Hello there! Have you heard about bee4biz (do a google search)? It is a tiny url locker that pays. Its tons better than other sites and they pay more. Check it out if you want to earn money shortening and sharing links online
To all religion vs. science ranters: religion didn't stop Georges Lemaître (catholic priest) from laying foundations to Big Bang Theory, Charles Towens from inventing the maser which lead to detection of cosmic microwave background radiation or JFK (catholic) to send largerly protestant nation (USA) on Apollo project. And remeber - what we call today 'science' was initially domain of clerics. Remotely civilised person has no trouble whatsover with reconciling those two.
You just cant help yourselves can you, EVERY science video on youtube is FULL of shitheads claiming "god isnt real" "the bible is fake" why dont you shut it. Science has nothing to do with religion, and vice versa so STFU and stay on topic. I think your under the delusion that science is at war with religion, well its fkn not so again STFU. That goes for you too religious radicals. This doesnt prove anything against anyone so stop thinking it does. Dumb bastrds.
@YamaKazoo I have to agree, and I feel only another Irish person could so eloquently put it, and also have the regard of scepticism that is required to be rational.
Yes, it is embarrasing that so many are still superstitious/religious. Hope no aliens visit us, cause they'd probably laugh their..somethings off! : )
It is saddening that for every serious investigations about exoplanets, we have to dig between hundreds of conspirationist videos about nibiru, planet X, or whatever shit is popular lately.
Astonishing that on the other side of humanity we have all this knowledge and science and amazing development. And on the other side we have religion.
Useless superstition still holds billions in its grasp. Its embarassing and ridiculous.
@bary1234 I couldn't agree more. Religion is one of the most moronic aspects of our silly little species. If there was a way to save ONLY scientists and other intelligent people from the coming CCC destruction, I would pounce on it.
@Kinjamaimai probably some religious quacks who vote down all science vid's but might be people who missed clicked.Who would reply to your retorical question? me thats who :-P
The "CMBR" as observed is much too smooth to account for the also observed "lumpiness" of the universe, galactic clusters, filaments, etcetera.
This "cosmic" radiation is nothing more than the radiation from local interstellar plasmas, which accounts for every observed feature of it.
Big bang believers remind me so much of christains and "intelligent design" believers, who claim every complex system is "proof" that god made the universe.
@fertilizerspike Gravity accounts for the lumpiness of the universe and galaxies.
No, radiation from a plasma doesn't account for it's spectrum or isotropy.
I've given you proof for gravitational lensing: one object mirrored four times by another objects' gravity. Your defense has been to propose an absurdity--that the four mirrored images are different objects, despite their appearance, inside a single galaxy, despite the fact that no galaxy has ever been found with a structure like that.
Gravity doesn't account for anything we see in the universe. The universe is well over 99% plasma, which means gravity is mooted, electromagnetic forces dominate. This is established science here that you're arguing with, not me.
You keep citing "einstein cross" a an example of "lensing" when it's quite clearly four objects around a fifth. DIRECT OBSERVATION has verified the REAL PHYSICAL CONNECTIONS between these objects, but you refuse to believe it.
@fertilizerspike The universe is 99% empty. Your ridiculous assertion that it's 99% plasma is not only not established, it's comical. If there was that much plasma anywhere, we wouldn't even be able to see other stars for the fog. But hey, maybe it's magic transparent plasma!
You're simply wrong. I'd suggest you investigate Anthony L. Peratt's "plasma universe" web site. It's hosted by Los Alamos National Labs so it should be pretty easy for you to locate it. Well in excess of 99% of the observable universe is, in fact, plasma. It's a shame it took you this long to find out, think of all that time you wasted believing in idiotic and unobservable nonsense like "big bang", "black hole", "dark matter", "dark energy", etcetera. Plasma can be observed.
@fertilizerspike LOL leave it to an idiot to confuse the fact that 'matter is 99% plasma' with 'the universe is 99% full of plasma'. Seriously dude, how stupid are you?
Leave it to an idiot to misunderstand a simple statement of fact.
I said over 99% of the observable universe is plasma. I've now said it again. Over 99% of the observable universe is plasma. Space is filled with plasma. Everywhere in the solar system that we've sent probes capable of detecting it, we find plasma. The universe is filled with plasma. Seriously, dude, how stupid are you?
@fertilizerspike You seriously don't even understand the distinction, even after I've pointed it out to you? Yes, most matter is plasma, but all the matter in the universe fills up only a tiny fraction of space. Most of space is empty because matter tends to compact into dense areas due to gravity.
No scientist, or rational person, thinks space is filled with plasma, because if it was 1 the universe would be boiling hot and 2 plasma would stop light from the stars from reaching us.
Once again, space is not "empty", it is filled with plasma. To put it another way, so that you might understand better, it's filled with matter in a plasma state. Everywhere in space that we've sent probes capable of detecting it, we find plasma. The universe is literally filled with plasma.
This is simply wrong. Plasmas are not all "hot", the trait they have in common is that they are IONIZED, or in other words, CHARGED, as opposed to the ostensibly "neutral" matter that seems to exist only in the thin lithosphere-atmosphere boundary layer of Earth where all known life exists.
"2 plasma would stop light"
Again you betray your ignorance. There is no contradiction here except in your mind. Space is filled with plasma.
"You seriously don't even understand the distinction"
The distinction between "most of the universe being plasma" and "most of the matter in the universe being plasma" is nonexistent. All of the universe is made of matter. All of "empty" space is filled with matter in a plasma state. The properties of plasmas are understood, as are the behaviours of plasmas, and their ubiquity in the universe. We live in an electrically-driven plasma universe. Welcome to the twentieth century.
You apparently don't get the irony, as I've pointed out numerous times, when you finally arrive in the twentieth century you'll just be a century behind reality, you'll no longer be in the gaslight era of astronomy. I half expect you to tell me the sun is a massive coal fire in the sky.
You keep saying "four mirrored images" when it is in fact four objects. Clinging to this belief is just making you look more and more stupid and stubborn. Just admit you made a mistake, you believed something that was preposterously stupid, and move on. People will respect you more if you can admit your mistakes, which is why I immediately admitted my "raindrop" mistake. Take a lesson from me, admit you were wrong, prove you can learn.
@fertilizerspike Yet again, you respond to my comment on Einstein's Cross while ignoring the major point of my argument: that the 4 images are identical in appearance. What do you think you will get out of this kind of dishonesty? Do you think I'll just forget all the facts that prove you're talking shit if you lie often enough?
It's your contention that these objects are "identical", but they are in fact just very similar. It's not unusual to find instances of objects with similar appearances. Honestly I don't know where you got the notion that these objects are "identical". Also, learn some optics, what shape of lens is needed to produce this four-way splitting you say is taking place? I think you might be surprised at what you find.
@fertilizerspike LOL right, they're only similar! So similar in appearance you can't tell them apart, with identical redshift, the same frequency of emission, and just-so-happens to be symmetrically aligned around the galaxy's center.
I don't know, why don't you tell me what type of lens is required here? I'm guessing you're just bluffing, considering the nonsense you've thrown at me so far.
Not only do big bang believers ignore their own errors, they also ignore the success of better ideas. The "temperature" of space was measured by Andrew McKellar in the forties, Gamow, often credited with "predicting" the right "temperature" of space based on big bang belief was apparently unaware of this as he revised his guesses upward until it reached 50K.
"CMBR" is "proof" of big bang only if you ignore half a century of research.
A word about "big bang" and the "temperature" of the universe:
Big bang believers often tout the observed "temperature" of the "CMBR" as "proof" that big bang is valid. Never mind that big bang believers predicted temperatures an order of magnitude higher and lower and everything in between.
Also ignored is a long history of MUCH CLOSER guesses as to the "temperature" based on such notions as heating by starlight, which all came to within a few degrees of what's observed.
@fertilizerspike And really, I find it embarrassing for you that you're too stupid to realize that SCIENTISTS ALREADY CONSIDERED THAT. It's like you think you're the only person in the world smart enough to think, 'hey radiation comes from stars, maybe we should consider them as an alternate source!' Seriously dude, how arrogant are you in your ignorant bubble?
If by "scientist" you mean a person who believes in big bang, black hole, etcetera, all I'd say is such people are not scientists. Scientists don't base their beliefs on wishful thinking or flights of fancy, they base their beliefs on evidence.
For one thing, I'm not proposing arguments, I'm trying to help people learn, so your continual appeal to this or that attribute of an "argument" is unwarranted and moot.
For another thing, you are apparently blissfully unaware of the steady torrent of observations with readily falsify your beliefs. I can't really fault you for that, I'm sure you have a lot of catching up to do watching Dancing with the Stars or Blue's Clues.
"1: explain how several astronomers are seeing something that doesn't exist.."
Astronogers aren't seeing "gravitational lensing". Any "lensing" they might see in space would certainly be a result of electromagnetic forces, which can influence light, whereas gravity can have no such effect on light. To say otherwise is to contradict a century of investigation into the matter. I wouldn't put that past you, though, given your glaring and arrogant ignorance.
@fertilizerspike Electricity doesn't bend light. I've corrected you on this before; the effects you listed, Faraday and Zeeman, change light's polarity and the emission spectrum of matter respectively. Neither of these can account for lensing.
But hey, at least you finally seem to be admitting that lensing happens! Now I just have to make you realize that electricity can't cause it, and you might actually wake up and recognize a piece of reality.
As you point out, electromagnetic forces can and do bend and polarize light. It's good to see at least you're learning something from all this. Bending of light is, of course, exactly what a LENS does, bone head.
I've stated previously there are NO verified instances of this "lensing" in space, because such verification lies outside the realm of the possible. We can't send probes light years away to verify that what we're seeing is somehow "bent" by a "lens" that we can't observe.
