since no one thought it was valid. Every class I would go up the lecturer and say 'but how does this works, this makes no sense etc...' I in no way thought it was correct when I first took the class but after several months of learning and seeing real world examples I came to accept it. I remember the muon life time thing for me was a bit of a bubble burster. At that point I thought maybe relativity wasn't just a load of maths nonsense and started to properly look at evidence either way. The evidence for was just to great, even though at that point I was anti-relativity. No one thinks relativity is true when they first learn about it, it just sounds too weird.

Down now where I am now we have a weekly meeting where we go over mainstream papers and pick holes in them, as I was told on the first day to question everything about the mainstream and that's what done down here and all over the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took a relativity class when I was doing my masters and myself, along with nearly everyone else in there, came into the class to learn what it was about since no one thought it was valid. - No one thinks relativity is true when they first learn about it, it just sounds too weird.

 

Really? Did anybody else here ever think like this; what with special relativity being vindicated many times experimentally.

I never did. I always thought they knew damn well what they were talking about; right up to the moment that I figured out they were just all full of s**t.

Maybe you missed the massive amount of media publicity, the idiot box pumps out every goddamn day.

At this point I would like to call bullcrap. You now look as honest to me as you have been interesting; as in not in the slightest bit.

 

I just came back from doing my masters in maths with a heavy dose of astrophysics and would be good to chat with any Shetland folk with similar interests.

 

Why? did Shetlink seem like the type of place where such things gain much interest.

I doubt it.

More likely you saw the EU was being spouted here and have been drafted in to provide the robust response that your church demands be given to such things.

Do you even know where Shetland is? is there a reason why only this thread has any interest to you.

 

I offered to discuss Io with you, we could have gone into detail about both sides but for some reason you have yet to answer my points with any rational answer

 

I told you the volcanos were just a plasma discharge and anything else will have to wait until N.A.S.A (never-a-straight-answer) are forced to be a bit more honest on what they report they witness.

 

The people are starting to wake up to the crap your creed sell them on a daily basis and sooner or later it will sink your ghost ship. I don't give a flying monkeys f*** what method you use to make me look like a yokel without a clue because you may well be right but not on this and that's for damn sure.

Your sole purpose here is to convince folk that there is nothing to see outside what they are told to see; even though the truth has been right in front of them for many years.

 

Tell me Brian, does this look like a boiling hell of nuclear gas or are we seeing an electric discharge from a very solid and unchanging surface...

 

http://oi48.tinypic.com/a3892.jpg

 

http://oi45.tinypic.com/esjoz6.jpg

 

One would think that in two minutes thirty seconds you would be seeing some changes and the loops sure flicker about but the base is grounded and FIXED. Don't bother responding; I can already sense the coronal foam forming at the sides of your lying mouth.

 

Just what are those UFO sightings Brian. why is NASA so quiet still on the subject? Are they having trouble finding a realistic way to present them as floating, fleeting, merging, snowballs, reflecting sunlight?

Are they in cahoots with the galactic federation of light and remain silent to keep aliens hidden and give David Icke something to talk about?

Truth is; there is nothing here for Mulder and Scully to get out of bed for because all you got there is a few charged plasmoids doing there thing.

Thing is though; that little truth is going to fly straight in the face of a certain popular idea about the nature of our Universe, isn't it Brian?

 

Same goes for ball lightning...

 

scientists still can't explain what causes it, or even exactly what it is.

"There's certainly no consensus. I don't think that anyone knows what it is," said Graham K. Hubler, a physicist at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C.

 

"Most scientists feel that the proper model hasn't been found yet."

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060531-ball-lightning.html

 

Can't touch this; can you Brian? Truth here might be a bit of a shock to the system.

 

When it's not students with boards on their feet; you can put down crop circles as the grounded auroral footprint of these little beauties and tell the motherships of lore to piss of back to the field of sci fi.

 

All these things and so much more are predictable and expected features in an electric universe. The mainstream will not and can not say a damn thing about, without shooting their own feet clean off.

 

I won't be debating anything more with such a loathsome little shill as yourself anymore Brian. You are not here to spread any knowledge but just to cover for the lie that you have wasted your own and others lives on.

Fire at will Brian

Your bullets will in the end prove useless against this idea, that in time is going to take your little paradigm and nail it to the ******* wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say, the idea of a coronal loop staying mostly fixed for a mere 2 and a half minutes being somehow remarkable is kinda funny.

 

I think it's great when people try and educate themselves about all kinds of things in their own time, especially science, but one can easily be lead astray by crazy talk I guess.

 

 

Science is an intensely beautiful thing. The pursuit of knowledge and the discovery of the unknown has never been primarily about having an answer to everything, more trying to chip away at ignorance. That might sound the same, but the there is a subtle difference. I challenge anyone to point out a theory that didn't initially have some glaring holes, obvious contradictions or incompatibility with the world we know. Of course relativity, the standard model and quantum physics can't explain everything. Does this mean we should throw away all our theories because they are not adequate in explaining all of the universe? No. We merely let them compete to see what explains the universe most adequately.

 

As for the supposed electric universe theory? There are multiple glaringly obvious problems with pretty much any incarnation of the theory i've seen, and ones that can be spotted by any undergraduate who knows even basic solar theory and electromagnetism.

