Physicists Dan Hooper of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill., and the University of Chicago and Lisa Goodenough of New York University base their findings, posted October 15 at arXiv.org, on an unexplained excess of energetic gamma rays emitted from the core of the galaxy. The gamma rays were recorded over the past two years with an instrument aboard NASA’s Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, launched in 2008.

The nature of magnetic fields and black holes as dark matter (coupled neutrons as dark matter, and coupled electron-proton pairs as neutrons) can explain the flat rotation curve of galaxies (why galaxies spin like a solid unit, unlike solar systems where each planet spins at different speeds - It is peculiar that the outer portions of the galaxy do not spin slower).

Brain man wrote:

lucek wrote:
If you can't add anything to the discussion of substance then why do you think you need to continue in the discussion.

To concentrate on the graphic aspect, as i have qualifications and experience in graphics. The animation is the elephant in the room which everybody avoids discussing here, and has easy get outs..say its dishonest, change the subject etc..

.......

Brain man wrote:To concentrate on the graphic aspect, as i have qualifications and experience in graphics. The animation is the elephant in the room which everybody avoids discussing here, and has easy get outs..say its dishonest, change the subject etc.

By getting the model of the planet you can then run the ocean floor regression yourself. But this time take every objection about neal adams animation, then study to see if they are valid. For example zoom in on south america as it goes through its last regression, which people attack here. You aren't zooming in on a video, you would be zooming in on a 3d reconstruction done independently from neal adams, based on planetary data which is accurate to the metre.

You mean tweak the models of course...Every scientist does it. Thats part of the process of figuring problems out. All thats under debate is whether there is dishonesty here.

Brain man wrote:That is Harley Borgais comments. He made the prediction that dark matter was concentrated at the center years ago, and had the idea rejected as ridiculous by some top people in the field.

There are implications for the solar system, as his theory is saying that physics can be unified by looking at quantum forces and gravity within the context of the solar system, and the dark matter in the center of it as playing a key role in this unification.

But that is another topic and again out of my realm. I am just making the point we need reminded there is a lot we do not know at this stage, and here is an example of a fringe theorist in action, being ridiculed and then his predictions are looking more correct as data comes out.

Its a common pattern throughout the history of science or any field of endeavor, which is why name calling and ridicule has to be water of a ducks back to anybody with ideas or ambition of any kind.

The world we see is 3-dimensional. Time is the 4th dimension. Thought (or the mind) is beyond the scope of this explanation of the forces of nature, but it is at least one additional dimension. All forces react best at 90-degrees and that is why the spacetime continuum is made of four tangent dimensions (at 90-degrees to one another). The energies that intersect at angles less than 90-degrees create lesser forces and interference patterns, like holograms (picture pebbles thrown into water to imagine interference patterns). . .

Brain man wrote:

I am qualified in autocad, and have used terrain modelers both which involve large 3d datasets. i.e. An entire building design or large terrains. There is logistical problems taking this size of data to and from the hard disk - modelers Ram- OpenGl GPU ram.

In autocad accuracy is maintained by total compression to bare points and a language for each component in the building is clearly defined. In terrain model its a completely different story, compression has to done using spatial approximations. There is a lot that can go wrong. So what i am saying is that i would understand roughly that the animation house neal adams went to would face certain practical difficulties, even if being entirely honest in their aims. Even with the best workstations and a decent render farm. There is a limit to what those guys could do without supercomputer access and more experts to hand.

I can see this. At 1:20 red land re-appears when it had just been taken away, and some green is going at the same time. It doesn't kill the whole video, but looks like a glitch in the modeling, because the original Dataset is ambiguous. There is no real delineation from red to yellow to green. The banding of the colors into strips is far too big for magnetic domain striping. This is because I presume they have taken an approximated version of the original data so they can fit it in the modelers ram.

Is still tweaking. Most scientists admit to tweaking as means to play around with fixing problems. The difference is that the tweaking is written up openly in the methodology sections of papers.

Brain man wrote:

Edit: with work like this I wouldn't blame anyone for dismissing him.

The world we see is 3-dimensional. Time is the 4th dimension. Thought (or the mind) is beyond the scope of this explanation of the forces of nature, but it is at least one additional dimension. All forces react best at 90-degrees and that is why the spacetime continuum is made of four tangent dimensions (at 90-degrees to one another). The energies that intersect at angles less than 90-degrees create lesser forces and interference patterns, like holograms (picture pebbles thrown into water to imagine interference patterns). . .

[

I have corrected him on thought, and explained to him it is not another dimension. There were eminent neuroscientists pushing that it was to the layperson at that time, and too much string theory to back up the ideas, was not helping people either. Those neuroscientists did have some solid foundations for their concepts, but took it too far. The less said the better, but there is still some good which did come out of their efforts, even if it didnt actually help with their aims.

As for the concepts on angles and electromagnetism, some if is borne out by the study of magnetic toroids and common factors between the probability distributions in electron configurations. Anyway most of that material you quoted from him is years out of date and have been since developed further.

style aside, he has some interesting models, which make intuitive sense, and major predictions are being borne out by new studies.

Brain man wrote:Of course it is. Doing a degree is one thing. Actually being involved in a real work project involving large datasets is quite another. They nave major logistical problems, piecing large models together. Do you recall how large scale engineering projects have to weld the datasets together seamlessly in autocad ? After years of problems they ended up with a modeling system based on an underlying LISP system, designed so that it does not matter how big or complex the project gets, it can be a generator to an entire town plan...there is no glitch, not at any scale. The system can even stitch together with another engineers work across the internet. It could cope with perfect models of the infrastructure of the entire planet.

That does not apply to terrain rendering for the reasons i mentioned. Its still in its infancy, even for those with access to todays, ultimate computation, so you cannot expect terrain mapping of an entire planet to be perfect.

Brain man wrote:

lucek wrote:
This thread already has it's focus but I started a New thread dedicated to his work if you want to post what you mean. In my opinion it's technobabble not science.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/work-of-harley-borgais-t15672.html

You would be better contacting the author for his current work rather than quote mining the worst aspects of ten year old material. I have already discussed with him I do not follow this idea of having blind respect for alternative science, and that is all i have to contribute on that.

I do not join in the new fashion of young people, joining internet forums, to get off on the cheap kicks of being part of a crowd bashing lone individuals who take risks, and try to contribute what they can imperfections at all.

I might as well play football or go back to the playground. What a waste of time and maturity which is obviously not there to begin with. I notice that a lot of people who go online and do this kind of thing were or still are, at the butt end of bullying and social isolation themselves.

This is science where time is more productively spent, trying to see past somebodies weakness (and most good scientists have plenty of them) to mine what might be possible nuggets of genius in their work.

Anything else is a complete waste of time, so count me out that.