Empirical studies show peer review reinforces common bias and error instead of weeding out errors. Also, peer review has been shown by empirical study NOT to be able catch deliberately inserted errors in papers. You're the one with false beliefs, if you think peer review is part of the scientific method, part of the process of science or in any way beneficial to science. Observable reality falsifies your beliefs, you should abandon them.
And do you have a link that will allow me to read these studies?
I saw something similar in answersingenesis, but that's only because their papers get rejected and they want to blame the big mean peer review board for being unfair.. Even though they DO have several errors in their work..
So I'm going to need to see this study, it's going to have to be credible, and AIG doesn't count as credible..
Otherwise I have to assume that you're making these "empirical studies" up..
The studies are published and are in the public domain, go look it up. I can't post links here in a comment and you know that as well as I do.
Credibility is irrelevant. Impuning the credibility of a person in order to discredit the information they're giving is a classic logical fallacy.
I don't care what you assume, quite frankly, because assumption seems to be your primary mode of operation, and assumption is the mother of all fuckups.
This might help you, look up the Baltimore medical malpractice scandal to see the problems caused by peer review. The peer review process controls funding, in other words MONEY, and money corrupts people, it corrupts ideas, it corrupts practices, everything money touches turns to shit.
Just do some searching, look for ethical problems of peer review, bias in peer review, error in peer review, I'm sure you'll find the same information I've found when researching peer review.
What IS credible when discerning false information from the truth?
I should believe everything that a random person says in the comments? Well if I was going to do that, why you and not the dozens of people disagreeing with you?
Anywayz, I'm glad your finally posting where you're getting your information.. I'm going to go have a look..
Yes, "credibility" is irrelevant in the context you proposed, which was basically as follows:
"You need to get information from credible sources."
The credibility of a source is irrelevant to the veracity of the information. The more you communicate here the more I'm convinced you're delusional. Science is not performed by consensus of opinions and it isn't based on "credibility" or reputation.
This has nothing to do with "believing people", whether it be dozens or billions. The information I've presented stands on its own and doesn't rely on agreement to be valid. If you insist on disagreeing with it, I can't stop you. I can lead a horse's ass to water but I can not make one drink.
I think you need some remedial learning, first learn the scientific method, then learn the rules of logic, while you're at it, memorize the classic logical fallacies and avoid them.
You're damn right it's not an argument, because I'm not arguing, just trying to educate people.
You could say that "big bang" and "black hole" and all the other myths in which you profess belief "stand on their own", but of course they don't. When I say this information "stands on its own" I mean it's readily verified by direct observation of reality, not that more people agree with me than agree with you, or that my ideas are more entertaining or fanciful or exciting.
Apparently I am doing it wrongly, because you don't seem to be learning anything.
Also, I don't have my own reality, there is one reality. Perhaps this sort of disconnect is primarily responsible for your belief in absurd ideas for which there is no evidence except evidence which falsifies them. Yes, you should definitely believe me and not astronogers, especially when most of their "explanations" involve unobservable matter or energy or hypothetical creation events.
Astronomers present proof in some cases, that's true. However, most people pretending to be astronomers are in fact astronogers, and base their beliefs not on evidence or experiment but on storytelling and stargazing. These people quite literally need to get their heads down out of the clouds. You need more than observation and storytelling to perform science, you have to perform experiments, and plasma cosmologists are among the ONLY cosmologists who actually perform experiments.
@fertilizerspike Fert, you're just asserting that peer review doesn't work, instead of backing it up.
If you didn't think that bending is polarizing, then why did you make the erroneous claim that I agreed that EM forces could bend light? I never agreed with that because it's false.
I think that you're just BSing me again; that you thought polarization = bending, and now that you got caught looking like an idiot you're trying to lie your way out of it.
Do your own research, I can't post links in this comment and you know that. If you don't want to do the research, then admit you haven't done the research and aren't going to.
You stated quite plainly what the zeeman and faraday effects were, now you're claiming you didn't? Or are you just trying to say I called polarization a "bending" of light? I didn't. The zeeman and faraday effects deal with bending and polarizing light. You know that, I know that, what are you arguing about?
This proves that doctors are greedy.. And I agree..
It does reference a peer reviewed article, but not in the negative way that you imply.. The article just proves that the doctor was being greedy and preforming unnecessary surgery..
What it shows is that many people got a lot of unnecessary and life-endangering surgeries, DESPITE the peer review process. In this case it's not the progress of science that was harmed, it was people's lives. The peer review process is used to control who can publish, what they can publish and who can get funding, that's all it does, and it is in no way beneficial to science. Inertia of prior beliefs inhibit the progress of science when peer review is allowed or enforced.
Also, I have no idea what you read about that, or if it even agrees with the information I know about it. Even so, I don't see how what you've put forth in any way contradicts what I said about the process of peer review in any setting or context.
To be honest you're the one looking like an idiot here. You cited the explanations of the zeeman and faraday effects now, what, you're withdrawing from those explanations? Are you suggesting they don't deal with bending and polarizing light by electromagnetic forces? It's like you're spinning in circles and saying I'm the one stumbling around dizzy afterward because that's how it looks to you. You're the dizzy bitch here, not me, keep spinning.
@fertilizerspike What? When did I say that EM forces can bend light? Oh, I see; you've made yet another basic error in physics. You confused 'polarization' with 'bending'. No, polarizing light isn't bending it, since it doesn't change the direction the light is traveling. Polarizing light involves rotating it on it's axis of propogation. Calling that 'bending' the light is like calling revolution rotation.
Oh, I must have misunderstood, and in doing so I must have gotten the impression that you actually understood for once something you were saying.
Electromagnetic forces can, of course, both bend and polarize light. You're the one who's confused here, I said "bend and polarize" not "bend is polarize". Don't make the mistake of thinking I said polarization is a bending of light. Bending light is, as I mentioned before, exactly what a LENS does, dummy.
I also notice you still haven't provided any convincing support for your idiotic notion that "CMBR" supports "big bang" to the exclusion of a host of other obviously wrong ideas about the supposed "origin" of the universe.
I'll also point out here again that we have no indication that the universe ever had an origin, or that it is anything other than infinite in size and ageless. Got any evidence showing the universe had a beginning or that it will ever have an ending?
@fertilizerspike No, I don't have evidence that the universe had a beginning. I have evidence the matter and energy in the universe was once in a very dense state--the CMBR and Hubble's constant are irrefutable evidence of that--but that doesn't mean the universe somehow began then.
As for CMBR estimates, since you obviously can't name any sources I will. Gamow estimated 50K in a 1948 paper in Physical Review titled 'The origin of Elements and the Separation of Galaxies." His estimate...
You have no evidence that the universe had a beginning, yet you believe it did...hrm...interesting that you don't base your beliefs on evidence. Try it some time.
The "CMBR" does NOT suggest that the state of the universe in the past was any different than it is today. IF the universe were COOLING OFF at some discernible rate THEN you could make the case that the universe was once more energetically dense, but no such cooling is in evidence.
Once again, Gamow made a series of guesses, starting at a mere fraction of a degree Kelvin and progressing steadily upward until he guessed 50K. Saying that this long string of guesses moving steadily in the WRONG direction is a success borders on hilarity. On the other side of that hilarity border is, of course, humility.
As for the 1948 date attributed to Gamow, observations were made as early as 1941 falsifying about 90% of his guesses as to the "temperature" of the universe. Again, not the "temperature" of "CMBR", of which Gamow was apparently ignorant. I'll also just state once again this "temperature" is based on black body formulae. The universe is not a blacksmith's forge or a wood stove, it's not a black body radiator, the universe is lit electrically.
@fertilizerspike Observations were made in 1941 about the temperature of the background radiation? OK, then cite them!
BTW, This didn't appear on the front page because I'm replying to an old comment, but Gamow's work was challenged by Alpher and Herman in 1949 in a paper called 'Remarks on the Evolution of the Expanding Universe', where the put the value and 5K, and Gamow and then argued over that a lot (6 papers in 3 years), with no consensus being reach.
Andrew McKellar calculated a temperature of 2.3K in 1941 based on excitation of certain molecules. He derived this "temperature" from DIRECT OBSERVATIONS of the universe, not mere speculation based on big bang and an imaginary "age" of the universe, not from "redshift" assumptions, not from imagining the universe was once "more dense" or "compact" or more highly energetic and small, but by DIRECT OBSERVATION.
You mention consensus here, also, which you apparently believe is necessary to perform science. It's not. Group consensus is NOT part of the scientific method and is no no way useful to the progress of science. Valid information is valid no matter how many people are led astray by speculations and assumptions masquerading as science.
@fertilizerspike I don't get why you're saying the temperature is based on black-body formula. Are you saying you disagree with black-body physics?
No, I don't believe the universe had a beginning. Once again, you show a stunning ignorance of the very thing you're arguing about. The BBT doesn't say the universe had a beginning, it says the universe was once much more small and dense than it is now. This is the kind of mistake I guess I should expect from someone who's self-taught, though.
I say it's based on black body forumlae because it is.
The "temperature" is calculated based on the temperature required to produce a given spectrum. We know for a fact, however, that heat is not necessary to produce a given spectrum, we can readily replicate these spectra with electric discharges in the absence of such huge and implausible temperatures. Many of these temperatures are impossibly high, such heat would disassociate any molecules said to be radiating.
@fertilizerspike Now you're claiming we can make emission spectrum without heat, only needing electrical discharges lol. Yet more assertions from you without sources. I've challenged you on this claim before and you didn't back it up then either.
The Big Bang does NOT claim itself as an origin, as your assertion that it does is just more of your ignorance. I've given you 2 of the major pieces for evidence the universe was denser--CMBR and Hubble's Constant. You just deny them.
I'm well familiar with big bang belief, I don't have the kind of religious faith in it that you have, however.