 

What on earth do you think would motivate someone to dedicate their lives to discovering new physics if it was all a big racket? There's no way they're getting paid even nearly enough for that to be even vaguely plausible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I wasn't talking about the loops michael, I meant the visible surface.

Run the two pictures together.

Bit stable for the surface of the Sun one would think.

 

As for the supposed electric universe theory? There are multiple glaringly obvious problems with pretty much any incarnation of the theory i've seen, and ones that can be spotted by any undergraduate who knows even basic solar theory and electromagnetism.

 

Jesus christ! Yes there are issues in need of research but it hardly amounts to the likes of the gaping holes, that you try to stuff full of dark energy and dark matter. :roll:

 

You may lay claim to solar theory, but in truth you've been stumbling around for years like a blind blind man, groping to get to grips with even the most obvious feature; the corona and why it is so much hotter than the surface.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Endless drivel, twaddle and rubbish

 

Once more validating your status as the local village idiot/nutter.

 

Of course I doubted relativity, everyone does when they first hear of it. I also doubted that the higgs exists, am veerrrrry skeptical about dark energy and think string/M theory are maths constructions. I have the ability to think critically and analyze what I read, you do not possess that.

 

Are you really 30+ btw? You throw insults around like a 15 year old, oh well guess that's what years of pseudoscience does to you.

 

EU - pseudoscience at it's best (or should that be worst...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I challenge anyone to point out a theory that didn't initially have some glaring holes

As for the supposed electric universe theory? There are multiple glaringly obvious problems with pretty much any incarnation of the theory i've seen, and ones that can be spotted by any undergraduate who knows even basic solar theory and electromagnetism.

 

"Be aware of what you KNOW and what you BELIEVE. Don't ever let what you believe block the path of knowledge, for knowledge is truth. Belief is a temporary crutch at best, and crutches are for disabled people."

 

A team of scientists has created an “MRI†of the Sun’s interior plasma motions, shedding light on how it transfers heat from its deep interior to its surface.

The Sun’s heat, generated by nuclear fusion in its core, is transported to the surface by convection in the outer third. However, our understanding of this process is largely theoretical.

“Our current theoretical understanding of magnetic field generation in the Sun relies on these motions being of a certain magnitude,†explained Shravan Hanasoge, an associate research scholar in geosciences at Princeton University.

“However, our results suggest that convective motions in the Sun are nearly 100 times smaller than these current theoretical expectations,†continued Hanasoge, also a postdoctoral fellow at the Max Plank Institute in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany. “If these motions are indeed that slow in the Sun, then the most widely accepted theory concerning the generation of solar magnetic field is broken, leaving us with no compelling theory to explain its generation of magnetic fields and the need to overhaul our understanding of the physics of the Sun’s interior.â€

 

http://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2012/07/09/researchers-create-mri-of-the-suns-interior-motions.html

 

The Problem with the Solar Nebula Theory

 

Much effort went into developing a theory that matched the observational data of our solar system. The balance of temperature and mass in the inner solar system explains the structure that we see.

 

However, as we observe other solar systems, we find that their structures vary wildly. The presence of large gas giants near their central star is in direct conflict with the solar nebula theory. Perhaps there are several solutions to solar system formation, or perhaps our theory is wrong.

 

Some point to evidence of this in that it appears that the structure of our solar system is the one that is unique, containing a much more rigid structure than others. Ultimately this means that perhaps the evolution of solar systems is not as strictly defined as we once believed.

 

http://space.about.com/od/solarsystem/a/Origins_of_the_Solar_System.htm

 

Theory of Solar Systems Challenged

 

By studying our own solar system, scientists began to formulate a theory as to how such a thing would form. The leading theory to date is that our solar system formed from the collapse of a large cloud of gas and dust.

 

The benefit of this theory is that it explains nearly all of the observed phenomena of our solar system, like why the solar system is arranged the way it is, why the planets orbit the way they do, and so on. Now, reason would dictate that other solar systems should form in nearly the same way as ours, or at least obey some of the same principles. The only problem is, this is not the case.

 

As we have studied other solar systems, we have begun to notice that not all solar systems look alike. In some, the large gas planets are must closer to their central star than in our solar system. In fact, it seems that we live in a very peculiar solar system, and that our solar system appears to have formed differently than all the rest.

 

So does this mean that we are somehow special? Or is is possible that we got the whole solar system evolution thing wrong to begin with? Well, some recent results have shook the scientific community, and appear to challenge even the basic tenants of our solar system evolution model.

 

After taking an initial sample of 27 exoplanets (planets orbiting other stars, outside our solar system), scientists at the Geneva Observatory found that six of them counter-orbited their host stars. (That is, they revolved around their star in the opposite direction as you might expect.) This directly challenges the notion that the planets formed from a hot disk of material orbiting a host star (or protostar).

 

At this point you may be thinking that I am going to reveal some new theory that encapsulates all the new data acquired and brings the matter to rest. Unfortunately that is not the case. Science often works slowly, and while there are many intelligent individuals working on this problem, it will likely be some time before we completely understand these results and are able to formulate a new theory. But as I always tell my students, never take anything for granted. Always question.

 

http://space.about.com/b/2010/04/19/theory-of-solar-systems-challenged.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...