Magnetic Stars: Rebuttal to Max Planck Institute (Advanced Draft Release: The Grant Chronicles)

Grant,


the "ratio" you claim doesn't make your case when the starting number that your result is a ratio of is so small.

I showed you what the actual numerical answer is - and it doesn't support your conclusion - what is your actual numerical answer? You keep on accusing me of "lying" and "sinking to a new low", yet you haven't yet provided an alternative numerical result.

The starting number is what it is suppose to be, small or do you want me to make it up. Did you really think gravitational acceleration was that large? But again you avoid the obvious the ratio works for constants whether it is very large or small. Krill you are becoming a desperate man.

Read the graph Krill.

Postman,
When you can't win change the subject to divert attention from the real problem

As well as getting the calculations for the sun's position completely wrong, and then arguing about it for days, his famous "theory of gravity" had so many mistakes in basic artihmetic it was laughable.

And his "gravity equation" is still up on his web site, despite it being totally wrong and incompatible with reality.

What a foolish statement, this is same equation used to set up a basis for the gravitational equation, but I did not have the factor 10 ratio deficit to back it.

"Everybody Krill wants to know why T is not a factor, someone please school him."

why do you need somebody else to bail you out? Why don't YOU tell me why it isn't relevant?


This is all about containment of the nebula cloud. So if you had a shell containing a specific amount of gas and you reduced the integrity of the shell to 10% of the original strength would adding temperature to the gas accelerate a breach? Yes Krill it would since temperatures start near absolute zero. Your lack of common sense surprises me or this is just a tactic to interrupt flow.

I'll repeat myself in case it wasn't clear:

"yet you haven't yet provided an alternative numerical result."

and still you haven't. For all of your bluster and repeated name calling, you still haven't provided an alternative numerical result.

I showed that your numbers (flawed though they are) show a "mean pressure&quodont_use_thisast step which is only .002% of the air pressure at Earth's surface - and this is the pressure which you claim is so large that it could prevent the gas cloud collapsing.

You called me a liar - but despite requests for you to provide an alternative number, you haven't.

What's the number, Grant? There's no way to resolve this until you provide it.

Regards
Krill

Grant, I see you losing. I also see
you evading a simple point.
Really and what point is that postman you have no knowledge therefore you can make no point.

I showed that your numbers (flawed though they are) show a "mean pressure&quodont_use_thisast step which is only .002% of the air pressure at Earth's surface - and this is the pressure which you claim is so large that it could prevent the gas cloud collapsing.

You called me a liar - but despite requests for you to provide an alternative number, you haven't.

What's the number, Grant? There's no way to resolve this until you provide it.

What are you stupid Krill this is a discussion on gravitational acceleration and its relationship of increase to any initial pressure. So you can substitute any initial pressure and its ratio increase is the same for any number. How much air pressure is created by a gravitational acceleration of 2.96 meters /sec^2 is irrelevant. The comparison to 1/3 of Earth's gravitational acceleration was made to show how weak the compressing force is after collapsing a cloud to .000005 of its original size. So if you got a pressure of .002% of the Earth's Pressure with an acceleration 2.96 m /sec^2 you can show the math, but it means nothing. Anyway you can take this nonsense you call a rebuttal and shove it here the Sun doesn't shine. The problem is the ratio period and all your side stepping doesn’t make it go away.

" The problem is the ratio period and all your side stepping doesn’t make it go away."

The problem is Grant, your calculations are fundamentally flawed, and all your side-stepping doesn't make them right.

You don't know what you're doing so you get ridiculous results, and then when anyone questions them you just rant on about how they're "correct because you've done them". Sceince doesn't work that way boyo.

The problem is the ratio period and all your side stepping doesn’t make it go away."

The problem is Grant, your calculations are fundamentally flawed, and all your side-stepping doesn't make them right.

You don't know what you're doing so you get ridiculous results, and then when anyone questions them you just rant on about how they're "correct because you've done them". Sceince doesn't work that way boyo.

AC if you had a clue you would not be here spouting stupidity. Do you think Krill would have a wrong calculation, no so he had to find another path, all which did not work? Just show one calculation that is, but you can’t because this above you and technically you have been riding Krill’s coattail. You’re on your own coward.