Even if big bang didn't propose an origin event for the universe (which it does, it's essentially the genesis myth from the bible without mentioning god), you still have no evidence supporting the notion that the universe was once "more small and dense". This is the kind of mistake I guess I should expect from someone who has been taught nothing but preposterous fables.
@fertilizerspike The universe is lit electrically--so what? Even pretending this fantasy of yours is true, electricity doesn't fundamentally change the way objects emit light. Something that is heated by electricity will emit light at the same frequencies as something heated through convection. Magnetic fields can change that, but they do it by making energy states, and thus emissions, MORE energetic and distinct, not less.
That the universe is electrically driven is not a fantasy, it's the only reasonable conclusion we can draw based on the evidence we have.
It isn't electricity generating heat which then generates light, we're talking about plasma physics here, it's not a wood stove heating up or a blacksmith's forge that becomes "red hot", it's very much like the fluorescent lamps we have. The "temperature" rating of these lamps in no way corresponds to heat they produce.
@fertilizerspike Gamow's estimate was challenged by Alpher and Herman, in a Physics review paper titled 'Remarks on the Evolution of the Expanding Universe'. They argued the CMBR was at 5k. There was some back and forth--half a dozen papers published by those 3 authors between 1948 and 1950--and neither side really agreed. As far as I can tell from the literature, scientists never reached a consensus, though Gamow dropped his estimate to 28k by 1950 in a paper published in Physics Today.
Gamow predicted a "temperature" of 50K in the sixties, long after repeated direct observations showed the "temperature" of space to be vastly different. Either Gamow didn't realize these observations had been made, or he was being deliberately ignorant of them for some reason. I can only speculate as to why he would make such guesses, when observations had already trumped his speculations. Further, I can't understand why he'd guess wrongly when the facts were already known.
@fertilizerspike Now you're asserting Gamow predicted 50k in the 60s, again without a source, and saying Andrew McKellar proved the temperature was about 3K in the 40s! Without a source. It's like you think just saying stuff will get you believed! And then you mock your own unsupported claims by saying Gamow was just ignoring reality. Here's a thought; maybe you're just a moron.
Look it up, Gamow made numerous guesses, I wouldn't even call them predictions, he made so many of them that one of them was almost bound to be close. I could "predict" how much rain we're going to get in the next ten years. A quarter inch of rain. Oh also a half inch. One inch. Two inches. Twelve inches. Fifty inches. Four hundred inches. A thousand inches. If any of those are close by an order of magnitude, I can claim the same "success" that big bang believers claim in Gamow.
@fertilizerspike I did look Gamow's research up, and I found that you're a lying sack of shit. Gamow only made 2 estimates--50K and 28K. Both of them were hotly contested. Alpher and Herman, two of his colleagues, insisted on 5K or less. All of these papers were published in Physical Review between 1948 and 1950--look them up yourself.
Now, maybe I'm wrong--maybe other papers were published that I didn't find. If so, then cite the papers. Can you?
The bottom line is Gamow made a shitload of guesses, almost all of which were way off base, this is what big bang believers call a "success", never mind that direct observations nullified his guesses, never mind that other obviously specious notions like "tired light" gave more succinct sets of predictions that were MUCH CLOSER to reality. It's laughable, really.
To be honest I'm weary of discussing this with you, you seem hell bent on maintaining your severe delusions, despite the evidence put in front of you. Have a nice stroll through your hallucinatory terrain there, buddy.
"2: prove it.. They've given proof, so why shouldn't you have to? "
To suggest that "gravitational lensing" is somehow "proven" is beyond absurd, it's riotous, in fact, bordering on insane. A century of investigation has shown "gravity" has absolutely no effect on light of any kind, and no "lensing" in space has ever been verified, for that matter. Supposed "verifications" rely on a steady stream of assumptions that are implausible at best and impossible in the extreme.
Just a word about "time dilation", it's an observational artifact that's a consequence of the fact that light takes time to travel across distance. It is NOT a real "dilation" of "time" that affects how slowly or quickly an object "ages". The very idea of relative motion nullifies this idea that "time dilation" is real. Either of two bodies in motion can be chosen as the "stationary" object because their motion is RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER.
Let's see papers published by people that actually know what they're talking about. You're too vague with this time dilation scam you're running. You're just parroting what you've read on forums.
Your fixation on "papers published" is unwarranted and moot. I do know what I'm talking about.
I'm not "running" some "scam" about time dilation, just pointing out the obvious and absurd fallacies behind it. These fallacies have been identified BY ME, independently of anyone else who may have also come to the same conclusions. I'm not "parroting" anything, it's you lot that are simply "parroting" the consensus dogmatic beliefs without critical analysis.
Please, everyone ignore fertilizerspike. He's full of shit. He has no support for anything he says except his vague, pseudo-scientific nothings. Sorry, dude, because a theory is cool to you, does not make it correct. The data do not support your claim.
My claims are supported not only by direct observation but also by experimental evidence. Your characterizations are unfounded. Everyone should ignore you, unless they want to become more misinformed. Sorry, dude, because a belief is popular does not make it valid.
In this case, popular means most strongly (as opposed to not at all) supported by evidence. It's interesting that you've become so heavily indoctrinated.
astronomer 1: "OK guys we have some of the smartest people in europe gathered under one roof, now lets put our thinking hats on and name this telescope".
astronomer 2: "which telescope? the large one over there?"
astronomer 1: "No no, the very large telescope, the one just behind the FSB"
astronomer 2: "the FSB?"
astronomer 1: "yea, the Fairly Small Building"
astronomer 2:"hmm, this is a tough one"
(two months later)
astronomer 2: EUREKA! Ive got it i know exactly what to name it...."
Studying is only half the battle.. You can read until your eyes bleed but at the end of the day it doesn't matter how much you've read if you don't know the difference between good information and false information..
Why do people come to watch these awesome vids, only to start/continue stupid arguments? Not that I've never done that kinda thing, but ffs, give it a rest. Enjoy something without battling it out with some other dumb fuck you're never gonna meet in real life.
ok..um... how is there an argument going on on a video about planets? OH its Real, OH its not.. ??? i mean im pretty sure that its there. i mean, is something of extraterrestrial origin evil to a christian or something? i mean before they used to think the earth was the center of the universe, now they know its not, why cant they accept alien life? *ok, a vast majority not all Christians*
187, not 182, and I was tested in school. My IQ was later published in a regional newspaper in conjunction with some allegations made about my "diabolical" nature.
Have you ever noticed that Dr. J has the habit of moving his head to the left and then to the right while talking...I always smile when i see him on a video.
This idea is absurd. The planets were most likely ejected electrically from the sun. We see this sorts of electrical ejection of spherical objects when we observe arc welders or any electric arcing for that matter. This not only explains the origin of the planets but also explains why they are spherical.
If not wanting to be called a troll means I'm a troll, then fine. I don't want to be called a troll any more than you want to be called a smarmy cocksucking weasel. Even if you are one.
You're not a troll because you don't want to be called a troll.. You're a troll because of lines like "smarmy cocksucking weasel".. That's something trolls say..
Trolls also get pissed off when people don't agree with them, even when they're wrong.. Which you've been doing..
Where do you even get all that bullshit information you've been posting?
You're confusing cause and effect here. I was called a troll, so I called that person a smarmy cocksucking weasel. cause -> effect
I'm not pissed off, and have no idea why you think I am. It isn't me people are disagreeing with, it's observable reality. If people want to disagree with observable reality, I pity them, it doesn't make me angry.
You've failed on two fronts to characterize me accurately as a troll. That aside, keep your fucking opinions about me to yourself.
It's certainly your contention that I'm a troll, just as it's my contention that you're a pathetic little pissworm unfit to lick the sweat off my nutsack. Even so, why don't you give my nutsack a lick, tell me if you like the salty taste of it. In the meantime, keep your fucking opinions about me to yourself, cocksmoker. All the information I've given is in the public domain, go and look for it, do your own research.
You're the one who can't make your case, so you choose to talk about this imaginary version of me as a troll. It's all in your head. What's not in your head, clearly, though, is education. Do some more research.
Also, I'm not a fucking troll, you shit eating chimp.
You clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about. In the first place, I never said I was worthless. As for being fertilizer, we'll all die some day and be recycled.
I'm not making a fool of myself, just exposing the ignorance of others where I see it. I have an education, I don't have to sell anything for food. I grow a great deal of the food I eat, I drink and cook and clean with rainwater, I'm very close to self-sufficient. How about you?
@fertilizerspike "The planets were most likely ejected electrically from the sun... This not only explains the origin of the planets but also explains why they are spherical."
Fascinating... but we have a much better explanation, it's called GRAVITY. Not only does this explain why they're all spherical, it also seems to be occurring in the accretion disks of other stars. Unlike stars spitting out planets.
Strange that gravity as it's understood can't explain how planets would form from random collisions. Gravity models suggest when two objects collide randomly they don't stick together. Gravity doesn't explain why planets are spherical, and doesn't adequately explain planetary formation in any sense. That you think so is testament to your extreme ignorance and gullibility. Electrical ejection, however, is readily demonstrated in the lab.
@fertilizerspike "Gravity models suggest when two objects collide randomly they don't stick together."
What are you smoking, dude? Simple, observable fact tells us that two objects colliding stick together; have you never heard of a meteorite? Just drop a pencil on the ground and tell me if it 'sticks' to the earth or floats away into space. This isn't even physics 101, it's elementary school. Gravity produces a force that draws objects towards one another.
When you talk about meteorites falling to Earth you're talking about a very tiny charged body coming into contact with a very massive charged body. Both objects enjoy a different charge, which causes attraction between the two. As the meteorite gets closer to Earth, the charge imbalance equates to a massive (due to Earth's massive size) electric discharge .This discharge is why meteorites flare, and the attracted between the two bodies here is clearly electromagnetic.
