Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

And links to published papers always helps, I mean any crank can fill the Internet with rubbish.

A true scientific mind would want his work peer reviewed

 

It's finally got to Lysenkosim under Stalin, science that disagrees is a crime now
Skeptical Climate Change Is Real? These 20 Academics Think You Should Be Prosecuted.
http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/09/s...-20-academics-think-you-should-be-prosecuted/


Academics who disagree with other's findings want them arrested because of said disagreement and presecuted under RICO enterprise crime laws And people wonder why I and many others question such "experts"
#academia
#morallybankrupt

 

So what do you know about his work? What do you know about cosmology?

Your answer puts this post into context.

Basically you are saying I don't have the tools to know anything about Einstein and am just a "clueless idiot"

But my knowledge of the subject is far greater than yours, so you are doing the exact same thing you accuse me of, someone clueless telling me I am clueless, because of what? "something someone else said"

I suspect the hypocrisy is lost on you though

 

PJ you have not cited one paper or any actual anything ever on this thread and you are talking about papers, you've never read a scientific paper in your life. Neither has Tobes or TT, you guys are funny.

I guess all the empirical data and credible sources are meaningless because as we know with sad trolls, anything that doesn't support your argument is not valid

 

You won't do even cursory reading. You just ask for backup, and the times I provide it, a lot of info, you ignore it and move on to something else. Every time you do this, because you are too spineless to ever admit you are an idiot and wrong.

You are anti learning, and you get some weird disturbing kick out of asking me to educate you on everything I post rather than actually learing something yourself.

Always easier to throw stones than deflect them which is why you throw stones.

If you don't get the analogy then you are thicker than I thought, it applies to the three of you.

 

On the subject of Newton being a dense ****? Well, he was. But he was a good prod

Leibniz was a dense **** as well

 

Now, no one needs papers to show the evidence Einstein was not quite right with his space time. I know you lot have no clue as to why this is because you have no interest in Einstein or cosmology, when I say ye I mean the usual trio.

@donga kloppo Newton's equations are extremely accurate until you get to the atomic level. Einstein bridged that gap but quantum physics cannot ever be reconciled with classical physics because of several reasons, one of those being the speed of light, it's a limiting function in quantum physics and there is some evidence that the force exchange between quarks is instant meaning the speed of light is not a limit at all. This alone puts theoretical relativity to the sword if confirmed. Gravity is all Newton after all, space time curvature is Einstein.

It's a pity Newton is not alive today. His work is astonishing. So is Maxwell's


The other three idiots can't tell the difference between actual findings in cosmology and a published paper. They are not the same thing.

Conundrum one with space time and Einstein's field equations.
To have gravity you need mass. No mass no gravity.
So, with the limit of the speed of light, that means that if the sun disappeared right now, earth would not feel the gravitational effect change for 8 minutes.

So, the reasoning, that goes against Einstein's own work, is that the earth will experience the sun's gravity for 8 minutes after the mass disappears, meaning 8 minutes of gravity without a mass to create it.

Einstein and hawking and all the others say you cannot create energy out of nothing, they did that with the big bang though, and dark matter too. Having gravity without a mass to create it is creating energy out of nothing too.

There are a bunch of stars orbiting our alleged supermassive black hole in centre of the milky way, there is no effect on the star's light as it passes in close orbit to the black hole. That should not be possible if space time curvature is real because the curvature would be immense and light has to traverse that curvature and would be deformed or scattered, this has not been noted at all during the 15 year study, I am sure Tobes and co are well aware of that 15 year study? Not

Also, only last year a huge cloud of hydrogen gas just passed the black hole and was not consumed. It should have been if space time is right.

Einstein himself didn't believe in black holes, but I know Tobes and co didn't know that, but they should, when I assert there are no black holes, I am echoing Einstein there


As for Hawking, because he went down the rabbit hole of dividing by 0 (something kids are taught they cannot do) he claimed the following and received much accolades for it.
"A singularity is a point or a curcumference of a circle, it has 0 volume infinite density and infinite temperature."

Now I will let the experts Tobes TT and PJ tell me why that is wrong, completely wrong and in fact, utter nonsense.


The history of black holes and other nonsense comes from dividing by 0. An event horizon is an undefined part of an equation and so is the singularity. Theorists then gave these mathematical objects physical properities, how you give physical properities to something that is 0 in size and 0 in volume? It's NOTHING

 

I was just irritable because of the othger idiots talking complete garbage. It was a useless comment

Newton has given us the way to work out forces, Einstein's relativity cannot even weight apples. You can't measure apples with space time curvature, you can with Newtonian forces though.

Leibniz another mathematician philosopher, just like Einstein.

I always wondered though, Einstein's wife was a mathematician, and when she eventually left him, his work dried up
Einstein also had a knack of starting theoretical works after someone else had already started and publishing before them, there was suspicions he had some students passing him work stolen from other scientists.
#theory.

 

Name and shame

 

#calculus

 

This sign in on the MIT campus

please log in to view this image

 

Apparently the Maldives are in such danger from rising seas (in danger of losing UN funding if they admit it's nonsesne) that they are building 2 more of these, which are being funded by China, who is raising CO2 emissions till 2030.

please log in to view this image

http://maldives.net.mv/1784/maldives-prepares-to-build-two-new-airports/

Cos that's what you do, build more airports and resorts on a sinking Island

 

Yeah yeah heard it all before, strangely enough its whenever you are unable or unwilling ( for whatever reason) to answer a question.
As for me being anti learning, my last question to you was to help me learn about a chart you posted, I could not Google as it was about your comments re that chart.

You can now either ;
A answer, what to me appears to be a basic innocuous question, in the process of which you could also maybe produce one of your now legendary " proving me wrong" posts ( these are now legendary due to repeated lack of evidence).
OR
B dodge and avoid the question by insulting me, bigging up your own knowledge, post lots of unrelated stuff or any of your other diversionary tactics thus allowing people to draw their own conclusions.

 

I'll go for B. mate

Same as usual

#standard

 

A

A riddle wrapped in a mystery.

What published and peer reviewed papers have you cited?

I have skimmed through pages of this and it's just links to websites and articles.

Sea Ice having no impact on sea levels is very basic stuff you would have learned at school.

 

Doesn't every 'finding' start life as a piece of research?

Therefore, every 'finding' would have a paper to back it up, surely?

Otherwise how does this 'finding' become the accepted current understanding?

Academics write papers about last nights telly, so I'm sure they'll do so for potential cosmological advances, therefore you could cite them, but you won't as you've not read them have you?

Your complete lack of understanding of the process is therefore evident, and yet you have the temerity to label those who dare to challenge your internet noddyness as 'idiots'.

 

No.

 

Very enlightening, care to expand like?

 

Not really. How's that for expansion?

 

In the sisu envelope of answering techniques