Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

A pretty penny, look these guys can do anything they want, cos no one can afford to replicate the experiment. I dont call experiments that cannot be replicated "facts". Now with the human nature factor!

The ridiculous gravitational waves are a result of gross interpretation of BICEP II data.
Claimed to have seen "ripples in space time"

Well if you believe Einstein is correct then you can't believe gravity can exist without a mass to generate the grav field, if you believe Newton the same is also true.

What we are seeing is a distortion of the perceptive elemets of Relativity, it's ficticious and cannot exist without Newton's forces to translate it all to the real world, black holes are also an abuse, even according to Einstein, but also Swartzchild's solution for a black hole.

These nuts took dividing by 0 seriously. and categorically stated dividing by 0 was legitimate.


The bottom line is without two masses to attract each other graivty does not exist, if the universe was one homogenous evenly distributed mass, there would be no gravity cos as I said, Gravity needs two masses to attract. A wave has no mass, let alone two masses to cause gravity.A wave is energy but it needs something to dissapate into, like a wave in water, but magical gravity waves dissapate into space time? Another magical thing. None of it is based in physical reality

Now if as Hawking stated in 2006, that a singularity is infinitely dense and therefor has infinite space time curvature, then gravity would be infinite, and there would be no universe, just a singularity.

 

His greatest theory is a fantastic piece of intellectual thinking. Really perceptive but it doesn't reside in the real world.

For any physical interaction you want to show with Relativity you have to explain it with Newtonian forces. You cannot explain it with relativity.

You should read by previous about the Coriolis force and how that is also just a fiction, Newton is teh reality
Science could survive without Einstein, yes we've lose something but withoutm Newton and Maxwell, we'd be cavemen

 

But if that poo is travelling away from you at the speed of light, it never touches the water from your persepctive, according to einstein

Yet you'll feel the cold spash

 

Did one not lay the foundation for the others? Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that.

 

Not if you put boiling water down the pan first

 

Not sure how that translates to what is valid and invalid with the theory. I try stick to what I can actually try figure out and relate to the real world.


Take the Coriolis effect and Coriolis force. Every single physical aspect of the force and effect is Newton's laws and the altered perception that ocurrs. It's a perceptual place holder for a lot of very real physical interactions, abstract physics

A bog standard analogy as follows.

Get on a merrygoround, get it spinning clockwise (or counter, it's irrelevant)
Throw a ball straight ahead while spinning.

Newton's laws say the ball traveled in a stright line, but your perception says the ball curved to the direction you are moving in, but that curve is only perceived by the of the frame of reference (perception of the person moving relative to the ball's path)

This perception, an effect, can be quantised by Newtons laws, if you measure the real physical interactions, say being perpendicular to a centrifugal force, size and speed of the merrygoround.

Because we can quantify this effect (illusion of the ball making a curve path) even though it is not real. We can then observe a coriolis effect and convert it to Newton's laws.

So say you come across some other people doing the same thing on a different merrygoround, we can measure just the coriolis effect on this other expiermental merrygoround, then derive the Newtonian equations from the effect.


To paraphrase all of that.
We use a perception to reduce many laws of physics into a pseudo force. The Coriolis force. Just examining the perceptual effects of this can let us derive the real world physics of Newton.

relativity imo does the same thing when talking "space time" and frames of reference. They are perceptions that when reverse engineered result in Newtonian laws being applied to each individual physical interaction. Pseudo reality one might say that aspect of Relativity is.

What Einstein did was give us a way of doing this at the sub atomic level , not with this space time though, which is what I am saying is just perception, not reality, reality happens when you convert perceptions into Newtonian laws.

There is no solid evidence to suggest otherwise, but much interpretation.

 

I think your crapping habits are worth a scientific paper or two

 

should have seen the one I just ditched about ten minutes ago

 

You gaped yourself?

 

Must say this recent input from rational people is refreshing

Makes a change from the usuals

 

No, was soft, long and smelly

 

coiled? or a trouble maker?

 

Talking about logs is more on your level mate

 

Had to clean the pan afterwards


And before, dirty batards

 

#caretaker

You got yourself one of them Granville brown smocks yet mate?

 

Will see what I can do

 

You have some explaining to do mate
Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

logs are dark matter FYI

 

I will ask you one last time @Tobes

No stupid abuse or banter, and paraphrasing, we've done enough of that and I can't keep up the obnoxious condescending attitude up any longer.
(one week off the smokes) as well as my usual ****iness towards your attitude

What claim are you refuting? I admit I am lost on that point at this stage.

 

What I meant was in trying to say who was 'better' [silly word I know] Maxwell was way ahead of his time, discovered, calculated, and unified the branches of optics, magnetism, and electricity. Invented colour photography and made explicit use of dimensional analysis, wrote 'A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism' and calculated the speed of light, also laid the foundations for special relativity that Einstein would later use.

If you put Maxwell to one side for a minute, Newton and Einstein were working on the same problem. Newton's prowess being his mathematical abilities [inventing calculus] and Einstein's his way of thinking which was radical. And ...... Einstein's starting point for all this was Maxwell's equations.

Your point about reality - It's one thing to observe the observable and comment on it but what Einstein did was combine an unfathomable imagination with reasoning.

 

Think it was about a chart clearly showing we are in a cycle,