@fertilizerspike Whoa, that's quite a batch of 'wtfs' right there. First, why do you think our planet has some kind of charge? Second, why do you think meteorites have a charge? Third, why do you think we have DIFFERENT charges? Fourth, why do you think the heat is caused by electrical discharge, when friction seems to explain it perfectly? Fifth, if the attraction between us and meteorites is electrical, then what do you think about the attraction between us and say, satellites?
In the case of your pencil you're not talking about tiny particles of dust swirling around a star, you're talking about pulling the pencil away from Earth, then letting it "snap" back. Throw that pencil high enough and it will orbit the Earth. Throw it even higher and the Earth's gravitational influence fades quickly (inverse square) to nothing. Electromagnetic forces influence the pencil and the Earth both, thirty times more strongly than gravity.
@fertilizerspike Yes, EM tends to be 'stronger' than gravity, in the sense that a proton would have a far stronger EM effect on another object of similar charge than it would have a gravitational effect on another object of similar mass. So? That does not in any way justify your absurd conclusion that gravitational models don't have colliding bodies sticking. Gravity is weaker than EM, but it's still a force, and an attractive one.
No, you haven't made the case that I'm a troll, you've just made the case that you certainly want people to think I am. Also, I'll tell you again, keep your mother fucking opinions about me to yourself, you diseased, verminous dogfucker.
As far as my information, it's all readily verified with a bit of web searching. I suggest you do some research and educate yourself before you make bald pronouncements like this. There's nothing "wild" about electromagnetic forces.
If you want wild assertions, how about "black hole". Asserting that black hole exists is a smack in the face of science. There is absolutely nothing scientific about belief in black hole.
@fertilizerspike "There is absolutely nothing scientific about belief in black hole."
Black holes were hypothesized based upon the intermingling of gravity and relativity. Experiments were designed to detect them--primarily, looking for stars orbiting bodies that were too small and dense to be known objects. Those experiments were run, and several hits turned up. In other words, black holes went through the scientific method and came out smelling like roses.
Black hole was invented based on what amounts to numerology. If you plug zero mass into the formulae, it spits out a fantastic object. The universe isn't obliged to obey imaginative math, however.
Black hole hypotheses state plainly that black hole is unobservable by any means. That's a big red flag telling you it's wrong. Everything real is unobservable. Black hole by definition will forever remain hypothetical.
Further, we don't need black hole to explain anything we see in space. Black hole was used in a desperate attempt to explain why galaxies don't appear to obey gravity. Even that didn't fix it, so dark matter was invented, on and on. It's ridiculous.
Every "black hole" candidate identified to date is a prodigious producer of electromagnetic radiation, when they should be sinks for such. This is explained away as "event horizon" giving off the radiation.
@fertilizerspike Your rhetorical attempts to pretend black holes are ad hoc explanations won't work against anyone with knowledge in the field. Black holes were predicted by Schwarzschild long before the first observed case appeared. Further, your claim that black holes should necessarily be sinks for radiation is simply false; if a black hole's event horizon is small enough, tidal forces for masses approaching it should be strong enough to cause nuclear fission, producing energy.
Then "event horizon" wasn't enough, we observed stars emitting x-rays or gamma rays nearby it, the same way we observe x-rays being given off near cometary displays, and it's concluded the star is being "eaten" by an invisible black hole. Ludicrous. Are tiny invisible black holes responsible for the same effect observed in comets? Not even a great fool would suggest that, I suspect. Black hole does not stand up to scrutiny, it was dead on arrival.
@fertilizerspike This raving lunacy just get's crazier... that idea that some stars are being eaten by black holes was not an attempt to explain polar jets, it was based upon observation. Some stars are orbiting regions of space too small to contain standard bodies, and are trailing dust which is being drawn in by these regions of space.
@fertilizerspike Black holes, as hypotheses, were proposed following the discovery of relativity, as a necessary side effect of the idea that nothing could travel faster than light. They weren't invented as ad hoc explanations.
Dark matter was an ad hoc explanation for differences in galactic rotation rates, but it has since been verified through gravitational lensing experiments. We know there's a lot of invisible stuff because it's gravity warps light.
That's really rich. Relativity wasn't "discovered", it was invented as a way to help describe reality. It's utility is severely limited, it predicts nothing that's ever been verified.
Black hole was proposed to explain galactic shapes and motions. It was ad hoc, it defines ad hoc. Dark matter has not been verified by "gravitational lensing", which is preposterous. Gravity has absolutely no effect on light. It affects nothing because it's imaginary.
@JesterAzazel You could argue (and I am just playing Devil's advocate here) that gravity is fictional, it is just the bending of space-time by mass, in the same way that centrifugal force is fictional, it is just dispalced inertia.
This site says that, even with the best technology, we can't actually see gravity, which is why it's fictional.. The fallacy there is, like you said, because gravity is a displacement of inertia.. But it still manifests, and it's effects are observable and demonstrable..
@JesterAzazel quite so, as I said, just playing devil's advocate. "Gravity" is a very good way of describing the effects of the curvature of space-time, but you could argue that it doesn't "really exist".
@fertilizerspike WTF times 10. Relativity didn't predict anything? Time dilation, E=mc^2, the fact that objects gain mass as they gain speed, length contraction, the presence of muons on the surface of the earth, and on and on it goes. If you deny gravitational lensing, then how do you explain, for example, Einstein's Cross? Are there 3 giant mirrors out there, all perfectly placed to make it LOOK as though the quasar's light is being bent by Huchra's lens?
@fertilizerspike Time dilation has been repeatedly observed, in jet travel. Fly a plane around the world faster than sound and even atomic clocks lose seconds. The fact that energy can be derived from matter was a direct extension of relativity, it didn't predate it at all, and it has been confirmed--unless you don't believe in nuclear weapons. The increase of mass due to acceleration is observed all the time in particle accelerators, as is length changes.
Clocks losing or gaining time has nothing to do with imaginary "time dilation" and everything to do with the mechanical workings of the clocks.
Deriving "energy from matter" isn't what you said, you said E=mc^2. It predates Einstein. It was proposed by Preston in the 1870's, Maxwell's equations contain it implicitly, so-called "energy from matter" was proposed by Newcomb, Preston, Thompson, Poincare, Olinto De Pretto, Hasenohrl, all before Einstein.
Very nice video
MyDavidsun 2 weeks ago
Your video is awesome!
pjojin0 2 weeks ago
I like this video!
TheSanovita 3 weeks ago 3
Good Video. Thanks For shared, Very Infomative!!..
Spasatcom 3 weeks ago
Mantap, Gw suka ini. Thanks For the video.
directorygod 4 weeks ago
Good Video!..
ngeliatduit 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thanks for the great video
MyDavidsun 1 month ago
i have just a single word... Awesome!
andreeaweed 1 month ago 6
Hello there! Have you heard about bee4biz (do a google search)? It is a tiny url locker that pays. Its tons better than other sites and they pay more. Check it out if you want to earn money shortening and sharing links online
princesl1 5 months ago
To all religion vs. science ranters: religion didn't stop Georges Lemaître (catholic priest) from laying foundations to Big Bang Theory, Charles Towens from inventing the maser which lead to detection of cosmic microwave background radiation or JFK (catholic) to send largerly protestant nation (USA) on Apollo project. And remeber - what we call today 'science' was initially domain of clerics. Remotely civilised person has no trouble whatsover with reconciling those two.
AnteyPL 9 months ago
The narrator sounds like she has a cat up her arse.
suppernoddypo2k7 1 year ago
You just cant help yourselves can you, EVERY science video on youtube is FULL of shitheads claiming "god isnt real" "the bible is fake" why dont you shut it. Science has nothing to do with religion, and vice versa so STFU and stay on topic. I think your under the delusion that science is at war with religion, well its fkn not so again STFU. That goes for you too religious radicals. This doesnt prove anything against anyone so stop thinking it does. Dumb bastrds.
YamaKazoo 1 year ago 4
@YamaKazoo I have to agree, and I feel only another Irish person could so eloquently put it, and also have the regard of scepticism that is required to be rational.
suppernoddypo2k7 1 year ago
Yes, it is embarrasing that so many are still superstitious/religious. Hope no aliens visit us, cause they'd probably laugh their..somethings off! : )
winterstellar 1 year ago
It is saddening that for every serious investigations about exoplanets, we have to dig between hundreds of conspirationist videos about nibiru, planet X, or whatever shit is popular lately.
Yagamimoon 1 year ago
@Yagamimoon
And worst of all - "Moon landing conspiracy".
AnteyPL 9 months ago
ESO!!!!
Lucuskane 1 year ago
Astonishing that on the other side of humanity we have all this knowledge and science and amazing development. And on the other side we have religion.
Useless superstition still holds billions in its grasp. Its embarassing and ridiculous.
bary1234 1 year ago 21
@bary1234 I couldn't agree more. Religion is one of the most moronic aspects of our silly little species. If there was a way to save ONLY scientists and other intelligent people from the coming CCC destruction, I would pounce on it.
eddiequest4 1 year ago
God dammit I love you ESO!
Anime666Serbia 1 year ago
Thinking about space,all these things outside the world that are just a ridiculous size makes me relize how small our planet is.
TheLastLogicalOne 1 year ago
i think davelantor and fertilizerspike need to get a room
Methadonebunyip 1 year ago
Comment removed
Methadonebunyip 1 year ago
Who are the two people who voted this DOWN!?
Kinjamaimai 1 year ago
@Kinjamaimai probably some religious quacks who vote down all science vid's but might be people who missed clicked.Who would reply to your retorical question? me thats who :-P
TheLastLogicalOne 1 year ago 6
@Kinjamaimai They dont belive in exoplanets :p
ethalin 1 year ago
Exoastromicallyfascinating!
Thanks again :)
mario64bits 1 year ago
"bias in peer review"
"Most peer reviewed articles are done by Americans, so they MUST be biased against non-Americans"
Well most of the people in prison like bread.. Is the law biased against people that like bread?
