Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Bingo! this is the 1% of posts I read from you, congratulations.
Question, how many times have you asked that question since I last answered a post?

 

So a 2 year gain equates to a definite #noproblem ?

Whatever you say lad, it's like conversing with a 12 year old with Aspergers.

I could post an article penned by the Lord Almighty together with graphs aplenty and you'd still find some solitary scrap of information take it out of context, ignore the holistic view, together with the conclusion, and still claim you were right all along.

Your bore the ****ing arse off me tbh, I only toy with you for sport, as you get manic and I find it amusing.

 

Dont know, more importantly is why are you dodging it.

 

Thats harsh, 12 yr olds with aspergers usually have at least some social skills

 

Agree totally on Maxwell, Newton too, Einstein encompassed the work of both (no negative thing) and combined them into a pseudo entity, space time and the relative aspects of relativity, relative bieng relative to a certain perspective, this relativity has no basic in the physical world. It's brilliant thinking and it is philosophy not reality.

Now if you just follow the physical, and ignore the perceptive aspects, which text books dont do, they tie the perceptive to the physical, things start to look different purely by not applying any theoretical filter, just ask what is physically happening at any given point

I think I see it different because I am minus the perceptive training, I can understand the physics if not the mathematics.
relativity in that context has become dogma, how is one to think outside the box if one is inside the box? By that I mean how can you falsify relativity when you are constrained to working everything out with relativity?

The "Muons prove relativity time dilation" issue demonstrates this problem perfectly, you cannot calculate muon decay without relativity, cos we can't actually measure the muons we must rely on Relativity. That is A lending to B to prove A, a logical fallacy, a circular argument.

There are scientists that view the universe trough relativity, there are scientists that don't. They have very different views. Plasma phuysics has no philosophy

Scientists who view the universe through plasma physics see a completely differnt picture compared to their counterparts who see it through relativity. (Newton and Maxwell and Einstein equations apply to both views)

I guess I never had any box to be in as I did not go through all those years of being told this is fact, just carry on and dont question it, work as if it is true, even though it is quite theoretical.

I've asked some of these questions of people who are doing this in college and they often have no satisfactory answers, mainly because they are working from within the theory, plasma physics is not even in the Astrophysics text books.

I think it is prudent to recognise the difference between scientific authority and scientific method. Just because I am told Einstein is awesome, if my brain has questions.. cant help but ask them, some think this is some attack on a great man or some weird ****

 

Epic levels of ******.

No one has ever said gravitational waves mean "gravity without mass", whatever the **** that's supposed to mean.

If you'd read even the most basic article you'd know they're predicted to be generated by the most massive bodies in the universe.

BTW you don't need infinite density for a black hole. You don't even need the density to be particularly high if you have enoug material.

Why are gravitational waves "magical" and electromagnetic waves not?

 

The GPS industry has been conducting a massive #fraud to back up general relativity. For some reason.

Care to explain this #conspiracy Sisu?

Basically could you let us know which areas of modern scientific research are NOT currently involved in any #conspiracy?

 

tbh I don't care whether you rate Einstein or not, just because others tell you he's awesome doesn't mean in your world, he has to be .... plus .... the fact he doesn't rock your world doesn't detract one iota from what he achieved.

 

no you know I am trying to nail you down and you are squirming. You refuse to be drawn into a direct question as usual.

You know dang well I am talking about Greenland and Antarctica, no doubt you checked and found nothing.

For you to be refuting anything you need to show me something that shows me greenland is not gaining ice (what I always claimed) and that Antarctica isn't melting (what I always claimed)

Not imaginary arguments about global glaciers, which is meangingless as they are all effected by the very regional climates(we cant model) in different ways

Why is greenland important? I asked you that but you swerved it, it is because it is the most responsive place to temperature on the planet.
Well atm it is used by clima tards as proof of global wrming.

They are claiming it is melting when it has been recovering from the 2012 low, that is exactly what I have been talking about all along, not whatever the **** you think I was talking about and I can back it up with quite a lot of my posts.

Greenland LET IT BE KNOWN has warmed 8c degrees in 30 years in the past (compared to a claimed 1c in 100 years+ this century) Afraid?. What you are now seeing is nothing.

Antarctica has been cooling for almost 40 years, so much for global warming there.
The Western Ice sheet is a geological event nothing to do with climate, it is being discussed since the late 1900s.

 

Such an ill posed question, how should I answer? I still have to look at the other post I have to reply to from you mate.

Will you admit your Muons Light clock defence of relativity didn't pan out, a year and never seen you admit you are wrong

 

No because it does pan out.

Will you provide the proof why the light clock is wrong? I promise you a Nobel if you do.

 

The lightclock is a theoretical proof not an experimental one.

And if you cant understand why Muons are a logical fallacy then

 

Apart from the experiments they did, like.

 

so when did they get a train to move away from a platform at the speed of light. ?

Also, do you actually know anything about the Muons experiment beyond what you read after bringing it up?

How do you suppose using relativity to prove relativity is valid science?

 

Logic 101 @astro(Klopp's footbo)naut

A (relativity) cannot lend to B(Muons) to prove A (relativity)

Your refusal to accept this is borderline meltdown

 

How do you consider relativity making precise calculations for time dilation and length contraction that are confirmed by multiple experiments and observational data, and not contradicted by a single experiement or observational dataset to be not science?

Oh yeah, because you don't understand it

 

More questions while just ignoring everything I say, how are we supposed to make any progress here with you acting like a child filled with angst? Do you take meth, focus man

How are the lightclock theoretical proof and the logical fallacy of Muons proof relativity TD is right?

If you accept they are not actually proof we can move on.

 

You're the king of the world!!

 

Cheers Kate

 

It even measured a 2.0 on the richter scale.