You know Grant, just for once I'd like to see you give a straight answer to a question.

Just once...

You know Grant, just for once I'd like to see you give a straight answer to a question.

Just once...

Listen AC and Krill too in this on battle I am trying to arrive at the truth. I am tried of the money, power makes right in this great nation. Now I have not been correct in all my statements in the past, as the forum has witnessed everyone makes mistakes, but I am in this from the heart. Now we can continue the slug fest, in which you will not win on this post or we can say Grant maybe you have a point and we will look further into it, but your answer may not also be right although we will keep an open mind. It is your choice. Many students have been watching this and running the numbers they are baffled to the reason why the rebuttals, which leads to is this the status quo? You do not want to start an underground scientific revolution, do you? If so then as being seen as leaders willing to change it will be the rejection of the young as they spurn your methods and beliefs. If it happens to me it will happen to them.

"we will keep an open mind"

Science ALWAYS keeps an open mind - but with the caveat that the theories proposed have to be backed up by both good mathematics and observational / experimental data. Your theories are badly formulated, your mathematics are wrong (no matter how often you say they aren't) and you have no data to back up your position.

It's been said before, but it's worht repeating - if theory and reality disagree, then it's the theory that's wrong. Your theories don't match the observed data from reality.

"Many students have been watching this and running the numbers they are baffled to the reason why the rebuttals"

Really? You can name these "students", and show us how they "ran the numbers"?

"You do not want to start an underground scientific revolution, do you?"

Scientific revolutions happen all the time - look at the history of science for examples. However, adn again it needs to be drummed into your head, you need well formulated theories, proper mathmatics, and supporting evidence.

Look at how people like Newton, Einstein or Bohr approached their subjects, and you'll see a level of methodical and careful work which is entirely lacking in your haphazard stumblings.

And of course the theories of Newton, Einstein and Bohr were all subjected to considerable scruntiny and analysis by others, to check their work, look for errors, and confirm their experiments - something which you seem to believe you should be exempt from.

Science progresses, and every day new ideas are taking shape, but nobody who is actually doing "real science" expects for a moment that their ideas won't have to meet very high standards, or be checked and double-checked.

If you want to do science then start acting like a scientist...

"...or we can say Grant maybe you have a point and we will look further into it..."

if you had anything which actually added up, then I'd say exactly that. But *YOU DON'T*.

I've asked you several times for an actual numerical result which rebuts the .002% atmospheric pressure I showed your numbers lead to earlier (which, I should point out, is wrong, but where your own "mathematics" leads you). You have repeatedly called me a liar, but repeatedly ignored requests to provide your own number (and show your working)

WHAT

IS

YOUR

NUMBER?

tell me, and *then* I'll let you know if you "have a point". Right now, you don't.

Regards
Krill

I've asked you several times for an actual numerical result which rebuts the .002% atmospheric

Krill again I gave you a diplomatic way out, but just like the ass you are, you tossed it along with your crony. Do you know what it means to be humble in defeat? That .002% came from you and you claimed you used my equation. Wrong, it is mankind’s equation and just to tell you how pompous you are, you forgot to incorporate temperature into the equation. In my case the nebula cloud during most of its condensation is near absolute zero, but as we know Earth’s atmosphere is not. You will not show your numbers, because it will only confirm what most following this debate are feeling about you, idiot. This is not because you are not smart, because you are, but you are looking at the short term instead of what may lie ahead. I still have faith that you may change, but you are a hard rock to crack.

"Krill again I gave you a diplomatic way out, but just like the ass you are, you tossed it along with your crony. Do you know what it means to be humble in defeat? That .002% came from you and you claimed you used my equation. Wrong, it is mankind’s equation and just to tell you how pompous you are, you forgot to incorporate temperature into the equation. In my case the nebula cloud during most of its condensation is near absolute zero, but as we know Earth’s atmosphere is not. You will not show your numbers, because it will only confirm what most following this debate are feeling about you, idiot. This is not because you are not smart, because you are, but you are looking at the short term instead of what may lie ahead. I still have faith that you may change, but you are a hard rock to crack."


bluster, namecalling and obfuscation noted.