Another logical fallacy in your "proof that stands on it's own"..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
Another word about "CMBR" and "big bang":
The "CMBR" as observed is much too smooth to account for the also observed "lumpiness" of the universe, galactic clusters, filaments, etcetera.
This "cosmic" radiation is nothing more than the radiation from local interstellar plasmas, which accounts for every observed feature of it.
Big bang believers remind me so much of christains and "intelligent design" believers, who claim every complex system is "proof" that god made the universe.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Gravity accounts for the lumpiness of the universe and galaxies.
No, radiation from a plasma doesn't account for it's spectrum or isotropy.
I've given you proof for gravitational lensing: one object mirrored four times by another objects' gravity. Your defense has been to propose an absurdity--that the four mirrored images are different objects, despite their appearance, inside a single galaxy, despite the fact that no galaxy has ever been found with a structure like that.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
Gravity doesn't account for anything we see in the universe. The universe is well over 99% plasma, which means gravity is mooted, electromagnetic forces dominate. This is established science here that you're arguing with, not me.
You keep citing "einstein cross" a an example of "lensing" when it's quite clearly four objects around a fifth. DIRECT OBSERVATION has verified the REAL PHYSICAL CONNECTIONS between these objects, but you refuse to believe it.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike The universe is 99% empty. Your ridiculous assertion that it's 99% plasma is not only not established, it's comical. If there was that much plasma anywhere, we wouldn't even be able to see other stars for the fog. But hey, maybe it's magic transparent plasma!
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
You're simply wrong. I'd suggest you investigate Anthony L. Peratt's "plasma universe" web site. It's hosted by Los Alamos National Labs so it should be pretty easy for you to locate it. Well in excess of 99% of the observable universe is, in fact, plasma. It's a shame it took you this long to find out, think of all that time you wasted believing in idiotic and unobservable nonsense like "big bang", "black hole", "dark matter", "dark energy", etcetera. Plasma can be observed.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike LOL leave it to an idiot to confuse the fact that 'matter is 99% plasma' with 'the universe is 99% full of plasma'. Seriously dude, how stupid are you?
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
Leave it to an idiot to misunderstand a simple statement of fact.
I said over 99% of the observable universe is plasma. I've now said it again. Over 99% of the observable universe is plasma. Space is filled with plasma. Everywhere in the solar system that we've sent probes capable of detecting it, we find plasma. The universe is filled with plasma. Seriously, dude, how stupid are you?
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike You seriously don't even understand the distinction, even after I've pointed it out to you? Yes, most matter is plasma, but all the matter in the universe fills up only a tiny fraction of space. Most of space is empty because matter tends to compact into dense areas due to gravity.
No scientist, or rational person, thinks space is filled with plasma, because if it was 1 the universe would be boiling hot and 2 plasma would stop light from the stars from reaching us.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
Once again, space is not "empty", it is filled with plasma. To put it another way, so that you might understand better, it's filled with matter in a plasma state. Everywhere in space that we've sent probes capable of detecting it, we find plasma. The universe is literally filled with plasma.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@Hooya said:
"1 the universe would be boiling hot"
This is simply wrong. Plasmas are not all "hot", the trait they have in common is that they are IONIZED, or in other words, CHARGED, as opposed to the ostensibly "neutral" matter that seems to exist only in the thin lithosphere-atmosphere boundary layer of Earth where all known life exists.
"2 plasma would stop light"
Again you betray your ignorance. There is no contradiction here except in your mind. Space is filled with plasma.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@Hooya2 said:
"You seriously don't even understand the distinction"
The distinction between "most of the universe being plasma" and "most of the matter in the universe being plasma" is nonexistent. All of the universe is made of matter. All of "empty" space is filled with matter in a plasma state. The properties of plasmas are understood, as are the behaviours of plasmas, and their ubiquity in the universe. We live in an electrically-driven plasma universe. Welcome to the twentieth century.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike What more can be said? You just keep spewing the same ridiculous nonsense.
"Welcome to the twentieth century."
Indeed.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
You apparently don't get the irony, as I've pointed out numerous times, when you finally arrive in the twentieth century you'll just be a century behind reality, you'll no longer be in the gaslight era of astronomy. I half expect you to tell me the sun is a massive coal fire in the sky.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@Hooya2
You keep saying "four mirrored images" when it is in fact four objects. Clinging to this belief is just making you look more and more stupid and stubborn. Just admit you made a mistake, you believed something that was preposterously stupid, and move on. People will respect you more if you can admit your mistakes, which is why I immediately admitted my "raindrop" mistake. Take a lesson from me, admit you were wrong, prove you can learn.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Yet again, you respond to my comment on Einstein's Cross while ignoring the major point of my argument: that the 4 images are identical in appearance. What do you think you will get out of this kind of dishonesty? Do you think I'll just forget all the facts that prove you're talking shit if you lie often enough?
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
It's your contention that these objects are "identical", but they are in fact just very similar. It's not unusual to find instances of objects with similar appearances. Honestly I don't know where you got the notion that these objects are "identical". Also, learn some optics, what shape of lens is needed to produce this four-way splitting you say is taking place? I think you might be surprised at what you find.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike LOL right, they're only similar! So similar in appearance you can't tell them apart, with identical redshift, the same frequency of emission, and just-so-happens to be symmetrically aligned around the galaxy's center.
I don't know, why don't you tell me what type of lens is required here? I'm guessing you're just bluffing, considering the nonsense you've thrown at me so far.
Hooya2 1 year ago
Not only do big bang believers ignore their own errors, they also ignore the success of better ideas. The "temperature" of space was measured by Andrew McKellar in the forties, Gamow, often credited with "predicting" the right "temperature" of space based on big bang belief was apparently unaware of this as he revised his guesses upward until it reached 50K.
"CMBR" is "proof" of big bang only if you ignore half a century of research.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
A word about "big bang" and the "temperature" of the universe:
Big bang believers often tout the observed "temperature" of the "CMBR" as "proof" that big bang is valid. Never mind that big bang believers predicted temperatures an order of magnitude higher and lower and everything in between.
Also ignored is a long history of MUCH CLOSER guesses as to the "temperature" based on such notions as heating by starlight, which all came to within a few degrees of what's observed.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike And really, I find it embarrassing for you that you're too stupid to realize that SCIENTISTS ALREADY CONSIDERED THAT. It's like you think you're the only person in the world smart enough to think, 'hey radiation comes from stars, maybe we should consider them as an alternate source!' Seriously dude, how arrogant are you in your ignorant bubble?
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
If by "scientist" you mean a person who believes in big bang, black hole, etcetera, all I'd say is such people are not scientists. Scientists don't base their beliefs on wishful thinking or flights of fancy, they base their beliefs on evidence.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
"Further, "gravitational lensing" hypotheses suggest this supposed "lensing" would produce a) arcs"
I think the best way to back up this argument is simply by saying: They've been observed!
2 simple steps to disproving grav lensing:
1: explain how several astronomers are seeing something that doesn't exist..
2: prove it.. They've given proof, so why shouldn't you have to?
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel
For one thing, I'm not proposing arguments, I'm trying to help people learn, so your continual appeal to this or that attribute of an "argument" is unwarranted and moot.
For another thing, you are apparently blissfully unaware of the steady torrent of observations with readily falsify your beliefs. I can't really fault you for that, I'm sure you have a lot of catching up to do watching Dancing with the Stars or Blue's Clues.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel said:
"1: explain how several astronomers are seeing something that doesn't exist.."
Astronogers aren't seeing "gravitational lensing". Any "lensing" they might see in space would certainly be a result of electromagnetic forces, which can influence light, whereas gravity can have no such effect on light. To say otherwise is to contradict a century of investigation into the matter. I wouldn't put that past you, though, given your glaring and arrogant ignorance.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Electricity doesn't bend light. I've corrected you on this before; the effects you listed, Faraday and Zeeman, change light's polarity and the emission spectrum of matter respectively. Neither of these can account for lensing.
But hey, at least you finally seem to be admitting that lensing happens! Now I just have to make you realize that electricity can't cause it, and you might actually wake up and recognize a piece of reality.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
As you point out, electromagnetic forces can and do bend and polarize light. It's good to see at least you're learning something from all this. Bending of light is, of course, exactly what a LENS does, bone head.
I've stated previously there are NO verified instances of this "lensing" in space, because such verification lies outside the realm of the possible. We can't send probes light years away to verify that what we're seeing is somehow "bent" by a "lens" that we can't observe.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Do you even know what proof is?
Just saying something doesn't make it true..
And I'm still waiting to hear about why peer review does more harm than good..
And remember, I want PROOF.. Not just a meaningless paragraph of your false beliefs..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel
Empirical studies show peer review reinforces common bias and error instead of weeding out errors. Also, peer review has been shown by empirical study NOT to be able catch deliberately inserted errors in papers. You're the one with false beliefs, if you think peer review is part of the scientific method, part of the process of science or in any way beneficial to science. Observable reality falsifies your beliefs, you should abandon them.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
And do you have a link that will allow me to read these studies?
I saw something similar in answersingenesis, but that's only because their papers get rejected and they want to blame the big mean peer review board for being unfair.. Even though they DO have several errors in their work..
So I'm going to need to see this study, it's going to have to be credible, and AIG doesn't count as credible..
Otherwise I have to assume that you're making these "empirical studies" up..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel
The studies are published and are in the public domain, go look it up. I can't post links here in a comment and you know that as well as I do.
Credibility is irrelevant. Impuning the credibility of a person in order to discredit the information they're giving is a classic logical fallacy.
I don't care what you assume, quite frankly, because assumption seems to be your primary mode of operation, and assumption is the mother of all fuckups.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel
This might help you, look up the Baltimore medical malpractice scandal to see the problems caused by peer review. The peer review process controls funding, in other words MONEY, and money corrupts people, it corrupts ideas, it corrupts practices, everything money touches turns to shit.
