Jump to content

Strange

Moderators
  • Posts

    25528
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    133

Everything posted by Strange

  1. Maybe you should learn about this, rather than making up numbers.
  2. I very carefully did not call you a moron. So, as well as sharpening up your critical thinking skills, you also need to work on your reading comprehension. I hope you are very young and therefore have plenty of time to work on these things.
  3. No you have seen contrails. And you are gullible enough to believe any old crap you read on the web. You should take some lessons in critical thinking skills. You might be able to stop embarrassing yourself like this.
  4. The "basic premises" are observational and experimental data. The trouble with people who are too lazy to learn and therefore prefer to make stuff up (with the excuse that they are "free" from dogma or some such nonsense) is that their ideas are therefore divorced from reality. Cause and effect (e.g. the sequence of posts and their responses in this thread) and the fact we can objectively measure time (e.g. the datestamps on those posts) demonstrate that you are wrong. What you believe is hardly relevant. Especially when it is based on such gross ignorance. Or perhaps you would like to reformulate Einstein's Field Equations without time. Please show the mathematics that allowed to to conclude this. They are perfectly well explained. Why would anyone care? Enough of your display of wilful ignorance, you mean.
  5. No. How are those different? We only know what a thing appears to be from our experience of it. This is plainly wrong. I know how long my garden or my drive to work are. But I have no idea what their volume is. And again, I invite you meet me at 17.36 litres. As you have failed to calculate the ballistic trajectory of an object using only volume, I assume you can't. So it is odd (and somewhat dishonest) to keep repeating the same drivel. Last words: none of that has anything to do with the fact that your claim "volume is the one and only real physical dimension of real physical objects" is just ignorant nonsense. It is sad that you are not honest enough to either back up your assertions or admit they are wrong.
  6. As he is, as you correctly deduce, referring to the speed of light in a vacuum then it is constant and, more importantly, invariant. The presence or otherwise of a perfect vacuum is totally irrelevant.
  7. Why should any opinions be taken into account? Opinions are irrelevant. 1. What evidence do you have that "all opinions" are not allowed? And please restrict your answer to scientifically valid "opinions"; i.e. peer reviewed science. 2. What evidence do you have that "allowing all opinions" would mean that there would be more models predicting low values? 3. What evidence do you have of 'political pressure and boycotts against anyone not with "the program"'? 4. What evidence do you have that 'only the highest estimate models get the funding'? 5. What evidence do you have that 'models used come from only the scientists who are willing to tell the money people what they wish to hear'? On another thread, Shelagh (a fellow denier) posted some very interesting research on some of the new data and physics that is being included in models to make them more accurate. Some of these explain why some models have overestimated the effects. Huh? How can a (scientific) consensus not form around the predictions of all the models? 6. What evidence do you have for 'the needs of the politics'? As the answer to all 6 questions is "none", please refrain from posting such ignorant nonsense.
  8. Saying that Xerxes had the definitions of ring and field swapper isn't a counterexample. Neither is a strawman (i.e. a counter to a nonexistent example).
  9. I think it is fairly clear that, as in his other threads, the OP was just trying to provoke an emotional response.
  10. As far as I can see, that shows Xerxes was right and you were wrong. Xerxes said: Which is what that definition says (division is the inverse operation). Whereas you said he had the definition of field and ring the wrong way round. Which is clearly wrong. (You seem to have now retreated to the irrelevant point that division is only defined for non-zero elements. No one ever said it was so that appears to be a strawman argument.)
  11. I suggest you join the flat earth society, where you can find yourself at home with some like-minded morons. Hmmm... it looks like there are two of them. You might have to work which reaches the appropriate level of delusion for you: http://www.tfes.org/ http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm Or maybe more than two. I think this tells you all you need to know about the mentality of flat-earthers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_societies#Modern_Flat_Earth_Societies This article has some interesting insights into the psychology of these sort of delusional beliefs: http://www.livescience.com/24310-flat-earth-belief.html
  12. 1. This sounds more like group velocity rather than phase velocity, which is what "the speed of light" refers to. 2. You don't answer the "why" question from the title. 3. For this to be a theory, you would need a mathematical model and some evidence consistent with that model.
  13. Can you be honest, now you have moved away form the pretence of "just asking", is this purely a religious thing?
  14. 1. Please learn to use the "quote" function. It is almost impossible to pick your questions out of this wall of text. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82164-the-quote-function-a-tutorial-in-several-parts/ 2. It appears that you have copied the entire content of that web page. There is no need to do that; it makes your post even harder to read; and it is a violation of copyright. 3. There is nothing to discredit. This is not a scientific paper, it is a presentation of someone's basic misunderstanding. He appears to use the same argument as a poster here did a while ago: if you use the result from quantum theory then you get the same result as quantum theory. Hardly surprising. The website is that of a well-known physics crank. How he manages to run a company based on his bogus physics is beyond me. Apparently, there are enough gullible investors to keep pouring money into this nonsense.
  15. This is mainly based, as far as I know, on the observed correlation between black hole mass and galaxy mass. The verb grow is commonly used for all sorts of things. Cities grow. Savings grow. Industries grow. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grow
  16. It is worth noting that expansion depends on matter being homogeneously distributed. This is approximately true for the universe as a whole, on very large scales. Where there are concentrations of matter, bound together by electromagnetic forces and/or gravity, then there will be no expansion. These are good introductions: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/ http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0380 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808
  17. Well, it is clear that you prefer fiction to science.
  18. In very basic terms, that's about it. Although, I'm not sure it will always result in jets; it may be that a large amount of matter in the accretion disk just stops stuff reaching the black hole and blows the excess matter away, without forming jets.
  19. None of that appears to have anything to do with religion. So let me try again: What is the connection between sex/love/couples/marriage/children/health and religion? Because I am struggling to see one. I am, reluctantly, going to ignore the rest of the crap in your post because I don't want to distract from this main point.
  20. Good question. One answer is simple: yes, the gravitational pull is constant (apart from increasing slowly as it grows in mass). The other answers is that it is more complicated. The amount of matter falling into the black hole is limited because as it starts to fall in, it is heated and can generate large amounts of pressure and radiation. This can slow, and eventually stop, the rate at which matter falls in. This can also generate the massive jets of matter and radiation from the poles.These processes are not fully understood, but it is thought that there is an upper limit to the rate at which black holes can grow. A bit more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Accretion_of_matter
  21. Here is one: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp
  22. Effectively, yes. Why don't you work it out? But note that the cluster is held together by the mass of all the galaxies (and gas, and dark matter) in the cluster. So you need to take into account all the galaxies in the local supercluster (which is many thousands, I believe). The orbits of multiple bodies around one another are very complex.
  23. Perhaps because science has much higher standards of evidence than you do.
  24. The Andromeda galaxy is in our local cluster, a collection of galaxies which are held together by gravity. Therefore they are not affected by the expansion of the universe (which only occurs in the absence of any force). That is why the Andromeda galaxy is approaching us, rather than receding. No.
  25. Well, relativity uses generalizations of these (4-velocity and space-time interval) if that is what you mean.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.