What is your number?

Regards
Krill

Science ALWAYS keeps an open mind - but with the caveat that the theories proposed have to be backed up by both good mathematics and observational / experimental data. Your theories are badly formulated, your mathematics are wrong (no matter how often you say they aren't) and you have no data to back up your position.

It's been said before, but it's worht repeating - if theory and reality disagree, then it's the theory that's wrong. Your theories don't match the observed data from reality.

Grant: Coward you are full of it, there is a table full of numbers just prove that anyone is wrong on the webpage
[link to www.grantchronicles.com]

I will do the numbers again here for all to check will you?

Enough of the lies show me in a calculations where I am wrong in math not words. I suspect you will ignore this or divert attention somewhere else.

What is your number?

Regards
Krill

.002% is your number

Bored Huge Krill
User ID: 55138
1/20/2006 3:20 PM

"Krill tell how a star forms if the cloud contracts to .000005 of its originalraduis and gravitational acceleration at the surface of the cloud is less than a third of gravitational acceleration of the surface of the Earth?"

well, if the only thing holding it from collapsing further is the pressure of the gas, and that pressure is .002% of the air pressure on the Earth's surface, it's going to keep collapsing, isn't it?

Regards
Krill

You are such the ass. Do you not think I read the same brief of tactics written Harvard for the CIA? I have now branded you just like CB

You know Krill, you have made many good points in the past, in fact you are the reason why my paper has been upgraded, but if you want to maintain respect don't lie, don't decieve and don't divert attention. You are smart enough to present a challenge with selling your soul.

without selling

Grant,
since you've apparently "forgotten" where that number came from, it was from *your* website, with me putting each of the incomplete pieces together and filling in the blanks (very crudely) to get SOME SORT OF ACTUAL NUMERICAL ANSWER which you have yet to provide. It isn'y "my number"; it's the best I could come up with to push your numbers to a conclusion.

Here's what I actually wrote initially, and the first mention of the .002% number:

"Then you attempt to also calculate the pressure, and this is where the wheels come off. Firstly, you can't make the assumption that the pressure is constant throughout the sphere at all times. Although it might be at first, it certainly won't be later on - that's sort of the whole point of the hydrostatic equilibrium equations.

Secondly, you can't figure out the pressure by dividing the mass by the volume. That would give you the density, not the pressure.

Kilograms are not a unit of force - they're a unit of mass. For cosmological purposes, the difference is sort of important.

In order to determine the pressure, you'd need to use something like the ideal gas law:

P = nRT/V

Which is sort of problematic for you: since you're assuming the temperature to be infinitessimally close to absolute zero (another variable you don't want to deal with, but which is very important), you'd have a pressure of, well, zero - which of course is the opposite of what you want.

So now we don't have any sensible numbers at all here - but let's be generous and assume that, in your calculations, we can just call 1kg = 10N to make everything square again (this is of course complete baloney, but hey, who's counting? It's extremely generous in your favor, also).

Using that with your own numbers yields a value for "P", what you claim is the initial pressure, of:

2.3 x 10^-15 Pa

and your claimed pressure when the cloud has collapsed to a radius equal to the orbit of Mercury of:

2.3 Pa

Just to be clear, that last figure is:

.000023 Atmospheres

So, even taking your own ludicrous mathematics at face value and supplying generous additional baloney required to fill in the blanks, you still end up concluding that this gas cloud, by the time it's shrunk to within the orbit of Mercury, is going to have gravity at its surface a quarter of Earth's surface gravity, but pressure only .002% of the air pressure at the Earth's surface.

And yet you conclude that this pressure is sufficient to prevent the cloud from collapsing? If that were true, the "gigantic" air pressure right here would cause all of the air on Earth to be blown away into space. Personally, I'm quite happy that you're still off by several orders of magnitude."

If you disagree with how I finished off your rambling train of thought, that fine - go ahead and finish it yourself and:


TELL ME AN ACTUAL NUMBER

Regards
Krill

Is, "Bored huge Krill" a Grant sock puppet?