Just do some searching, look for ethical problems of peer review, bias in peer review, error in peer review, I'm sure you'll find the same information I've found when researching peer review.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Credibility is irrelevant, too?
What IS credible when discerning false information from the truth?
I should believe everything that a random person says in the comments? Well if I was going to do that, why you and not the dozens of people disagreeing with you?
Anywayz, I'm glad your finally posting where you're getting your information.. I'm going to go have a look..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel
Yes, "credibility" is irrelevant in the context you proposed, which was basically as follows:
"You need to get information from credible sources."
The credibility of a source is irrelevant to the veracity of the information. The more you communicate here the more I'm convinced you're delusional. Science is not performed by consensus of opinions and it isn't based on "credibility" or reputation.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel
This has nothing to do with "believing people", whether it be dozens or billions. The information I've presented stands on its own and doesn't rely on agreement to be valid. If you insist on disagreeing with it, I can't stop you. I can lead a horse's ass to water but I can not make one drink.
I think you need some remedial learning, first learn the scientific method, then learn the rules of logic, while you're at it, memorize the classic logical fallacies and avoid them.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
"The information I've presented stands on its own"
I could say the same thing for the information I've presented.. And the information that Hooya has presented..
That isn't an argument, that's just you expressing that you agree with it..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel
You're damn right it's not an argument, because I'm not arguing, just trying to educate people.
You could say that "big bang" and "black hole" and all the other myths in which you profess belief "stand on their own", but of course they don't. When I say this information "stands on its own" I mean it's readily verified by direct observation of reality, not that more people agree with me than agree with you, or that my ideas are more entertaining or fanciful or exciting.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
"I'm not arguing, just trying to educate people."
Well you're doing it wrong..
"readily verified by direct observation of reality"
Your version of reality, sure..
So should I believe a youtube commenter over several astronomers? I can verify how qualified they are..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel
Apparently I am doing it wrongly, because you don't seem to be learning anything.
Also, I don't have my own reality, there is one reality. Perhaps this sort of disconnect is primarily responsible for your belief in absurd ideas for which there is no evidence except evidence which falsifies them. Yes, you should definitely believe me and not astronogers, especially when most of their "explanations" involve unobservable matter or energy or hypothetical creation events.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Astronomers do present proof.. You just reject it..
"hypothetical creation events"
Operative word is hypothetical.. They don't say that they know for sure.. They look at the evidence and draw the best conclusion..
Do you claim to know how it all started?
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel
Astronomers present proof in some cases, that's true. However, most people pretending to be astronomers are in fact astronogers, and base their beliefs not on evidence or experiment but on storytelling and stargazing. These people quite literally need to get their heads down out of the clouds. You need more than observation and storytelling to perform science, you have to perform experiments, and plasma cosmologists are among the ONLY cosmologists who actually perform experiments.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Fert, you're just asserting that peer review doesn't work, instead of backing it up.
If you didn't think that bending is polarizing, then why did you make the erroneous claim that I agreed that EM forces could bend light? I never agreed with that because it's false.
I think that you're just BSing me again; that you thought polarization = bending, and now that you got caught looking like an idiot you're trying to lie your way out of it.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
Do your own research, I can't post links in this comment and you know that. If you don't want to do the research, then admit you haven't done the research and aren't going to.
You stated quite plainly what the zeeman and faraday effects were, now you're claiming you didn't? Or are you just trying to say I called polarization a "bending" of light? I didn't. The zeeman and faraday effects deal with bending and polarizing light. You know that, I know that, what are you arguing about?
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
"Baltimore Medical Malpractice"
This proves that doctors are greedy.. And I agree..
It does reference a peer reviewed article, but not in the negative way that you imply.. The article just proves that the doctor was being greedy and preforming unnecessary surgery..
Good job arguing against yourself..
I'm going to go look up those other phrases now..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel
What it shows is that many people got a lot of unnecessary and life-endangering surgeries, DESPITE the peer review process. In this case it's not the progress of science that was harmed, it was people's lives. The peer review process is used to control who can publish, what they can publish and who can get funding, that's all it does, and it is in no way beneficial to science. Inertia of prior beliefs inhibit the progress of science when peer review is allowed or enforced.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
"DESPITE the peer review process"
Operative word is despite..
The information was there, and it was peer reviewed, and a doctor ignored it..
That isn't proof of the peer review process doing harm, it's proof of a doctor doing harm.. For money..
The article would've done more to stop him, rather than encourage him.. He just cared more about money than doing the right thing..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel
Also, I have no idea what you read about that, or if it even agrees with the information I know about it. Even so, I don't see how what you've put forth in any way contradicts what I said about the process of peer review in any setting or context.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@Hooya2
To be honest you're the one looking like an idiot here. You cited the explanations of the zeeman and faraday effects now, what, you're withdrawing from those explanations? Are you suggesting they don't deal with bending and polarizing light by electromagnetic forces? It's like you're spinning in circles and saying I'm the one stumbling around dizzy afterward because that's how it looks to you. You're the dizzy bitch here, not me, keep spinning.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike What? When did I say that EM forces can bend light? Oh, I see; you've made yet another basic error in physics. You confused 'polarization' with 'bending'. No, polarizing light isn't bending it, since it doesn't change the direction the light is traveling. Polarizing light involves rotating it on it's axis of propogation. Calling that 'bending' the light is like calling revolution rotation.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
Oh, I must have misunderstood, and in doing so I must have gotten the impression that you actually understood for once something you were saying.
Electromagnetic forces can, of course, both bend and polarize light. You're the one who's confused here, I said "bend and polarize" not "bend is polarize". Don't make the mistake of thinking I said polarization is a bending of light. Bending light is, as I mentioned before, exactly what a LENS does, dummy.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@Hooya2
I also notice you still haven't provided any convincing support for your idiotic notion that "CMBR" supports "big bang" to the exclusion of a host of other obviously wrong ideas about the supposed "origin" of the universe.
I'll also point out here again that we have no indication that the universe ever had an origin, or that it is anything other than infinite in size and ageless. Got any evidence showing the universe had a beginning or that it will ever have an ending?
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike No, I don't have evidence that the universe had a beginning. I have evidence the matter and energy in the universe was once in a very dense state--the CMBR and Hubble's constant are irrefutable evidence of that--but that doesn't mean the universe somehow began then.
As for CMBR estimates, since you obviously can't name any sources I will. Gamow estimated 50K in a 1948 paper in Physical Review titled 'The origin of Elements and the Separation of Galaxies." His estimate...
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
You have no evidence that the universe had a beginning, yet you believe it did...hrm...interesting that you don't base your beliefs on evidence. Try it some time.
The "CMBR" does NOT suggest that the state of the universe in the past was any different than it is today. IF the universe were COOLING OFF at some discernible rate THEN you could make the case that the universe was once more energetically dense, but no such cooling is in evidence.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@Hooya2
Once again, Gamow made a series of guesses, starting at a mere fraction of a degree Kelvin and progressing steadily upward until he guessed 50K. Saying that this long string of guesses moving steadily in the WRONG direction is a success borders on hilarity. On the other side of that hilarity border is, of course, humility.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@Hooya2
As for the 1948 date attributed to Gamow, observations were made as early as 1941 falsifying about 90% of his guesses as to the "temperature" of the universe. Again, not the "temperature" of "CMBR", of which Gamow was apparently ignorant. I'll also just state once again this "temperature" is based on black body formulae. The universe is not a blacksmith's forge or a wood stove, it's not a black body radiator, the universe is lit electrically.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Observations were made in 1941 about the temperature of the background radiation? OK, then cite them!
BTW, This didn't appear on the front page because I'm replying to an old comment, but Gamow's work was challenged by Alpher and Herman in 1949 in a paper called 'Remarks on the Evolution of the Expanding Universe', where the put the value and 5K, and Gamow and then argued over that a lot (6 papers in 3 years), with no consensus being reach.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
Andrew McKellar calculated a temperature of 2.3K in 1941 based on excitation of certain molecules. He derived this "temperature" from DIRECT OBSERVATIONS of the universe, not mere speculation based on big bang and an imaginary "age" of the universe, not from "redshift" assumptions, not from imagining the universe was once "more dense" or "compact" or more highly energetic and small, but by DIRECT OBSERVATION.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Andrew McKellar? Great! Cite the paper?
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
You mention consensus here, also, which you apparently believe is necessary to perform science. It's not. Group consensus is NOT part of the scientific method and is no no way useful to the progress of science. Valid information is valid no matter how many people are led astray by speculations and assumptions masquerading as science.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike I don't get why you're saying the temperature is based on black-body formula. Are you saying you disagree with black-body physics?
No, I don't believe the universe had a beginning. Once again, you show a stunning ignorance of the very thing you're arguing about. The BBT doesn't say the universe had a beginning, it says the universe was once much more small and dense than it is now. This is the kind of mistake I guess I should expect from someone who's self-taught, though.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
I say it's based on black body forumlae because it is.
The "temperature" is calculated based on the temperature required to produce a given spectrum. We know for a fact, however, that heat is not necessary to produce a given spectrum, we can readily replicate these spectra with electric discharges in the absence of such huge and implausible temperatures. Many of these temperatures are impossibly high, such heat would disassociate any molecules said to be radiating.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Now you're claiming we can make emission spectrum without heat, only needing electrical discharges lol. Yet more assertions from you without sources. I've challenged you on this claim before and you didn't back it up then either.
The Big Bang does NOT claim itself as an origin, as your assertion that it does is just more of your ignorance. I've given you 2 of the major pieces for evidence the universe was denser--CMBR and Hubble's Constant. You just deny them.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
I'm well familiar with big bang belief, I don't have the kind of religious faith in it that you have, however.
Even if big bang didn't propose an origin event for the universe (which it does, it's essentially the genesis myth from the bible without mentioning god), you still have no evidence supporting the notion that the universe was once "more small and dense". This is the kind of mistake I guess I should expect from someone who has been taught nothing but preposterous fables.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike The universe is lit electrically--so what? Even pretending this fantasy of yours is true, electricity doesn't fundamentally change the way objects emit light. Something that is heated by electricity will emit light at the same frequencies as something heated through convection. Magnetic fields can change that, but they do it by making energy states, and thus emissions, MORE energetic and distinct, not less.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
That the universe is electrically driven is not a fantasy, it's the only reasonable conclusion we can draw based on the evidence we have.
It isn't electricity generating heat which then generates light, we're talking about plasma physics here, it's not a wood stove heating up or a blacksmith's forge that becomes "red hot", it's very much like the fluorescent lamps we have. The "temperature" rating of these lamps in no way corresponds to heat they produce.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Gamow's estimate was challenged by Alpher and Herman, in a Physics review paper titled 'Remarks on the Evolution of the Expanding Universe'. They argued the CMBR was at 5k. There was some back and forth--half a dozen papers published by those 3 authors between 1948 and 1950--and neither side really agreed. As far as I can tell from the literature, scientists never reached a consensus, though Gamow dropped his estimate to 28k by 1950 in a paper published in Physics Today.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
Gamow predicted a "temperature" of 50K in the sixties, long after repeated direct observations showed the "temperature" of space to be vastly different. Either Gamow didn't realize these observations had been made, or he was being deliberately ignorant of them for some reason. I can only speculate as to why he would make such guesses, when observations had already trumped his speculations. Further, I can't understand why he'd guess wrongly when the facts were already known.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Now you're asserting Gamow predicted 50k in the 60s, again without a source, and saying Andrew McKellar proved the temperature was about 3K in the 40s! Without a source. It's like you think just saying stuff will get you believed! And then you mock your own unsupported claims by saying Gamow was just ignoring reality. Here's a thought; maybe you're just a moron.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
Look it up, Gamow made numerous guesses, I wouldn't even call them predictions, he made so many of them that one of them was almost bound to be close. I could "predict" how much rain we're going to get in the next ten years. A quarter inch of rain. Oh also a half inch. One inch. Two inches. Twelve inches. Fifty inches. Four hundred inches. A thousand inches. If any of those are close by an order of magnitude, I can claim the same "success" that big bang believers claim in Gamow.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike I did look Gamow's research up, and I found that you're a lying sack of shit. Gamow only made 2 estimates--50K and 28K. Both of them were hotly contested. Alpher and Herman, two of his colleagues, insisted on 5K or less. All of these papers were published in Physical Review between 1948 and 1950--look them up yourself.
Now, maybe I'm wrong--maybe other papers were published that I didn't find. If so, then cite the papers. Can you?
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
The bottom line is Gamow made a shitload of guesses, almost all of which were way off base, this is what big bang believers call a "success", never mind that direct observations nullified his guesses, never mind that other obviously specious notions like "tired light" gave more succinct sets of predictions that were MUCH CLOSER to reality. It's laughable, really.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@Hooya2
To be honest I'm weary of discussing this with you, you seem hell bent on maintaining your severe delusions, despite the evidence put in front of you. Have a nice stroll through your hallucinatory terrain there, buddy.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel said:
"2: prove it.. They've given proof, so why shouldn't you have to? "
To suggest that "gravitational lensing" is somehow "proven" is beyond absurd, it's riotous, in fact, bordering on insane. A century of investigation has shown "gravity" has absolutely no effect on light of any kind, and no "lensing" in space has ever been verified, for that matter. Supposed "verifications" rely on a steady stream of assumptions that are implausible at best and impossible in the extreme.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
Just a word about "time dilation", it's an observational artifact that's a consequence of the fact that light takes time to travel across distance. It is NOT a real "dilation" of "time" that affects how slowly or quickly an object "ages". The very idea of relative motion nullifies this idea that "time dilation" is real. Either of two bodies in motion can be chosen as the "stationary" object because their motion is RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Let's see papers published by people that actually know what they're talking about. You're too vague with this time dilation scam you're running. You're just parroting what you've read on forums.
giggletronics 1 year ago
@giggletronics
Your fixation on "papers published" is unwarranted and moot. I do know what I'm talking about.
I'm not "running" some "scam" about time dilation, just pointing out the obvious and absurd fallacies behind it. These fallacies have been identified BY ME, independently of anyone else who may have also come to the same conclusions. I'm not "parroting" anything, it's you lot that are simply "parroting" the consensus dogmatic beliefs without critical analysis.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
I like very much the videos of Dr. J.
hrbear 1 year ago
Fascinating universe!
HeatherOfOz 1 year ago
i liked this video.. very informative about ESO ...so WTF is nasa doing??
mmmodafoca 1 year ago
Wow, thanks for uploading this!
anonyfox 1 year ago
Please, everyone ignore fertilizerspike. He's full of shit. He has no support for anything he says except his vague, pseudo-scientific nothings. Sorry, dude, because a theory is cool to you, does not make it correct. The data do not support your claim.
giggletronics 1 year ago
@giggletronics
My claims are supported not only by direct observation but also by experimental evidence. Your characterizations are unfounded. Everyone should ignore you, unless they want to become more misinformed. Sorry, dude, because a belief is popular does not make it valid.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
Comment removed
giggletronics 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fertilizerspike
In this case, popular means most strongly (as opposed to not at all) supported by evidence. It's interesting that you've become so heavily indoctrinated.
giggletronics 1 year ago
@giggletronics
If that's the case then why do you base your beliefs on consensus of opinions rather than preponderance of evidence?
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
DR.J?
remove the "R" and get ready to dance!
zhetya 1 year ago
wow, some of these comments are so full of shit.
ChipChipBreak 1 year ago
SuperJupiter is one of the coolest words I've ever heard.
bighugejake 1 year ago
astronomer 1: "OK guys we have some of the smartest people in europe gathered under one roof, now lets put our thinking hats on and name this telescope".
astronomer 2: "which telescope? the large one over there?"
astronomer 1: "No no, the very large telescope, the one just behind the FSB"
astronomer 2: "the FSB?"
astronomer 1: "yea, the Fairly Small Building"
astronomer 2:"hmm, this is a tough one"
(two months later)
astronomer 2: EUREKA! Ive got it i know exactly what to name it...."
jakrum 1 year ago 3
PSA:
Studying is only half the battle.. You can read until your eyes bleed but at the end of the day it doesn't matter how much you've read if you don't know the difference between good information and false information..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
human beings are distined to colonize space, the first step is to unite under one banner.
obsidianstatue 1 year ago
Why do people come to watch these awesome vids, only to start/continue stupid arguments? Not that I've never done that kinda thing, but ffs, give it a rest. Enjoy something without battling it out with some other dumb fuck you're never gonna meet in real life.
HoneyNVinegar 1 year ago
what;s up with all these kyboard wariors
altoids79762 1 year ago
Nice, but it doesn't explain magnets. How do they work ?
UNSUBSCRIBING 1 year ago
ok..um... how is there an argument going on on a video about planets? OH its Real, OH its not.. ??? i mean im pretty sure that its there. i mean, is something of extraterrestrial origin evil to a christian or something? i mean before they used to think the earth was the center of the universe, now they know its not, why cant they accept alien life? *ok, a vast majority not all Christians*
999is666upsidedown 1 year ago
And he thinks he has an IQ of 182.. LMAO! Gotto love those facebook IQ tests..
I'd love to see where all this information is coming from.. I'll bet it's about as credible as answersingenesis..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel
187, not 182, and I was tested in school. My IQ was later published in a regional newspaper in conjunction with some allegations made about my "diabolical" nature.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Have you ever noticed that Dr. J has the habit of moving his head to the left and then to the right while talking...I always smile when i see him on a video.
No disrespect Doc...
loki0807 1 year ago
@Eugensdiet
This idea is absurd. The planets were most likely ejected electrically from the sun. We see this sorts of electrical ejection of spherical objects when we observe arc welders or any electric arcing for that matter. This not only explains the origin of the planets but also explains why they are spherical.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
You talk like a troll..
You're dumb like a troll..
Arrogant like a troll..
Must be a troll..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel
If not wanting to be called a troll means I'm a troll, then fine. I don't want to be called a troll any more than you want to be called a smarmy cocksucking weasel. Even if you are one.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
You're not a troll because you don't want to be called a troll.. You're a troll because of lines like "smarmy cocksucking weasel".. That's something trolls say..
Trolls also get pissed off when people don't agree with them, even when they're wrong.. Which you've been doing..
Where do you even get all that bullshit information you've been posting?
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel
You're confusing cause and effect here. I was called a troll, so I called that person a smarmy cocksucking weasel. cause -> effect
I'm not pissed off, and have no idea why you think I am. It isn't me people are disagreeing with, it's observable reality. If people want to disagree with observable reality, I pity them, it doesn't make me angry.
You've failed on two fronts to characterize me accurately as a troll. That aside, keep your fucking opinions about me to yourself.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel
I haven't posted any "bullshit information", so I'm afraid I can't help you there.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
You were being a troll before I ever called you one..
Observable reality? Then why doesn't everyone else observe things the way you do? Including REAL astronomers..
Can't help me? All I asked for was the sources of your information.. And you can't help me? Could that be because you're making it up?
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel
It's certainly your contention that I'm a troll, just as it's my contention that you're a pathetic little pissworm unfit to lick the sweat off my nutsack. Even so, why don't you give my nutsack a lick, tell me if you like the salty taste of it. In the meantime, keep your fucking opinions about me to yourself, cocksmoker. All the information I've given is in the public domain, go and look for it, do your own research.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
If you wouldn't act like a troll then I wouldn't call you a troll..
I've looked.. I haven't found anything about the sun being electronically driven or any of that other crazy shit you've been saying..