Why do I ask?

Because after ALL these years, the ONLY constant is 'Krill.

'Krill, how sad you are? Arguing with a renowned kook, on a renowned kook website?

Grant, I understand; you, 'Krill, are in need of help.

I remember in 2003ish, YOU asked me to duck out of a math argument between yourself and Grant, why? because YOU were trying to show off.

'Krill, YOU make Grant look sane.


Oh yeah, Grant is wrong and bizarre.

Less in need of a life though.

Exactly right, 66042.

Grant clearly has dealing-with-reality issues. He rants away here displaying many of the hallmarks of a borderline personality. What's your excuse, Krill?

Twenty years ago people like Grant could be found ranting on street corners rather than on the internet. Back then many people may have heckled them in passing, but what would be made of someone who turned up every day to have another go at the whacko? What would be proved, and who would it benefit? It's not like Grant is ever going to convince anybody not on meds that he is right, so debating him isn't exactly on the same level as, say, taking on the creationists trying to wreck science education, or anything else that actually affects the world at large. No, instead Krill pounds away on his own personal sad sack, presumably in order to make himself feel clever. Very much a case of choosing to be a big fish in a small pond rather than striving for something worthwhile out in the real world.

Bullying, pure and simple. Stop playing spit invaders with the mental cripples.

and so it goes...

by the way, AC, if you want to participate, knock yourself out. I'm pretty sure I've never told anybody to get out of the way... it's honestly not my style. It's kind of the ground rules here that anybody and everybody can say what they want, no matter how ludicrous.

As for why I'm here, why not? Oddly enough, I find it very enlightening. Even though Grant is almost always wrong, it does at least give me an opportunity to go and dig through areas of physics and mathematics that I normally wouldn't bother with.

If you think that's wierd, so be it. It's kind of what this site is about, though.

Regards
Krill

Another difference between ranting on the internet and ranting on street corners is that you get a much bigger audience, and on forums like GLP a lot more people who might believe you.

Some of us post here showing the flaws in Grant's arguments to try to balance the view in case too many others start taking him seriously. He already has a couple of "supporters" who seem to think he knows what he's talking about.

As an example, someboy like Nancy Lieder would have been just another street corner kook in the old days, but she managed to conince quite a few gullible people, several of who ended up ruining their lives becuase they took her seriously. OK Grant, even with his beliefs in PX, aliens, and that god is speaking directly to him, probably won't turn into another Nancy, but you get the point.

Fair enough, 66088, I know what you mean about providing balance, it's one of the reasons I've been lurking on this board for a while trying to decide if I'll join in. However, the whole providing balance and correcting mistakes rationale can so easily turn into a blanket excuse for bullying behaviour that serves no useful purpose.

I've had some personal experience with the "unsung genius sticking it to those elitist poopyhead scientists" variety of kook before. There is a portion of their consciouness that knows when they are being shown up, but it is almost physically impossible for them to admit it in an open and unqualified manner. They are somewhat similar to pathological liars in this regard; the facade must be maintained at all costs, because if done so for long enough everyone will believe them and shower them with the praise they so richly deserve. Whenever the kook's answers to corrections become outright abusive, it is clear that a point has been scored, if you want to put it that way. To persist past this point is the equivalent of giving noogies to the class asthmatic and demanding that he cry "uncle!". The point has been made, move on to something else, because to labour it is to risk becomeing a bully. So what if he follows up your devastating refutation with an attempted facesaving "you're an idiot with no answers I win I win I win lalalalalalala"? If anyone really needs the last word after that sort of display, what does that say about their maturity and ego?

Good points 31297, and I agree with your assessment of Gran't problems. That's one reason I tend to only post when I feel it's needed to reinforce a point about the mathematics or physics.

Grant differs from your "class asmathic" however in that he keeps coming back over and over again, either to bolster up his old threads, or to start new ones with ever more ridiculous "theories".

However, in future, I'll try to restrain myslef to makign a few reasonable posts which shold show others his errors, and then leave the thread alone.

There's no pont in making him worse.