The fact that you can't provide proof to back your claims proves that you're not misinformed, you are just lying..
The fact that you try to insult me rather than prove your case proves that you are a troll..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel
You're the one who can't make your case, so you choose to talk about this imaginary version of me as a troll. It's all in your head. What's not in your head, clearly, though, is education. Do some more research.
Also, I'm not a fucking troll, you shit eating chimp.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike You are not totally worthless. I can assure you, you will definitely, one day, some day soon, serve as fertilizer.
In the meantime, please DO NOT make a fool of yourself.
O, and go get an education, or you will have to CONTINUE to sell your ass for food.
ahmedhusseinny 1 year ago
@ahmedhusseinny
You clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about. In the first place, I never said I was worthless. As for being fertilizer, we'll all die some day and be recycled.
I'm not making a fool of myself, just exposing the ignorance of others where I see it. I have an education, I don't have to sell anything for food. I grow a great deal of the food I eat, I drink and cook and clean with rainwater, I'm very close to self-sufficient. How about you?
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike "The planets were most likely ejected electrically from the sun... This not only explains the origin of the planets but also explains why they are spherical."
Fascinating... but we have a much better explanation, it's called GRAVITY. Not only does this explain why they're all spherical, it also seems to be occurring in the accretion disks of other stars. Unlike stars spitting out planets.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
Strange that gravity as it's understood can't explain how planets would form from random collisions. Gravity models suggest when two objects collide randomly they don't stick together. Gravity doesn't explain why planets are spherical, and doesn't adequately explain planetary formation in any sense. That you think so is testament to your extreme ignorance and gullibility. Electrical ejection, however, is readily demonstrated in the lab.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike "Gravity models suggest when two objects collide randomly they don't stick together."
What are you smoking, dude? Simple, observable fact tells us that two objects colliding stick together; have you never heard of a meteorite? Just drop a pencil on the ground and tell me if it 'sticks' to the earth or floats away into space. This isn't even physics 101, it's elementary school. Gravity produces a force that draws objects towards one another.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
When you talk about meteorites falling to Earth you're talking about a very tiny charged body coming into contact with a very massive charged body. Both objects enjoy a different charge, which causes attraction between the two. As the meteorite gets closer to Earth, the charge imbalance equates to a massive (due to Earth's massive size) electric discharge .This discharge is why meteorites flare, and the attracted between the two bodies here is clearly electromagnetic.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Whoa, that's quite a batch of 'wtfs' right there. First, why do you think our planet has some kind of charge? Second, why do you think meteorites have a charge? Third, why do you think we have DIFFERENT charges? Fourth, why do you think the heat is caused by electrical discharge, when friction seems to explain it perfectly? Fifth, if the attraction between us and meteorites is electrical, then what do you think about the attraction between us and say, satellites?
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
In the case of your pencil you're not talking about tiny particles of dust swirling around a star, you're talking about pulling the pencil away from Earth, then letting it "snap" back. Throw that pencil high enough and it will orbit the Earth. Throw it even higher and the Earth's gravitational influence fades quickly (inverse square) to nothing. Electromagnetic forces influence the pencil and the Earth both, thirty times more strongly than gravity.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Yes, EM tends to be 'stronger' than gravity, in the sense that a proton would have a far stronger EM effect on another object of similar charge than it would have a gravitational effect on another object of similar mass. So? That does not in any way justify your absurd conclusion that gravitational models don't have colliding bodies sticking. Gravity is weaker than EM, but it's still a force, and an attractive one.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
It's not an "absurd conclusion" that gravity models routinely fail, again, this is observable reality.
o - gravity failed to account for shape and motion of galaxies; black hole invented
o - black hole still didn't fix gravity models; dark matter was invented
o - dark matter broke big bang in the context of gravity models; dark energy was invented
It just goes on and on like this getting more and more complex "explanations" of routine observations.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
I've made my case when it comes to you being a troll..
As far as your bull shit information, I don't need to make a case.. YOU are the one making wild assertions, so the burden of proof is on you..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel
No, you haven't made the case that I'm a troll, you've just made the case that you certainly want people to think I am. Also, I'll tell you again, keep your mother fucking opinions about me to yourself, you diseased, verminous dogfucker.
As far as my information, it's all readily verified with a bit of web searching. I suggest you do some research and educate yourself before you make bald pronouncements like this. There's nothing "wild" about electromagnetic forces.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Also, I didn't say there was anything wild about electromagnetic forces in general..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel
If you want wild assertions, how about "black hole". Asserting that black hole exists is a smack in the face of science. There is absolutely nothing scientific about belief in black hole.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike "There is absolutely nothing scientific about belief in black hole."
Black holes were hypothesized based upon the intermingling of gravity and relativity. Experiments were designed to detect them--primarily, looking for stars orbiting bodies that were too small and dense to be known objects. Those experiments were run, and several hits turned up. In other words, black holes went through the scientific method and came out smelling like roses.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
Black hole was invented based on what amounts to numerology. If you plug zero mass into the formulae, it spits out a fantastic object. The universe isn't obliged to obey imaginative math, however.
Black hole hypotheses state plainly that black hole is unobservable by any means. That's a big red flag telling you it's wrong. Everything real is unobservable. Black hole by definition will forever remain hypothetical.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@Hooya2
Further, we don't need black hole to explain anything we see in space. Black hole was used in a desperate attempt to explain why galaxies don't appear to obey gravity. Even that didn't fix it, so dark matter was invented, on and on. It's ridiculous.
Every "black hole" candidate identified to date is a prodigious producer of electromagnetic radiation, when they should be sinks for such. This is explained away as "event horizon" giving off the radiation.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Your rhetorical attempts to pretend black holes are ad hoc explanations won't work against anyone with knowledge in the field. Black holes were predicted by Schwarzschild long before the first observed case appeared. Further, your claim that black holes should necessarily be sinks for radiation is simply false; if a black hole's event horizon is small enough, tidal forces for masses approaching it should be strong enough to cause nuclear fission, producing energy.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
Then "event horizon" wasn't enough, we observed stars emitting x-rays or gamma rays nearby it, the same way we observe x-rays being given off near cometary displays, and it's concluded the star is being "eaten" by an invisible black hole. Ludicrous. Are tiny invisible black holes responsible for the same effect observed in comets? Not even a great fool would suggest that, I suspect. Black hole does not stand up to scrutiny, it was dead on arrival.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike This raving lunacy just get's crazier... that idea that some stars are being eaten by black holes was not an attempt to explain polar jets, it was based upon observation. Some stars are orbiting regions of space too small to contain standard bodies, and are trailing dust which is being drawn in by these regions of space.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Black holes, as hypotheses, were proposed following the discovery of relativity, as a necessary side effect of the idea that nothing could travel faster than light. They weren't invented as ad hoc explanations.
Dark matter was an ad hoc explanation for differences in galactic rotation rates, but it has since been verified through gravitational lensing experiments. We know there's a lot of invisible stuff because it's gravity warps light.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
haha the "discovery" of relativity
That's really rich. Relativity wasn't "discovered", it was invented as a way to help describe reality. It's utility is severely limited, it predicts nothing that's ever been verified.
Black hole was proposed to explain galactic shapes and motions. It was ad hoc, it defines ad hoc. Dark matter has not been verified by "gravitational lensing", which is preposterous. Gravity has absolutely no effect on light. It affects nothing because it's imaginary.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
And did I just see something about gravity being fictional?
Wow, that's the dumbest thing you've said yet..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel You could argue (and I am just playing Devil's advocate here) that gravity is fictional, it is just the bending of space-time by mass, in the same way that centrifugal force is fictional, it is just dispalced inertia.
wendighoul 1 year ago
@wendighoul
I agree with you to an extent..
This site says that, even with the best technology, we can't actually see gravity, which is why it's fictional.. The fallacy there is, like you said, because gravity is a displacement of inertia.. But it still manifests, and it's effects are observable and demonstrable..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel quite so, as I said, just playing devil's advocate. "Gravity" is a very good way of describing the effects of the curvature of space-time, but you could argue that it doesn't "really exist".
wendighoul 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel
Until you can generate, amplify, block or manipulate this "force" of "gravity" in any fashion, I'll continue to contend that it's fictional.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike WTF times 10. Relativity didn't predict anything? Time dilation, E=mc^2, the fact that objects gain mass as they gain speed, length contraction, the presence of muons on the surface of the earth, and on and on it goes. If you deny gravitational lensing, then how do you explain, for example, Einstein's Cross? Are there 3 giant mirrors out there, all perfectly placed to make it LOOK as though the quasar's light is being bent by Huchra's lens?
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
eh-hem "successfully" predict...
o - time dilation; hypothesized, never observed
o - E=mc^2; predates relativity, never confirmed
o - acceleration causing mass increase; hypothesized, never witnessed
o - length contraction from velocity; hypothesized, never observed
o - muons; hypothesized, never observed
Yes, the list goes on and on, and as usual, astronogers are claiming success at every failure. It's hilarious.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Time dilation has been repeatedly observed, in jet travel. Fly a plane around the world faster than sound and even atomic clocks lose seconds. The fact that energy can be derived from matter was a direct extension of relativity, it didn't predate it at all, and it has been confirmed--unless you don't believe in nuclear weapons. The increase of mass due to acceleration is observed all the time in particle accelerators, as is length changes.
Hooya2 1 year ago
@Hooya2
Clocks losing or gaining time has nothing to do with imaginary "time dilation" and everything to do with the mechanical workings of the clocks.
Deriving "energy from matter" isn't what you said, you said E=mc^2. It predates Einstein. It was proposed by Preston in the 1870's, Maxwell's equations contain it implicitly, so-called "energy from matter" was proposed by Newcomb, Preston, Thompson, Poincare, Olinto De Pretto, Hasenohrl, all before Einstein.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago